Machiavelli predicted wokism.

2024 predicted in 1513.

Machiavelli is the first modern political theorist. His theory of politics was empirical, in that he had first-hand experience as a diplomat. But Machiavelli’s real love was antiquity, the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans. He began studying Latin at age 7, and was already engaged in professional translation by age 12.

Machiavelli’s genius was put to work in the diplomatic service. But due to the violence of Renaissance Italy, when his employer was deposed, he was made a casualty of war and tortured as a matter of procedure.

It is difficult today to imagine the pain of torture, not only because the methods employed were physically brutal, but also because of the humiliating scars that remained. That was the purpose of torture: not to kill, but to psychologically traumatize and castrate, to render the opponent impotent and servile. In that sense, when we imagine our worst personal humiliations, we can perhaps feel some empathy for this senseless ordeal and the powerlessness of its victim.

When Machiavelli was released from torture and prison, his life was embarrassingly pitiful and mundane. He had to become a manual laborer, and only later was he able to recover enough funds to hire employees. It is cliche and sentimental, but these lyrics are appropriate:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning, I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

There is one inaccuracy: Machiavelli was not sweeping streets, but exiled to the countryside. This deprived him of access to his friends, to intellectual capital, and to elite Italian culture. It was an isolating and depressing experience, which at times felt hopeless.

In his letters to his friend Francesco Vettori, he wrote the following:

“When evening comes, I return to my home, and I go into my study; and on the threshold, I take off my everyday clothes, which are covered with mud and mire, and I put on regal and curial robes; and dressed in a more appropriate manner I enter into the ancient courts of ancient men and am welcomed by them kindly, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born; and there I am not ashamed to speak to them, to ask them the reasons for their actions; and they, in their humanity, answer me; and for four long hours I feel no boredom, I dismiss every affliction, I no longer fear poverty nor do I tremble at the thought of death: I become completely part of them.”¹

Machiavelli was a sensitive man who loved the Greeks: Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch, and Ptolemy. He also admired Roman authors, and wrote commentaries on the Ab Urbe Condita of Livius (Livy).

It seems absurd to claim that Machiavelli has any relevance to the present day condition of the West. How could anyone, 500 years ago, predict mass immigration and wokism? Europe was racially homogeneous in 1513; Catholicism dominated the continent; feminism was unheard of. And yet, Machiavelli not only anticipated the political issues of our day, but he also wrote the guidebook for the “Great Replacement” and the destruction of local cultures.

Machiavelli on Identity

“When dominions are acquired in a province that is not similar in language, customs, and laws, it is here that difficulties arise…”²

Machiavelli understood that the root of politics is identity. He believed that when people shared language, customs, and laws, governance would be cohesive and sustainable. When this was not the case, extraordinary measures would be required, which, eventually, with the passage of time, would always fail.

Today, millions of immigrants barely speak the language of their new home — when they do learn the second language, their accent distinguishes them. Their children maintain distinct dialects, often influenced by rap or hip hop culture from America.

The origin of the Boston accent, New York accent, and Chicago accent all derive from the unwillingness of Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants to fully assimilate into American English in the 19th century. Today, “immigrant slang” is a combination of African American vernacular, as well as innovations from the Arab world, Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin America. This cultural complex is so dominant, especially as promoted through the music industry and social media, that there is “reverse-assimilation.”

“Reverse-assimilation” refers to the process by which a native population assimilates into minority immigrant culture. Whereas normally, assimilation involves a minority conforming to the norms of a majority, “reverse-assimilation” involves a majority conforming to the norms of a minority.

The mechanisms of this process involve a conscious or unconscious calculation of power dynamics. Because there is no such thing as “white culture,” because “white culture” is declining, and because “white culture” is associated with the elderly, decrepit religions, the senile, and conservatives, it is seen as inherently weak. Humans negotiate cultural conflicts according to rational self-interest. It follows that the white majority will assimilate to the culture which seems younger, more dynamic, vital, violent, musical, and athletic. Human instinct can only operate based on perception, even if many of these perceptions are flawed (many immigrants tend to be less healthy and more obese, especially in the second generation).

America is not only experiencing linguistic divergence, but also political polarization. For example, when Roe v. Wade was law, abortion was treated exactly the same throughout the nation. Now that the law differs between states, this is an additional force which threatens the integrity and unity of the federal government.

