The Machiavellinization of Armies: The End Justifies the Means

KLONDLIKE, CPAC Philosophy Desk- “Politics have no relation to morals,” said Italian writer Niccolo Machiavelli. “The end justifies the means.”

Note: This post is an editorial. It contains the author’s personal opinion and does not reflect the views of CPAC as a whole.

Just yesterday, CPAC reporter Stephanie wrote a post concerning the sportsmanship of armies. The main topic of the post was the disappearance of sportsmanship from armies and how we can be able to restore sportsmanship to armies. Sportsmanship is a topic that’s spoken about often in philosophy posts, and there’s a good reason why. The whole system of armies depends on good sportsmanship for it to succeed.

Now, I’d like to look deeper into this general idea. But first, let me introduce you to a political philosophy- Machiavellianism.

The End Justifies the Means

Note: Many of you have been complaining to me about how my posts are wayyyy too long and that they never bother reading. Well, just so you know, my posts almost always has a sort of ‘theme’, a real life background or philosophy to it, which will help make your reading experience better but isn’t the main point of the post. If you’re one of those people who complain, then please, skip to the next section of the post.

Niccolo Macchiavelli

The whole basis of Machiavellianism is:

The employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.

The philosophy of Machiavellianism is named after Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian writer who wrote a book called The Prince, published in 1532. The main idea of the book was that a leader may resort to anything, however low, in order to do what is best for the state. In short: the end justifies the means. No matter how wrong, how immoral your actions were, if you have accomplished your task- it’s all fine. 

As I quoted in the introductory sentence: politics have no relation to morals.

It’s a very dark way of thinking, alright. For those of you who can’t quite comprehend the significance of this line of thinking, I’ll explain it to you. By saying that you’re allowed to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, no matter how wrong, in order to do what you deem ‘best’ for the state, you’re opening a heck of a lot of possibilities up. Let’s think of an analogy to play with here. We’ll take the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people during the Second World War. Hitler deemed that a Jew-free state would allow a German utopia to exist. He deemed a country with no Jews as what is best for the state.

How he intended to get there, though, involved the extermination of all the Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Six million Jews would die during the Holocaust, along with a large number of Gypsies and disabled people. How do you justify killing six million people? How do you say the mass murder of a whole race is correct? It boggles the modern mind just to think about that.

But of course- if the end justifies the means, doesn’t that make this alright? If Hitler, the head of state, thought that having no Jewish people would make the world become a better place, does that mean it was fine to be putting Jews in chambers and spraying them with poison gas, because that was simply the way Hitler had to do these things?

“It’s not pleasant, alright, but, y’know, the end justifies the means!”

Is it right?

Depends on whether or not you agree with Niccolo Machiavelli.

The Machiavellianization of Armies

I know I’ve used quite an extreme example here of what a flawed way of thinking ‘the end justifies the means’ is, but I thought it’d be the best analogy I could use. In any case, since this is Club Penguin armies, let’s bring it back.

First- what’s the goal (the end) that all of us have?


We all want to do this at the end of the day.

Now, let’s think of some ways you can reach this goal.

  • Have a larger size
  • Have better tactics
  • Organize your army neatly on the battlefield

Yeah, it’s that simple, to be honest. You had a larger size and better tactics? It’s a victory for you. You didn’t? Then you lost. You had equal sizes/tactics? Then it was a tie.

As we’ve seen with recent wars, however, this easy sort of sportsmanship that Stephanie was talking about isn’t around anymore.

Instead, for whatever reason, armies have slowly resorted to morally lower and lower tactics in order to win. Once again, it’s Machiavellinism: using low tactics and cunning and duplicity, just to achieve your goal. These days, army leaders have a lot of things to do to win:

  • Have a larger size
  • Have better tactics
  • Organize your army neatly on the battlefield
  • Never surrender- DO NOT ADMIT YOU LOST- lie your way to victory
  • DDoS the enemy leader offline 
  • Multilog
  • Use bots
  • Get allies to dress up in your uniform

The list goes on and on. You may have noticed that ways 4-9 are not what armies would officially consider ‘acceptable’. Yet there’s clear evidence that people are using them all the time in modern battles. All of this- just to reach the main goal: Winning.

Once again: by not admitting you lost and making sure the enemy leader isn’t online to lead, you can say “I WON”. Does this end justifies the means you get to there?

In my personal opinion- and I believe would also be an opinion shared by the wide majority of the readers of this post- no it does not. But that doesn’t stop people from using them, however.

Armies are quickly becoming more and more ‘Machiavellinized’, as they unknowingly buy into the concept that the end justifies the means, no matter how low.

We no longer care about whether what we do is right or not. Lying, hacking- we do them all! “Politics have no relation to morals.” It’s happening all the time. In the NachosRPF war, we have rampant accusations of the other side using DDos’ing, hacking, multilogging, and both sides dispute their victories on the majority of the battles due to their inability to admit defeat (come on, lying is okay, right?) The ACPAR war has also been full of victory disputes and the usage of low tactics to try to gain victory- something that is already starting to happen in the ACPUMA war.

This Machiavellinization and lack of sportsmanship isn’t an exception any longer. It’s a trend and every major war seems to be following the same path.

Shame and Defeat

This section attempts to examine the reason why this ‘Machiavellinization’ is happening. Skip if you have a short attention span.

I’ve tried to think about exactly why armies have been going downward in terms of our morality, and really, there’s no clear answer to this. But a reason is certainly that we all want to avoid shame.

I don’t know how and why this happened, but it seems like slowly we’re starting to look at admitting defeat as shameful. It’s a humiliation, a disgrace for the army- whatever. But that seems to be playing a part. Leaders are now too arrogant to admit defeat, because of their ego or whatever- and they don’t want to feel the shame of having to say, “I lost. You won. Good game.” Admitting defeat is simply a shameful act. There can be no defeat, only victory.

This leads to the usage of all sorts of low, Machiavellian tactics to try to be able to win.

Of course, according to good sportsmanship- admitting defeat is NOT a shame. It’s an act of honor to be able to recognize when you’ve lost, and admit it in public gracefully.

Armies have to recognize this. We are now trying to go through whatever means we are capable of, no matter how low, in order to attain victory to avoid the shame of admitting defeat. This is a broken system of low sportsmanship that takes out the fun and energy from the whole community and turns it into a place of hate and lies.

We have, in conclusion, been Machiavellinized and is now willing to do immoral acts just to avoid the shame of admitting defeat and to claim victory.

Thanks for reading.


CPAC Vice President


28 Responses

  1. By the way, Machiavellinization isn’t an actual word, just something I made up to describe the situation in armies. Don’t use it in your school essay.


    • You came up with the word Niccolo Machiavelli due to the fact “The Prince” stated:a leader may resort to anything, however low, in order to do what is best for the state.

      The word does make sense.


      • Machiavelli was the guy who wrote ‘The Prince’.

        What I meant was while ‘Machiavelliasm’ is a real philosophy, ‘Machiavelliziation’ is not a proper word.


  2. any post that cross references history/politics with CLUB PENGUIN armies generally suck to me


  3. Very impressive post. Machiavelli is important to anyone who is involved in politics and almost anything to do with power.


  4. kids, slapshy is just tryin to taech y’all a leson, b grrateful o:


  5. -claps slowly-

    Well done sir, well done.


    • The truly disgusting part will be when people start commenting:

      “_____ (army who my army is at war with) do this all the time.”

      Everyone here is at fault for this, and as you said, the growing theme that defeat = dishonor is largely to blame.


    • Thanks Blue2 ;D


  6. My brain had an orgasm.


  7. Black Rebels always did this @Blue2 -wary-


  8. Another addition do Splasher’s vast list of quality philosophy.


  9. I’m always one for low tactics, as long as they are legal. I’m ashamed that armies have since started using DDoSing, bots, multi-logging, etc. It makes me wonder… how did we get to this point? How did we get from throwing snowballs at each other in the name of innocent fun to this?

    It’s disgusting.


  10. What would you perfer? We all hold hands and sing kumbaya? Alls fair in love and war, baby.


  11. Reading back into CPAC archives, I think this is one of my favorite philosophy posts to date.


What do YOU think? Comment your opinion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: