Oligarchy Now Worse Than Machiavelli

I'm no fan of Niccolò Machiavelli who was a leading adviser for tyrants writing books that taught them how to control their people long after he was dead; however, even he knew how to handle the recent protests against the police than our leaders, and especially the McCloskeys who pointed guns at protesters in a paranoid effort to allegedly defend their home.

Machiavelli wrote about how to control people, teaching that it's better to be feared than loved, that rulers should keep the citizens poor, that they should use war and fear of the enemy to stir up emotions, and many other indoctrination tactics that politicians continue using today. Machiavelli, may be taught in colleges, where political scientists study how to manipulate the masses for the benefit of campaign contributors, although they wouldn't phrase it that way; but it's rarely taught to working class people who often have no more than a high school education, or if they study a trade afterwards, it wouldn't involve studying political manipulation.

If you Google "Niccolò Machiavelli misunderstood" you'll find plenty of people arguing that Machiavelli wasn't nearly as bad as most people in the academic world think, often claiming that his less famous books, including the "Discourses" show that he supported the people in a fair way. This includes one article which seems to argue that Machiavelli was trying to warn us, not advise the tyrants, which sounds good, but was never implemented in practice.

After reading Machiavelli, there's no doubt that if the masses understood the tactics used to control them they would be far less likely to fall for them and would learn how to overthrow the minority that controls large institutions; however, Machiavelli's work wasn't shared with the masses when he was alive, his most famous book, "The Prince," wasn't published until five years after his death, and even then the vast majority of commoners almost certainly couldn't read. Today, even though it's publicly available to anyone that wants to read it, it's hardly taught at all to the working class, while those studying politics often learn it well, yet they rarely discuss it publicly.

One thing that he did get right, although, possibly for the wrong reasons, was that he argued against the building of fortresses, which could also be applied to modern gated communities, where members of the ruling class often live, so they don't have to deal with high rates of violence at home, that might result from their bad policies. Mayor Lyda Krewson, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, could have learned from this. The McCloskeys go beyond being ignorant of some of Machiavelli's teaching, and appear to be paranoid and delusional, assuming they're not putting on a bizarre act for some reason, as this article shows:

Gun-Toting St. Louis Lawyer Claims He Feared ‘Storming Of The Bastille’-Type Attack From Protesters 06/29/2020

Over the weekend, a St. Louis couple drew national attention after they were captured on video pointing guns at anti-racist protesters marching past their house in the Missouri city’s affluent Central West End neighborhood.

Mark McCloskey, who was armed with an assault rifle in the now-viral video, recently sat down with NBC News affiliate KSDK to share his reasons for pointing the lethal weapon at the protesters.

During the interview, the St. Louis attorney claimed he and his wife feared for their lives.

“We were threatened with our lives, threatened with our house being burned down, my office building being burned down, even our dog’s life being threatened. It was, it was about as bad as it can get.”

“I mean…I really thought it was Storming the Bastille, that we would be dead and the house would be burned and there was nothing we could do about it.”

“It was a huge and frightening crowd.” Complete article

This protest was all caught on video, including the fact that the gate was open, despite claims that the protesters broke it. It was broken later, although it's unclear why, or if it was a bad attempt to support the false claim. Many of these claims were clearly proven false shortly after they made them, raising major credibility problems. according to 'They were going to kill us': Armed St. Louis homeowner claims protesters threatened to take her life and home 07/07/2020 they also made additional claims about another protest five days later that also seem to have major credibility problems:

"We got a tip that the people were coming back, and they were coming back specifically for us and to get us and to burn the house," Mark McCloskey said. "And so we started trying to get private security. We had been told that the city police have been ordered to stand down. We had been told that there was going to be no official help. Our neighborhood association put out a flier saying that, if people broke in, they were just going to let them. And so we started trying to hire private security. Entity after entity said they didn’t want to get involved. Thursday afternoon, we started hiding valuables and securing the house. The last group of security people ... these were special forces guys, told us they couldn’t do it and we should just walk away from the house and abandon it. We just said we weren’t going to do that."

This was nothing like the storming of the Bastille, as he claimed, and he should have known it; furthermore, if it was, I seriously doubt if they would have reacted that way; and if they did, and they were actually up against violent and armed protesters, as they falsely claimed, there's a strong chance that they would have been killed quickly. But of course, the protesters were peaceful, and some of them were demanding that funds be shifted from police to social programs that are far more effective at reducing violence before it escalates, instead of dealing with it when it's too late.

The McCloskeys, on the other hand don't seemed to be interested in the leading causes of violence so they can prevent it at all, instead they're constantly bickering with people and starting arguments, which began long before this incident. According to Police execute search warrant at home of gun-toting couple 07/11/2020 "that public records and interviews show the McCloskeys are almost always in conflict with others, typically over control of private property."

Neither the McCloskeys or Lyda Krewson seem to know much about the leading causes of violence, and how to prevent it, which could make their city much safer, and reduce the need for them to live in gated communities. This shouldn't be too surprising, since the best research on leading causes of violence is almost completely absent from traditional media, and rarely discussed when making political decisions, unless local people do their own research and bring it up despite the negligence of media and politicians. More on that below. Machiavelli wasn't familiar with some of the best modern research on preventing violence either, and his political views are more likely to do the opposite in many cases, like the policies of many modern authoritarian politicians; however, he understood that rulers who lived in fortresses or gated communities were less likely to respect the rights of their own people, as indicated int the following excerpts:

Niccolò Machiavelli "Discourses" That, commonly, Fortresses do much more Harm than Good. 1517

Looking, therefore, to the course followed by the Romans in this particular, and to that adopted by our modern rulers, it seems proper to consider whether or not it is advisable to build fortresses, and whether they are more likely to help or to hurt him who builds them In the first place, then, we are to remember that fortresses are built either as a defense against foreign foes or against subjects.

In the former case, I pronounce them unnecessary, in the latter mischievous. And to state the reasons why in the latter case they are mischievous, I say that when princes or republics are afraid of their subjects and in fear lest they rebel, this must proceed from knowing that their subjects hate them, which hatred in its turn results from their own ill conduct, and that again from their thinking themselves able to rule their subjects by mere force, or from their governing with little prudence.

Now one of the causes which lead them to suppose that they can rule by mere force, is this very circumstance of their people having these fortresses on their backs So that the conduct which breeds hatred is itself mainly occasioned by these princes or republics being possessed of fortresses, which, if this be true, are really far more hurtful than useful First, because, as has been said already, they render a ruler bolder and more violent in his bearing towards his subjects, and, next, because they do not in reality afford him that security which he believes them to give For all those methods of violence and coercion which may be used to keep a people under, resolve themselves into two; since either like the Romans you must always have it in your power to bring a strong army into the field, or else you must dissipate, destroy, and disunite the subject people, and so divide and scatter them that they can never again combine to injure you.

For should you merely strip them of their wealth, spoliatis arma supersunt, arms still remain to them, or if you deprive them of their weapons, furor arma ministrat, rage will supply them, if you put their chiefs to death and continue to maltreat the rest, heads will renew themselves like those Hydra; while, if you build fortresses, these may serve in time of peace to make you bolder in outraging your subjects, but in time of war they will prove wholly useless, since they will be attacked at once by foes both foreign and domestic, whom together it will be impossible for you to resist. ......

But to go deeper into the matter, I say, either you are a prince seeking by means of these fortresses to hold the people of your city in check; or you are a prince, or it may be a republic, desirous to control some city which you have gained in war. To the prince I would say, that, for the reasons already given, nothing can be more unserviceable than a fortress as a restraint upon your subjects, since it only makes you the readier to oppress them, and less scrupulous how you do so; while it is this very oppression which moves them to destroy you, and so kindles their hatred, that the fortress, which is the cause of all the mischief, is powerless to protect you.

A wise and good prince, therefore, that he may continue good, and give no occasion or encouragement to his descendants to become evil, will never build a fortress, to the end that neither he nor they may ever be led to trust to it rather than to the good-will of their subjects. And if Francesco Sforza, who was accounted a wise ruler, on becoming Duke of Milan erected a fortress in that city, I say that herein he was unwise, and that the event has shown the building of this fortress to have been hurtful and not helpful to his heirs.

For thinking that by its aid they could behave as badly as they liked to their citizens and subjects, and yet be secure, they refrained from no sort of violence or oppression, until, becoming beyond measure odious, they lost their State as soon as an enemy attacked it. Nor was this fortress, which in peace had occasioned them much hurt, any defense or of any service them in war. For had they being without it, through thoughtlessness, treated their subjects inhumanely, they must soon have discovered and withdrawn from their danger; and might, thereafter, with no other help than that of attached subjects, have withstood the attacks of the French far more successfully than they could with their fortress, but with subjects whom they had estranged. Complete article

The short version of what Machiavelli was recognizing was that if the rulers lived in fortresses, or gated communities, where they wouldn't be held accountable for the results of their policies. In his time, there were no democracies, but he warned that if they oppressed the people too much, they would revolt. He also cautioned that if the rulers were behind gated communities they would be more likely to encourage their troops, or now police, to be more brutal, and inspire revolt. Furthermore, with politicians, like Lyda Krewson live in gated communities and have police protection when they leave, they're less likely to be concerned about their own safety, possibly ignoring the best research for political reasons, including some encouraged by Machiavelli, like keeping the citizens poor. Not that I, or most peaceful protesters are recommending that Lyda Krewson should be put at risk, but neither should the rest of the community when we have the research to understand how to reduce violence.

Many of the cities that have had the biggest problems with police brutality over the last few years, including St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Chicago have seen their homicide rates increase significantly, while most of the country was relatively unchanged hitting an all time low of 4.5 per 100,000 in 2013 and 2014, before climbing back up to 5.4 in 2016, and dropping back to 5.0 again in 2018, but the increases in these four cities were much higher. One city, Richmond, California, which I covered years ago in Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit, has seen it's murder rates drop dramatically, perhaps the sharpest drop of any other city, at least that I know of. Part of the reason for this was police reform, but they also dressed many of the leading root causes with lots of activism at the local level, and for a while they had one of the few Green Party Mayors in the country, with much more progressive policies than other cities. They went from being one of the most violent cities in the country, with a rate peaking above 45 per 100,000 to cutting their murder rates by 75%, in 2014 and 2017, although they had a couple bad years in 2016 and 2018, which were still 60% below their peak.

New Orleans La. and Camden NJ also had very high murder rates and responded with major police reform, which helped reduce violence and those cities dramatically. All three of these cities still have serious crime problems, but they've shown that hey can do much better, and if they continue their reforms they can be expected to get even better.

We actually do have good research that shows how to solve this problem without resorting to oppressive police, which has proven to fail.

When it comes to one major contributing cause after another, there's a clear difference between the research showing how to reduce violence, and a rigged economic ideology, designed to benefit the wealthy, that often live in the gated communities, or estates that have as much if not more security, and are out of touch with the working class. One of the most obvious contributing factors to high rates of crime and violence, that opposes fiscal ideology of the wealthy, is poverty and income inequality, which go together. Wealthy people often talk about how they want to reduce poverty and income inequality, but they rarely ever do so, presumably because they're the beneficiaries of it, so they have a financial incentive not to solve it.

Another major contributing factor, possibly the most important one, is early child abuse, including corporal punishment leading to escalating violence later in life. This teaches blind obedience and to resort to violence to solve problems. Wealthy people may often support it, especially for the working class because this is a major part of a punitive process that keeps them in their place. Most major cities, including St. Louis have banned the use of corporal punishment in schools; however, Missouri is one of the 19 remaining states still allowing it, and abandoned inn er cities, like St. Louis have more than their share of other contributing factors, which is why they tend to be so violent.

Improved access to education is also a major part of the solution, but there's little or no effort from the political establishment to solve this problem, including from Mayor Lyda Krewson, and they often do the opposite b y pushing Charter Schools, often for profit, especially in low income areas, even though they've been a proven failure. Her son is apparently pushing them, as a former member of Teach For America, which is actually a propaganda organization attempting to privatize education. Supposedly his support doesn't involve his mother; however, a search of her record certainly doesn't show strong opposition to Charters Schools, if anything her record seems to show subtle support for them, even though those well informed about them know how bad they've failed. There's also evidecne that they're pushing them the most in some of the poorest and most violent cities in the country as I pointed out in Is Push For Charter Schools Increasing Murder Rates? and these Charter Schools aren't doing anything to reduce violence in the sixteen most heavily concentrated cities cited by one source in that article, with some of them getting even worse. The closet thing to an exception is New Orleans, which was on top of the list in 2014, but has gone through some major reforms in the last few years, including police reform, and a growing recognition that Charter Schools have failed miserably. New Orleans was an early leader in Charter Schools and while they were still expanding their violence rate was still on the rise.

According to Lyda Krewson's Wikipedia page she doesn't seem to be a leader in progressive reforms, although in a few cases she may have compromised with her critics who seemed far more familiar with the best research to reduce violence. She tried to reduce panhandling by introducing the "REAL Change Program" but it also criminalized panhandling and there was some doubt as to how effective her social program was. She seemed more concerned, like many other politicians with preventing the annoyance to the public, than to solving the homeless problem. She also increased the number of beds for homeless by 50 but it was in response to the closing of an Evangelistic homeless shelter which previously housed 150. I've written previously about how much higher the rates of murder are in cities with Megachurches in or near them compared to those without them; however, most of these megachurches collect an enormous amount of money from parishioners and use little or none of it for social programs that help the community, often buying mansions, limousines, and even private airplanes, for wealthy pastors. I'm not a fan of religion, but if they do provide social services some of them may help the community.

Krewson was also slow to address the root causes of violence, until pressured by community activists. She hasn't supported nearly as comprehensive reforms as Richmond Ca. Camden NJ, or New Orleans La., which have all proven to have major success and included police reform among other things; however under pressure she did sign a contract with Cure Violence last year, which is just getting started. Based on research from 2000 to 2004 in Chicago they concluded this was very effective and it was also introduced to Baltimore; however they only expanded it to 15 out of 77 Chicago communities, and both Baltimore and Chicago have seen increases in crime in recent years, strongly implying that either it's not as effective as the reforms in Richmond, Camden and New Orleans, or they're not providing enough resources for it. It's too soon to know how effective it will be in St. Louis.

There's good reason to believe that mainstream media and establishment politicians, including Lyda Krewson are far more concerned with the fiscal ideology of the elites than with the most effective research, which is available at libraries, alternative media and academic journals. The evidence for this is incredibly simple; the mainstream media practically never mentions this good research, and establishment politicians are constantly ignoring it as well, unless they face strong opposition at the local level. As I pointed out, in previous articles on the subject, the communities that have strongest grassroots movements pushing good research are the ones that get the most concessions, occasionally, like Richmond California, they even manage to elect progressive politicians like Gayle McLaughlin, who was Mayor during the most important reforms and even help corporations like Chevron accountable, to the best of her ability, and she helped bring about the most effective reforms reducing violence in cities with exceptionally high murder rates. The closest possible exception, that I know of, might be New York, which also had a dramatic drop in murder rates, but that took much longer dropping slowly, but steadily over a period of over 25 years.

When politicians are isolated from their communities, and have little or no contact with the best researchers, they're far more likely to push the fiscal ideology of wealthy elites, who are far more concerned with their own wealth and power than the best interests of the community. these politicians rarely seem to get advice about good research from their political allies, instead getting it from outspoken and well informed community members, and often resist implementing good policies even then. The same goes for wealthy owners, often billionaires, of the media and celebrity pundits, often multi-millionaires, who ignore the best research, and also live apart from the community.

Another problem with gated communities, is although they reduce burglaries within the community, they do nothing to reduce overall crime and they're very inefficient. Studies have shown that in addition to being more expensive, they also cost much more to maintain and pay for high security, so they're only for very wealthy people. Furthermore, other studies have shown that even though they reduce burglaries, they may lead to increases in bullying, domestic violence and other forms of violence, partly because the victims are fenced in with their attackers, and have no where to turn.

And more importantly, when the elites feel they're protected they might feel more comfortable ignoring far more effective ways of reducing all forms of violence and burglaries for everyone, not just those living in the gated communities. If this had been done decades ago the demand for gated communities never would have grown so high; and if we addressed the leading causes of violence then demand for gated communities would steadily drop, as crime rates fall. The McCloskeys clearly demonstrated that some of the people in these gated communities are ideological fanatics, and out of touch with reality. There's no way of knowing how many more residents of these communities are like that, but our political establishment routinely fights tooth and nail against policies that are based on rational research, indicating there are many more.

We could also compare our country to the rest of the world to understand why some countries have much more violence than us, and other countries have much less violence. Compared to other wealthy countries, ours is one of the most violent countries in the world; however if you compare us to all countries including poorer ones, often with extremely dysfunctional governments, many supported by our government, we're moderately below average for murder rates, but much safer than the most dysfunctional countries. In some of these dysfunctional governments, they also rely heavily on gated communities to protect the wealthy that have the most political influence, including Mexico and Argentina:

Research in Urban Sociology 2010 - Page 285

The local Councillor of a municipality in the province of Mendoza, Argentina, explains the local situation: there is not a general norm for gated communities, so there are exception ordinances to build this type of neighborhood … each situation is analyzed and gets a planning permit.’ In the case of Queretaro, some gated communities do not have a municipal permit to be closed off, but there does not seem to be opposition about this because their residents are part of the political or economic elite of the city. As the local deputy planning director explains: People who live there [referring to EC4] are politicians and government people who have managed to keep the development as private, even when we all know that it should work as an open neighborhood.’

In relation to gated community residents, they are not only seen as ’politicians’ as stated in the previous quotation, but also as ’people with money … with large houses of 300 square metres or even 500 square metres and they usually have people who help them with the house cleaning.’ (deputy director of urban development, Queretaro, Mexico) Additional excerpts

Both these countries are more violent and dysfunctional than the United States, especially Mexico; and the problem is the same, the people making the political decisions are isolated from the rest of the community and base their decisions on fiscal ideology, designed to control the masses, not the most effective research to reduce violence or the best interests of the majority of the people.

Switzerland, on the other hand, is one of the countries with much lower murder rates 0.59 compared to 5.0 for the United States, more than eight times as high, and some of the worst abandoned inner cities in the United States are a hundred times more violent than Switzerland.

Paying Our High Public Officials 2013 p.101

The success of Switzerland is based upon the fact that political affairs are run by people who are grounded in reality and know the needs of the people from their own experiences.

Instead of making it possible for ordinary workers to enter politics, the salaries have created an increasing distance between the experiences of ordinary workers and those of successful career politicians.

For if high public officials are paid moderately, they will live under circumstances similar to those that the people they govern live under. Hence they will have similar experiences, and this will ensure that they remain in touch. If, on the other hand, high public officials are paid too well, they will live under conditions that are much more luxurious than those that the people they govern live under, and consequently have no idea what their lives are like. This will make them out of touch. To put it bluntly, high public officials should not live in gated communities, be driven around in chauffeured cars, and never visit a supermarket. They will have no idea what life is like for the common people, and this makes them bad high public officials. Additional excerpts

The living like common people argument for public officials, can be part of the solution, but of course it's also important to share the most effective research about causes of violence with both politicians and the public, which our media doesn't do. I don't know if they do better in Switzerland or over a dozen other wealthy countries with a fifth of the rates of violence we have, and many more countries with less than half our rates of violence. Many of these countries provide better education, child care, social programs that address root causes of violence, universal health care, and many other policies, that our leaders denounce as Socialism, despite the fact that our country is constantly bailing out Wall Street, which is Corporate Socialism, and providing enormous amount of funds for wars based on lies, and a massive prison industrial complex that does little or nothing to rehabilitate people or reduce crime. There's no doubt that if we shifted funds for these wars based on lies, massive prisons, and militarized police to social programs that are far more effective reducing violence, we could reduce our rates of violence as low, or perhaps even lower than many of the European countries that are already responding to the best research on the subject.

Rachel Kleinfeld, author of "A Savage Order" makes a similar argument in her article, Why Are Some Societies So Violent, and Can They Be Made Safe? 11/19/2018, where she writes, "The real question, I realized, wasn’t how to fight violence—it was how to get a corrupt government to want to do so." She writes mostly about governments that are even more dysfunctional than our own, but this also applies to our government. There should be no doubt that if our politicians wanted to fight violence, they would be far more willing to listen to the best researchers on the subject and their own constituents, some of whom are already seeking out these research, which is absent from the media.

She also explores violence in countries which are supposedly democratic pointing out "Some people blame democracy itself for violence. But why wouldn’t governments that supposedly answer to voters do a better job of protecting their citizens? I wanted to understand what was happening." She does point out that many of these so-called democracies are partly corrupted; but I'll go one step further, they often don't have the basic functions of a democracy, and therefore aren't really democratic at all. A democracy is where they are governed with the informed consent of the people, which means that we need access to the educational material to make decisions, which we don't, partly because the media ignores the most effective research to reduce violence, and because working class people don't have nearly as good access to quality schools, as a result of our method of funding them with property taxes.

If we want to become a real democracy, we have to have a far more diverse media that is willing to cover the most important research on many different subjects, including how to reduce violence. This media also has to cover all candidates for political office, not just the ones supported by Wall Street, enabling honest politicians to get name recognition needed to be viable, and explain their positions to the public. As it is now, a fraction of 1% of the wealthiest people, control well over 90% of the media and they only cover candidates they support to get name recognition, ensuring we have politicians that don't respond to the people or the best research. Until we rectify the control of the interview process, this won't change or as Rachel Kleinfeld says, "As long as politicians aren’t giving violent people impunity or encouraging repressive, predatory police, societies that maintain cohesion can stay peaceful even with a weak, poor state."

The following are some related articles or sources:

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?

Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?

Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media

Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

How New Orleans police went from ‘most corrupt’ to model force 02/26/2019

Murder rate down in New Orleans for third consecutive year 01/01/2020

In New Orleans, a 47-year low in killings -- and that's no accident, police chief says 12/31/2018

Camden's Police Overhaul Offers a Complicated Precedent 06/19/2020

Wealthy St. Louis lawyers point guns at peaceful protesters 06/29/2020

McCloskey Couple Who Pointed Guns at Protesters Release Statement in Support of Protesters 06/29/2020

Mark McCloskey & Patricia McCloskey: St. Louis Couple Pull Guns on Protesters 06/30/2020

Lawyer-couple who pointed guns at protesters are Black Lives Matter backers, Democrats and represent a police brutality victim. 06/29/2020

Lawyers who confronted protestors with guns are being investigated 06/29/2020 Patricia McCloskey’s biography on her website says she is on the Missouri Bar Association’s Ethical Review Board.

St. Louis Cops Seize Gun That Couple Pointed At Black Lives Matter Protesters 07/11/2020

2019 homicide total is second-highest of decade for St. Louis 01/01/2020

Corporal Punishment Eliminated 11/12/1981

Seattle City Council Pledges to Cut Police Budget in Half 07/10/2020

Wikipedia: Lyda Krewson mayor of St. Louis, Missouri.

Central West End couple explains why they pointed guns at protesters who demanded Krewson's resignation 06/29/2020

Wikipedia: Disposition Matrix

Wikipedia: Bilal Abdul Kareem

US: American Journalist Has No Right To Challenge Decision To Assassinate Him 07/07/2020

How do the Democrats running for president really live? A look at their homes, wealth. 08/24/2019

Did These Politicians Build Walls Around Their Homes? 01/04/2019

Senate busts open gated communities for politicians 02/24/2014

Risk of crime in gated communities 03/20/2013 Crucially, the authors emphasize that people living in gated communities may be at greater risk of other crimes, such as intimate partner violence, bullying, or violent assault in or near the home, because the victim is "locked in" with the offender.

How Fancy 'Gated' Communities Can Make Cities More Violent 01/27/2015

Gated Communities and Crime in the United States 11/30/2017

Gated Communities and Crime in the United States 2017 PDF

Burglary in Gated and Non-Gated Communities 02/04/2013

Lyda Krewson Net Worth: Below $1 million in 2018 above $1 million in 2019 two years after becoming Mayor

Study Shows Homes in Gated Communities Command Higher Prices but Cost of Amenities May Outweigh Their Benefits 06/30/2016

The federal government created inner-city ghettos with racist housing regulations 07/18/2017

Baltimore Is a Mess. Here Are 3 Big Issues the City Faces. 08/05/2019

Wikipedia: List of countries by intentional homicide rate

The Evolution of Gated Communities