Why would the government weaken itself in these ways? The question is, which government?

The South: A Case Study in Regionalism

Since America’s founding, there always existed a tension between regional governments (states) and the federal government. This tension resulted in the first political parties, the federalists and anti-federalists. The Federalist Party remained a force until 1816, after which the issue of slavery came to dominate American politics.

The Civil War was the greatest disaster in American history. Nothing else has come as close to destroying American hegemony in North America. From the point of view of federalism, the goal of Reconstruction was to destroy the independence of the South, and to prevent the rise of regionalism in the future.

After 1865, the Democratic Party remained the vehicle for Southern cultural and legal independence. In 1877, the Democratic Party successfully won back supremacy over the South.

In 1880, 1884, 1888, and 1892, Republicans did not win a single state of the former Confederacy. In 1896, West Virginia and Kentucky, which were not part of the Confederacy but had significant sympathies in that direction, finally broke ranks. Similarly, in 1904, Missouri left "the solid South."

Tennessee in 1920.

The first time a former Confederate state voted Republican in a presidential election was 1920. Tennessee had been deeply divided since the Civil War, with eastern Appalachians opposing slavery. Tennessee could be viewed as exceptional when compared with the rest of the Confederacy.

It was only in 1928 that other former Confederates voted Republican: North Carolina, Texas, and Florida. This time, the issue was that the Democratic nominee, Al Smith, was Catholic. Anti-Republicanism failed to hold back the strength of anti-Catholicism in these two states. It wasn’t that the South left the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party left the South in pursuit of the Catholic vote.

Still, the "core" states of the Confederacy remained loyal to Democrats: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina refused to vote Republican until 1956, when Louisiana broke ranks. This may have been due to the fact that the Democrat, Stevenson, was in favor of welfare, a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, an end to nuclear weapons testing, and an end to the draft. Once again, the Democratic Party, in being soft on communism, alienated its Southern base.

Eisenhower approval rating. Yellow is uncertain.

Eisenhower was also popular, reaching a maximum approval of 79%. In terms of his lowest approval rating of 48%, Dwight Eisenhower was the 2nd most beloved president since FDR (just behind JFK). Eisenhower was more popular at the end of his term than Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and the Bushes.

At this point, the "Democrat core" was limited to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The "core" finally flipped Republican in 1964 due to Democrat support for the Civil Rights Act, while Goldwater promoted state's rights. This ended 87 years of one party rule in the deep South.

In 2000, however, George Bush’s evangelical coalition was able to construct a new “solid South” centered on the Republican Party. Southern regional independence was still going strong. The only reason why Southerners switched parties is, again, because the Democratic Party persistently alienated the South.

It is only in 2020 that Georgia finally broke with the “solid South.” What happened? And what does any of this have to do with Machiavelli?

Machiavelli on colonies

Machiavelli states that, when there are differences of “language, customs, and laws,” an occupying force has two options:

“One of the best and most efficacious remedies would be for the person who has taken possession of them to go and live there. [..] The other and better solution is to send colonies into one or two places that will act as supports for your own state.”³

In the case of Georgia, the colony is Atlanta. Georgia has 1 million immigrants total, and 79% of these are concentrated in the city of Atlanta, making up 14% of the population. 25% of children in Atlanta are the children of immigrants.⁴ Similar to other American cities, 51.6% of the residents of Atlanta weren’t born in the state of Georgia. While Georgia is 32% black, Atlanta is 47% black. 4.6% of Atlanta's residents identify as LGBT, higher than NYC, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, DC, Philly, and Houston.

If 25% of Atlanta’s youth is immigrant descended, 51% weren’t born in Georgia, 47% are black, and 4.6% are gay, then Atlanta can be thought of, effectively, as a colony of Democrat voters. On the other hand, Florida’s shift to the Republican Party since 2016 can be viewed as the result of colonies of older white retirees.

