but that's not the same thing as the power ethic of a machiavelli or nature, neither hard or soft. it has moral bearing. the true statesman takes. his bearing from what cicero called latin. the honest stump, the fine, the noble the honorable. at the service of civilized liberty. liberty. and its moral precondition. some are the statesman's lodestar. and those precondition purposes include authoritative institution. an army that trains men dedicated to honor and not to self-expression, for example, or social engineering. this is the realist yet high minded frame of thought and action that are theorists of repudiation so mindlessly and to buried instead of legitimate authority and of decent norms that serve a community of citizens they see everywhere only implacable power, crude, oppressive self-serving, and now of course, predictably to the core. these secular priests see only domination where others rightly love consent and community, and the bonds of affection and familial. i was at a conference two days ago with the heritage foundation honoring the late great mitch, dr. and rerea

but on the other hand, washington was not following machiavelli either machiavelli as the philosopher of what we call today, the realists school, that all that matters really in international affairs is power and interests and calculations about power and interests. rather washington statement of an american grand strategy is the of montesquieu philosophy a moderate, balanced looking toward a modern international order of capable defensive, sober liberal governments, whether monarchies, republics, cooperating under a recognized international law that is defined by principles of, natural justice and morality. in the second part of my remarks, after we take a break, i'll talk more about montesquieu and a little detail and about what ultimately became the global predominance rather, of this philosophy through monarchies, influence on american grand strategy and our development as a powerful but principled constitutional republic. but a preview under the influence of monarchies right of nations philosophy in the past two centuries, liberal governments and allied moderate states have sough

this is so clearly stated by machiavelli, but it was in the era of the meteoriel, just a mercenary armyey finally replace the knightly a and the era of domination of various kinds of mercenary armies will continue in europe in general in the seventeenth century and in a sense, in the 18th century, if you look at the share of hmm foreigners. let's take this. foreigners in the armies of the major european powers rarely fell below a quarter, and it happened even in prussia, even in the 18th century, two- thirds were at the same time. well, that's it in one year, but the third quarters even in france quarter although france is the largest country in europe in terms of population and it competed sovereign. well, that is, barking, who will pay more or how it happened. and yes, there were contracts, so to speak. e long-term tradition. eh, tradition implies, and duration, apparently, and the most striking example of elandgravery is essence, and in 1730 every nineteenth inhabitant, and then even more, up to seven percent of the population. and it needs to be multiplied. uh, twice, because men ar

yes, well, those that machiavelli had.he main task was to justify the actions of state power at any cost, he was more of an adviser to the sovereign, and therefore he was looking for concepts on how to justify any goal-setting. well, let's say the cultural basis of society. at that time, for a long time, however, religion remained, religion gave a person at least the opportunity to consider each other as brothers and sisters in christ who yes, but if you are happy with god, you cannot be a slave another person, so only one work you have to lose these aristotle and all the others who drank slavery, right? his writings and dripped to this return, and already slavery in its modern form has become quite the norm. why am i talking about all this? i x- now, if we move on to today, so that this is not just a theoretical conversation. every time when they talk about nazism, fascism, people suggest that they imagine quite specific symbols, images, and of course, it’s understandable if you look at joseph borel. it's hard to imagine

machiavelli said over 400, 500 years ago, the most difficult thing is to change the order of things,rk to representative cortez about, is this your shrooms bill? education is not seeing new things, it's seeing with new eyes. we have to re-educate people. because they're anchoring to the war on drugs philosophy, they're anchoring to the timothy leary concept. we need to reframe and reshape the narrative, that this is about science. this is about empirical data. by having this coalition of compassion and having the veterans and the indigenous people of this country lead this effort, how beautiful is that? defenders of our country and the first americans leading an effort to heal this traumatized nation. >> tom rodgers, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >>> we remember a hero, ahead. a former afghan interpreter who helped u.s. special forces for a decade. he managed to escape that chaotic withdrawal in afghanistan only to lose his life here in america. we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks

yes, well, such that we say in machiavelli's main task was to justify the actions of state power at anyns, so he was looking for concepts on how to justify any teleposition, but let's say the cultural basis of society, at that time , for a long time, however, religion remained, religion gave a person at least the opportunity to consider each other, as brothers of sisters in christ who have yes, but if you are god, to be a slave of another person , therefore, the slave has only one master really. you must lose aristotle and all the others who sang slavery and in their writings they dripped to return to this and already and slavery in its modern form has become quite a norm. why am i talking about all this. here i am, if we move on to today , so that this is not just a theoretical conversation . every time when they talk about nazism, fascism , people suggest that they imagine very specific characters, images, and of course, it’s understandable if you look at joseppe borel. it is difficult to imagine there someone in the likeness of the totalitarian leaders of the middle of the 20th centu

the great liar, as machiavelli once wrote, is able to take that substrate and twist it for whatever purposek times." what is it that makes some people susceptible and able to hear and resonate with this kind of language, while others don't respond to it or respond to it quite differently at the same time? >> that's a question that i wish i really could answer. what i found in looking at history and looking at how, you know, experiments with malicious language, such as hitler's germany and statin's russia, is that they're able to tap into a historical formula that a lot of people respond to. simple example is the idea of a cabal behind the scenes. you can call it a deep state. call it whatever you like. if your belief that there is such a cabal, such a deep state is strong but dormant, all you need is a great manipulator of that theory, of that conspiracy theory bringing it out into the open, and then making you connect the dots. psychologists call it -- you have a large group of people. once it enters into groupthink, it can become a very dangerous movement. fascism, nazism andprofessor, t