I Reject Your Reality

Niccolo Machiavelli pieced his thoughts into Hannah Arendt’s discussion of ways and the means in her work “Total Domination” that it must be seen that the former is a humanist who’s advice still falls within the nihilistic principle that “everything is permitted” while the Nazi totalitarian state proved by way of the concentration camp’s is a terrible example that “everything is possible”.   Machiavelli as a humanist recognized to a degree that each individual’s worth is a potential influence on a ruler’s designs and out looked to manipulate the masses to that ruler’s advantage without denying them their basic identities as individuals. His chief concern is for affluence and esteem of both peers and subjects to be present throughout all actions as well as the product of them as a whole.
      Machiavelli’s work are all grounded firmly in common sense and reality; as such he would agree with Arendt that totalitarianism runs in a manner that supersedes that common sense. It does so by instituting and perpetuating a principle through control or any other means, necessary. Aaron pointed down on my paper that he had believed that Arendt had comprehended that the totalitarian’s had outrageous thinking and even the fact that they considered it as an effective tool was irrelevant; He thought it as most unnecessary, as people are already so simple and predictable without being forced to be. To him, the prince must follow a kind of morality as defined by society at that time, operating within its existing expectations and not going beyond that which any man is capable. Going beyond through total separation in the concentration camps does the totalitarian regime subvert reality to its will, making the individual’s experience unimaginable and unable to be believed even by himself.   However, men’s psyches do not concern the prince; the humanist Machiavelli recognizes commoners as a mass of unchangeable individuals, a teeming mob to be manipulated and force to be reckoned with...