Machiavelli describes the advantages of colonies:

“Colonies do not cost much, and with little or no expense a prince can send and maintain them; and in so doing he offends only those whose fields and houses have been taken and given to the new inhabitants, who are only a small part of that state; and those he offends, being dispersed and poor, cannot ever threaten him, and all the others remain on the one hand unharmed (and because of this, they should remain silent), and on the other afraid of making a mistake, for fear that what happened to those who were dispossessed might happen to them.”⁵

Doesn’t this contradict what Machiavelli said earlier, that where there are differences of “language, customs, and laws,” governance becomes harder? Not exactly: these things are an impediment to the conquest and “holding on” to a newly acquired province. The Southern accent, Southern customs, and the legacy of slavery and resistance to Civil Rights all make the South a difficult region for the federal government to control, historically speaking. “The final solution to the Southern problem” is colonization of the South, replacing its native population with foreigners loyal to the federal government.

In the context of the European Union, the strategy is even more urgent: the EU seeks to form a common market, a common military, and eventually, a common language. That language is English. By bringing in immigrants from other countries who, as mentioned previously, naturally gravitate toward American hip hop and rap culture, the EU is essentially colonizing itself with “Americanism,” in the same way that Atlanta is colonized with “federalism.”

What about “traditional colonialism?” That is, why doesn’t America or Europe focus on colonizing the rest of the world using guns, tanks, and bombs? Why is “soft colonialism” or “economic colonialism” preferable? Machiavelli has an answer for this as well:

“By maintaining soldiers there instead of colonies, one spends much more, being obliged to consume all the revenues of the state in guarding its borders, so that the profit becomes a loss; and far greater offense is committed; [..] everybody resents this inconvenience, and everyone becomes an enemy”.⁶

“Traditional colonialism,” which occupied Africa with soldiers, is economically disadvantageous. According to a study by the Thatcherite-leaning Institute of Economic Affairs,

“Profits earned from overseas engagement were large enough to make some individuals very rich, but they were not large enough to seriously affect macroeconomic aggregates like Britain’s investment rate and capital formation.”

This is because “colonialism and the slave trade made, at best, minor contributions to the West’s economic development, and they may well have been net lossmakers.”⁷

So while colonialism was profitable for Europe’s financial aristocracy and noble families, it was a net loss for the state as a whole. Machiavelli was right.

The semantics are confusing here: what Machiavelli calls “colonies” we would call “mass immigration”; what we would call “traditional colonialism” he would call “maintaining soldiers.” Once this is understood, then the picture becomes clear.

Machiavelli’s wokism.

A prominent feature of Wokism, and the left generally, is to take the side of the weaker. Women are promoted above men, gay above straight, black above white, and so on. While this seems like a new and revolutionary idea, it was all predicted by Machiavelli:

“Anyone who is in a province that is unlike his own [..] should make himself the leader and defender of the less powerful neighbors and do all he can to weaken those who are more powerful”.⁸

Does that description remind you of anyone?

It should be noted that the Democratic Party is not only the home of “weak” groups, like the poor, but it is also the home of America’s “model minorities,” like Jews, Indians, and Asians. Why do these groups seem to find a common cause with gays, blacks, and immigrants? It seems that, consciously or unconsciously, they are following Machiavelli’s advice: be the "the leader and defender of the less powerful neighbors and [..] weaken those who are more powerful." Wokism is thus a Machiavellian ideology.

Machiavelli on foreigners.

“It will always happen that the outsider will be brought in by those who are dissatisfied, either because of too much ambition or because of fear [..] What occurs is that as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a province, all who are less powerful cling to him, moved by the envy they have for the one who has ruled over them; so that, concerning those weaker powers, he has no trouble whatsoever in winning them over”.⁹

I was recently reading an article from a black American who claimed that, prior to becoming a Trump supporter, she and her friends genuinely believed that Trump was going to deport black people to Africa, or white militias were going to round up black people. This would be an example of supporting foreigners out of fear.

But Machiavelli also states that alliances with foreigners can be due to “too much ambition.” By this, he means that certain factions within the state may desire much more power than can possibly be sustained. When they find that the majority is an impediment to their plans, they see foreigners as a better alternative.

There are two possible interpretation of the relationship between “weaker powers” and “foreigners”:

1. “Weaker powers” are not necessarily poor or powerless, but represent “upstarts” or “new money” who are envious, or who have an axe to grind, or generational trauma, and desire revenge against the majority who previously ruled over them;

2. “The foreigner” represents a foreign elite who then allies with local “weaker powers.”

Whichever way the relationship is viewed, the champions of Civil Rights were disproportionately of an immigrant background, whether Irish Catholic or Ashkenazi, as in the case of Hart-Celler. There also seems to be a feedback loop or cycle:

1. Immigrants come in;

2. They become rich, take over the newspapers, Hollywood, the stock market;

3. They encourage more immigration.

Machiavelli believes that the true power of a state is its military, and this fact reveals certain uncomfortable truths.

While only 67% of America’s military is white, 76% of its “active duty officers” are white, and 90% of its general officer corps is white. This last category includes brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general, and general. There are roughly 900 members of the GOC in America, which is roughly 1 per 1,400 total troops (out of 1.3 million total).

Indian Americans, Asian Americans, and Jewish Americans are, relative to their overrepresentation in finance and politics, underrepresented in the military. This creates a genuine question: who is actually in charge in America? Who actually rules? Even if we are to subordinate the military to civilian authorities, it is still possible, from a psychological level, for “model minorities” to view themselves as being “ruled over” by whites, and to adopt alliances with “weaker neighbors” and foreigners. Machiavelli is a psychologist as much as he is a political theorist.

conclusion.

There is much more to be said on the applicability of Machiavelli to our modern political situation. For example, on the subject of centralization versus regionalism,¹⁰ as well as the conception of liberty or sovereignty.¹¹ Specifically, he says that with regard to slave-like peoples, they are easy to govern, but free-spirited peoples must have their cities entirely destroyed (does that sound familiar?).

Machiavelli describes the facts of political psychology without much empathy for the rulers or the ruled. He did have his own desired form of government, and he was, in his own way, a nationalist:¹² he wanted to rid Italy of foreigners, of the corruption of the church, and revive the culture of antiquity. Yet he acknowledges the cold logic of the abuses against Italy. Machiavelli believed that if Italy was to become sovereign, it would need to recognize the tactics which were employed so skillfully (but predictably) against it, and employ its own cynical tactics in defense.

Machiavelli is especially difficult to discuss because so much scholarship dismisses him as “satirical”; the implication is that Machiavelli did not mean what he said, but was lampooning or making fun of the leaders of his time for being cruel, hypocritical, and evil.

While it is possible that some of Machiavelli’s flourishes are exaggerated for effect, or that he is blunt for comedic effect, that doesn’t mean that truth cannot be told through black humor. Consider many Russian jokes, which while comedic, depressing, and bleak, nevertheless are directionally “true.” A person who was tortured and had his whole life destroyed might adopt this psychology.

This is made evident when we read Machiavelli’s private letters to his dear friends, where he is brutally honest about his crazy sex life and his disappointments and inglorious fall from grace. In these letters, he reveals his passion for the ancient writers of political philosophy and history, and believes he has re-discovered their sacred insights, which he worked to apply to the political situation of his lifetime.

I may pepper an article with dry humor and some exaggeration for entertainment and stimulation, but this does not mean that what I am saying generally is a total inversion of what I truly believe. This black-and-white thinking, that Machiavelli was either totally evil, or he was totally ironic, is overly simplistic. This moralistic reading of Machiavelli (he was either evil or totally joking) comes from stuffy, humorless academics, a psychological residue from the monastic tradition. Only when we steep ourselves in the classic tradition of the Greeks and Romans, and understand their love of both humor and of truth, can we also appreciate the double-edged wisdom of Machiavelli.¹³

1. The Portable Machiavelli. (1979), ed. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, Penguin Books. Page 69.

2. TPM, pg. 82.

3. TPM, pg. 82.

4. https://www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/safe-network-profiles/legacy_downloads/profile-foreign-born-population-atlanta.pdf

5. TPM, pg. 82-83.

6. TPM, pg. 83.

7. https://iea.org.uk/publications/imperial-measurement-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-western-colonialism/#Conclusion

8. TPM, pg. 83.

9. TPM, pg. 83-84.

10. TPM, pg. 88-90.

11. TPM, pg. 91-92.

12.

13. The problem I have identified here is also present in scholarship on Plato, where Socrates is identified as either entirely serious or entirely joking. This Judeo-Christian reading is inappropriate.