The western world has adopted the Machavellian style of politics, especially around two areas;
1. It's better to be Feared than Loved philosophy
2. The 'ends' justify the 'means'.
This grounds all their politiics, u won't see anything outside those goal-post. That's why they over-invest in a military complex becuz it's better to be 'feared' then 'loved' philosophy, thru that 'fear' they assume their 'respect/interests' can be achieved. Plus they also use 'fear' based 'means' to justify their 'end goal' of 'respect/foreign interest'. PPL who argue this is workable becuz it's observed world-widie is 'self fulfilling prophesy' argument. That's like me setting up an idea and then arguing hey 'everyone is doing it' therefore it must be RIGHT.
Listen what is a more 'accurate' measure is if the world is workable in this paradigm? if it was, the globe wouldn't have such low confidence in it's leaders across the BOARD. I prefer 'sun tzu' philosophy 'fully study your enemy' not just 'enemy' anything u 'do' and don't add your 'biases/emotions' into the equation, and calculate what is the highest return on investment with the least amount of effort-resources. These guys are literally 'wasting' trillions and the world isn't in any better state.
The other thing I noticed with this philosophy is all politics is reduced to 'action/reaction' sequences into infinity, their absolute no 'foresight/prevention' posture or a diplomatic investment. Why? I suspect those who call themselves 'diplomat' lack the 'art' of it and therefore ruin the 'idea' and leads to it being 'rejected' option. It's like if u saw a bad doctor and u responded to defund or devalue medicine. It's madness. Diplomacy is needed, but not only that it has to be 'defined/measured' on what it 'returns/saves' all of us.
I myself have diplomatic 'roots' in my family due to Siyad Barre govt and was exposed to it all my life, it's a very 'powerful' arsenal to have as long as the 'right' ppl are in there and not just people with 'empty titles' yet provides absolute no 'returns'. Some of the big philosophy guiding diplomacy is;
1. Cool/rational heads must be present on both side of a conflict or any negiotation. Hot heads produce nothing except tit for tat, grudges, revenge, motives, agendas which everyone can 'smell' mile away before it breaks down.
2. Both must accept the idea their 3 sides to any story 'yours, theirs, and the truth is somewhere in between'
3. Both must have a 'future' outlook not 'present', if they can't see beyond themselves and not those 5 year old kids all over the world or their nation and their future, their not MEN but boys trapped in the body of MEN. This should pressure to accept 'tanasul or concessions' 4 their sake.
1. It's better to be Feared than Loved philosophy
2. The 'ends' justify the 'means'.
This grounds all their politiics, u won't see anything outside those goal-post. That's why they over-invest in a military complex becuz it's better to be 'feared' then 'loved' philosophy, thru that 'fear' they assume their 'respect/interests' can be achieved. Plus they also use 'fear' based 'means' to justify their 'end goal' of 'respect/foreign interest'. PPL who argue this is workable becuz it's observed world-widie is 'self fulfilling prophesy' argument. That's like me setting up an idea and then arguing hey 'everyone is doing it' therefore it must be RIGHT.
Listen what is a more 'accurate' measure is if the world is workable in this paradigm? if it was, the globe wouldn't have such low confidence in it's leaders across the BOARD. I prefer 'sun tzu' philosophy 'fully study your enemy' not just 'enemy' anything u 'do' and don't add your 'biases/emotions' into the equation, and calculate what is the highest return on investment with the least amount of effort-resources. These guys are literally 'wasting' trillions and the world isn't in any better state.
The other thing I noticed with this philosophy is all politics is reduced to 'action/reaction' sequences into infinity, their absolute no 'foresight/prevention' posture or a diplomatic investment. Why? I suspect those who call themselves 'diplomat' lack the 'art' of it and therefore ruin the 'idea' and leads to it being 'rejected' option. It's like if u saw a bad doctor and u responded to defund or devalue medicine. It's madness. Diplomacy is needed, but not only that it has to be 'defined/measured' on what it 'returns/saves' all of us.
I myself have diplomatic 'roots' in my family due to Siyad Barre govt and was exposed to it all my life, it's a very 'powerful' arsenal to have as long as the 'right' ppl are in there and not just people with 'empty titles' yet provides absolute no 'returns'. Some of the big philosophy guiding diplomacy is;
1. Cool/rational heads must be present on both side of a conflict or any negiotation. Hot heads produce nothing except tit for tat, grudges, revenge, motives, agendas which everyone can 'smell' mile away before it breaks down.
2. Both must accept the idea their 3 sides to any story 'yours, theirs, and the truth is somewhere in between'
3. Both must have a 'future' outlook not 'present', if they can't see beyond themselves and not those 5 year old kids all over the world or their nation and their future, their not MEN but boys trapped in the body of MEN. This should pressure to accept 'tanasul or concessions' 4 their sake.
Last edited:
