Machiaveli is easy to be misunderstood as thus to be seen as a moron. I have read his major works and an extensive biography on him by one of the leading authors about him. He wasn't that moral moron (with the exception with his many relations to women, maybe
) He just was not too sentimental when assessing what works with leading the pack, and what not. He was a very dedicated realist, and he realised that lie and betrayal as well as manipulating people are the rules by which the game of power is played. He did not say that that is good or bad - he just said that that is how it is.
I recommend his Discorsi before any other of his works.
He also ws an admirer of the early Roman republic. That he had intimate knowledge of Roman history and about the names of it's poltical figures, you can easily see in the Discorsi.
To me he is not so much showing how morally crippled he was when revealing how politics get done by manipulation. He just pointed at the obvious. seen that way, he more revealed how morally crippled we all are - because we function in that way that we accept getting manipulated if only our superficial desires get pleased.
The power of the tyrant - needs the weakness and stupdity of those he rules. Philantropists tend to deny or ignoire that, claiming that it would be offending to say that. Machiaveli just showed the obvious, even if it is no compliment for us. In principle, he was just an unsentimental realist.
On the Hitler quote, one or two guys said that nothing is wrong with it. First, I do not know the context of the quote, if he said that in a context of wiping out the Jews, than obviously the quote is far from being "okay". Second, it is not only important what a quote says, but also, who the author of that quote is. And to refer to one of the worst criminals in mankind's history in order to make a moral or otherwise claimed reasonable statement, maybe is not the best of ideas. At best it helps to reinstall that criminal's bad reputation. And one must ask if that can be wanted in the case of Hitler. what's next, then? Taking simple ohrases from his speeches and rip them out of context of his policy and deeds and putting him side by side with pacifists and great philosophers of past times?