Does this sound natural? If it does, is it in American English? Or British?

It doesn't sound quite right to me, it doesn't sound particularly idiomatic either. I would change it slightly.

Resourcefulness is important, no doubt about that; but what is even more important is to master the Five Secrets of Success: to be mean, to be rotten, to be a ruffian, to be shameless and to be ruthless.

Thank you Izzy.

Is the depiction " to be a ruffian" proper for a book titled The Secrets behind Mao's Success?

I don't know if 'proper,' is the right word, but no-one has ever seized power by being nice, whether it's Mao or Henry IV.

I agree, Izzy.
I don 't see that the semi;colon is necessary; a comma 'd be OK.





David

Agreed, I didn't spot that.

I don 't mean to suggest
that a semi;colon there is bad.
I consider it to be acceptable, but a little extreme.
An ordinary comma will do.

No one?
How about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?

They didn't seize power, they were elected. Big difference.

Both of those people used bloody violence to maintain their positions.

Well, I think it is better for Ceili to answer this.

Is this true? Izzy? You've mixed up justice and injustice.

Both killing the guilty (who deserve death penalty) and killing the innocent are bloody, but they are stark different in nature.

Washington fought in the American Revolution and Lincoln presided over the Civil War. These were violent conflicts. There's nothing nice about violence.

Ceili is Canadian, not an American. It is not necessarily reasonable to assume that she has any special insights. Washington held no national elective office at the time of the American revolution. Therefore, it is pure bullshit that he "used bloody violence to maintain his position." He did not hold national elective office until 1789, more than five years after the revoluton ended.

As for Lincoln, he was President of the United States after the southern states made war on the U.S. American presidents are expected to lead the nation in war when we have been attacked. Ceili may not be the best commentator on American history, but she's way ahead of Izzytheputz, a Saxon who knows, apparently, next to nothing about American history.

It's not bullshit. Washington would never have become president if there was no American Revolution. He fought as a general, in effect seizing power from the British by use of violence. He may have been democratically elected afterwards, but the Revolution was violent.

Lincoln could have chosen to allow the south to secede but he didn't. You may prefer your own rose tinted view of history and like resort to cheap name calling, but that's because you can't handle the truth.

I'm not a Saxon, I'm an Englishman. Would you prefer it if I called you a septic?

And you're a plastic paddy, who needed to have the fact that the Pope supported King William's forces over King James' at the Battle of the Boyne, pointed out to him. So much for knowing about History.

I needed no such thing pointed out to me. You're a legend in your own mind. I'm not a Paddy of any description, you nasty little racist ****, i'm an American. How very typically waspish of you.

You're the racist one, attacking everyone who's British, Spendi, Fresco, Contrex myself to name but a few. Your use of the term 'Saxon,' is perjorative.

I did point out the fact about the Battle of the Boyne to you, and your response was to say you'd not studied that particular battle, or words to that effect. At the end of the day this all boils down to you throwing a wobbly because someone doesn't interprete historical events in exactly the same way as you.

You demonstrate your plastic paddyness every time you invite someone to kiss your red Irish backside.

You, "Spendi," Fresco and Contrex are Welsh? Who knew. It is not an attack to tell someone you think they're wrong, or to insult them after they have insulted you. As for Spurious, i don't "attack" him because i don't respond to his posts. I don't respond to his posts because i don't read them, and haven't done for years--since long before you showed up.

As for the interpretation of history, upon what basis can you allege that Washington "maintained his position with blooy violence" when his position was commander of the Continental Army, as though that were unreasonable? What would you have expected him to do, ask Clinton not to be mean him? Bloody violence is what one expects from commanders of armies, you idiot. As i've already pointed out, he was not President until more than five years after the revolution.

As for Lincoln, the nation had been attacked and was already at war when he took offfice. Maintaining himself in his office, with bloody violence if necessary, was what he was expected to do, what any President of the United States is expected to do in such a situation. Are you alleging that all the PMs of your silly little country from Pitt to Liverpool should have rolled over for Napoleon, rather than maintain their positions with bloody violence? Hypocrite.

You're just a nasty, racist, waspish little man with some kind of bizarre chip on your shoulder. But i have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to write any more worth reading than the drivel that Spurious produced in the days when i was foolish enough to read what he wrote. I've decided that your drivel is no more worth while, so you can have the last word, as many last words as you like, because i'll not waste my time on you again.