|
|
 الاسس الميكيافلية في سياسة الغرب.. في تقتيل ابناء من "قادة" العرب!
|
قد يظهر وكانه صدفة ما حدث لابناء كل من صدام حسين في العراق, و معمر القذافي في ليبيا!
فابني صدام حسين قد تم قتلهم على الرغم من انهم حوصروا في مبنى كان من الممكن اسرهم احياء!
وايضا توالت الاخبار ان ابناء القذافي قد تمت تصفيتهم بواسطة "الثوار", على الرغم من العقل يقول بانه كان من المفترض ان يؤخذوا اسرى و تتم محاكمتهم لا بجريرة ابوهم, و لكن بافعالهم التي ارتكبوها فاذا كانوا مذنبين كان يجب ان يعاقبوا, وان كانوا ابرياء يطلق سراحهم.
لكن الامر اعمق من ذلك. فالقوى التي سعت لدحر صدام وهو "تحالف" قادته امريكا, و تلك التي دحرت القذافي تحالف قادته الناتو, تلك القوى تاخذ دروسها من اكبر مفكر عرف بالمكر و الدهاء حتى صار اسمه مقرونا بالخبث, الا وهو ميكيافيلي!
دعونا نقرا قليلا من كتابه "حوارات عن ليفي Discourses on livy" وهو كتاب تؤام لكتابه الاخر "الامير The prince" و في الاثنين سعى ميكافيلي لدراسة التاريخ و استخلاص دروس كان يرى انها مهمة لبعث امته الايطالية, و عندما ياس, تماما كابي الطيب المتنبي, من تنفيذ افكاره بنفسه اهدي كتبه لقادة في بلاده كان يعتقد ان لهم الحظ الاوفر في تنفيذها.
كتبه ما يزال يقراها كل الجادين في السياسة و القيادة في اوروبا و امريكا
و بنظرة سريعة لفصلين من الكتاب نجد كيف يطبق الغرب افكاره الان
قال ميكيافيلي:
CHAPTER III
HOW IT WAS NECESSARY, IN WANTING TO MAINTAIN THE NEWLY ACQUIRED LIBERTY, TO KILL THE SONS OF BRUTUS
The severity of Brutus was no less necessary than useful in maintaining that liberty in Rome which she had acquired; which is an example rare in all the record of history to see a father to sit in judgment, and not only condemn his sons to death, but to be present at their deaths. And this will always be known by those who read ancient history, that after a change of State, either from a Republic to a Tyranny, or from a Tyranny to a Republic, a memorable execution against the enemies of the existing conditions is necessary. And whoever restores liberty to a State and does not kill Brutus, and whoever restores liberty to a State and does not kill the sons of Brutus, maintains himself only a short time. And as this has been discussed at length in another place above, I refer to what has already been said there: I will cite only one memorable example which has occurred in our times and in our country. And this is that of Piero Soderini, who believed with his patience and goodness that he would be able to overcome that same determination that was in the sons of Brutus to return to another form of government, and he was deceived: And although because of his prudence he recognized this necessity, and that chance and their ambition which drove them, gave them the opportunity to destroy themselves, none the less his courage never allowed him to do it. For he thought, in addition to his belief of being able to dispel the bad disposition with patience and goodness, and to consume some of the enmity of someone by rewards ((and many times he had done so with faithful friends)) that to want boldly to drive out his opposition and beat down his adversaries, it would oblige him to assume extraordinary authority and legally destroy civil equality. Which thing ((even though it should not afterward be used tyrannically by him)) would have so terrified the general public, that after his death they would never again agree to reelect a Gonfalonier for life: which institution he judged was good for strengthening and maintaining the government. Which respect (for the laws) was wise and good: none the less one ought never to allow an evil to run on out of regard for a good, when that good could easily be suppressed by that evil: And he ought to bear in mind that his deeds and his intentions should have to be judged by the results ((if fortune and life would stay with him)), that he could certify to everyone that that which he had done was for the welfare of the country, and not from him ambition; and he could have regulated things in a way that a successor of his could not be able to do by evil means that which he had done for good. But the first opinion deceived him, not knowing that malignity is not subdued by time, nor placated by any gift. So that by not knowing how to imitate Brutus, he lost at the same time his country, his State, and his reputation.
And as it is a difficult thing to save a republic, so it is difficult to save a Monarchy, as will be shown in the following chapter.
CHAPTER IV
A PRINCE DOES NOT LIVE SECURELY IN A PRINCIPALITY WHILE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DESPOILED OF IT LIVE
The death of Tarquinius Priscus caused by the sons of Ancus, and the death of Servius Tullus caused by Tarquinius Superbus, shows how difficult and perilous it is to despoil one of a Kingdom, and leave him alive, even though he should seek to win him over to himself by benefits. And it will be seen how Tarquinius Priscus was deceived by the seemingly legal possession of that Kingdom, it having been given to him by the people and confirmed by the Senate. Nor could he believe that the sons of Ancus could have so much resentment that they would not be content with him (as ruler), of whom all Rome was content. And Servius Tullus deceived himself believing he could win over to himself the sons of Tarquin by new benefits. So that, as to the first, every Prince can be advised that he will never live securely in his Principality so long as those live who have been despoiled (of their possessions). As to the second, it should remind every potentate that old injuries were never cancelled by new benefits, and so much less if the new benefit is less that the injury inflicted. And without doubt Servius Tullus was little prudent to believe that the sons of Tarquinius would be content to be the sons-in-law of him, when they judged they ought to be the Kings. And this desire to reign is so great, that it not only enters the hearts of those who expect to inherit the Kingdom, but even to those who do not have such expectation: as existed in the wife of Tarquin the younger, daughter of Servius, who, moved by this rabidness, against every filial piety, set her husband against his father to take away his life and kingdom, so much more did the esteem to be a Queen than a daughter to a King. If, therefore, Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullus lost the kingdom by not knowing how to secure themselves from those whose (thrones) they had usurped, Tarquinius Superbus lost it by not observing the institution of the ancient Kings, as will be shown in the following chapter.
http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy3.htm#3:04
فعنوان الفصل الثالث من الجزء الثالث من الكتاب هو : كيف انه من المهم للحفاظ على سلطة مكتسبة حديثا ان يقتل ابناء بروتس
فيقول :"And this will always be known by those who read ancient history, that after a change of State, either from a Republic to a Tyranny, or from a Tyranny to a Republic, a memorable execution against the enemies of the existing conditions is necessary. And whoever restores liberty to a State and does not kill Brutus, and whoever restores liberty to a State and does not kill the sons of Brutus, maintains himself only a short time. And as this has been discussed at length in another place above"
يقول ميكيافيلي: كل من يدرس التاريخ سيعرف انه بعد احداث اي تغيير في الدولة اذاما كان من جمهورية لديكتاتورية او من ديكتاتورية لجمهورية فانه يجب معاقبة اعداء التغيير ليكونوا عبرة واي من يعيد الحرية للدولة ولا يقتل الطاغية (بروتس) و كل من ياتي بالحرية و لا يقتل ابناء الطاغية فانه اجله قريب و سيفشل.
ويقول:"So that, as to the first, every Prince can be advised that he will never live securely in his Principality so long as those live who have been despoiled (of their possessions)."
يقول ميكيافيلي: يجب نصح اي حاكم جديد انه سوف لن يكون في امان ما دام الذين اخذ منهم السلطة احياء!
من ذلك يجب ان نخلص الي ان تقتيل ابناء صدام و القذافي, لم يكن نزوة ارتكبها جنود دولة اخرى في حالة الاول, او "ثوار" منفلتين في حالة الثاني, وانما ذلك فعل مخطط له على اعلى مستويات اتخاذ القرار لمن في يدهم اتخاذ القرار, وانهم يهتدون بمبادئ ميكيافيلي و يتنورون بافكاره!
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
بدر الدين احمد موسى
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست