That is the end of my rant.

We (absolute monarchists) reject the Medievalists & Tocquevillists who want to return to an antiquity of "little kings" & greater nobility & a constitutionalism of "one among equals" invariably found in Aristotle's City. We adhere to Darius & notions of monarchical pre-eminence. ... I utterly reject this ideology of petty kings no matter how many appeals to the Middle Ages Tocquevillists plead and about the modernity of Sovereignty. ... Our antiquary appeal is to Darius in the Herodotus Debate & Homer's Monarchist Maxim & notions of monarchical pre-eminence. ... If we were to say "let there be one ruler, one king" to these Tocquevillists, they would whine, cry, and scream CENTRALIZATION! b/c we have demanded the rule of a singular authority under one person, one ruler, one monarch. Not many kings, but let there be one king.

Mussolini >The nation is a family, and in this family, there must be no privileged sons or abandoned sons.

/monarchy/ is an /mlp/ board now.

>>7292 ALL HAIL THE PONY QUEEN GRACE

<Bodin's Anti-Regicide Remarks >But when I perceived on every side that subjects were arming themselves against their princes; that books were being brought out openly, like firebands to set Commonweals ablaze, in which we are taught that princes sent by providence to the human race must be thrust out of their kingdoms under the pretense of tyranny, and that kings must be chosen not by their lineage, but by the will of the people; and finally that these doctrines were weakening the foundations not only of this realm only but of all states, then I denied that it was the function of a good man or of a good citizen to offer violence to his prince for any reason, however great a tyrant he might be; and contended that it was necessary to leave this punishment to God, and to other princes. And I have supported this by divine and human laws and authorities, and most of all by reason which compel assent. >But if it be so that the soldier which had only broken the vine truncheon of his Captain, beating him by right or wrong, was by the law of arms to be put to death: then what punishment deserves the son which lays hand upon his father?

>One must not however label as evidence of tyranny the executions, banishments, confiscations, and other deeds of violence that mark a restoration [or transition] in a commonwealth. Such changes are necessarily violent, as was illustrated by what happened at the establishment of the Triumvirate in Rome, and at the election of many of the Emperors. It is not proper, either, to call Cosimo de Medici a tyrant for building a citadel, surrounding himself with foreign guards, and taxing his subjects heavily for their upkeep, after the assassination of Alessandro, Duke of Florence. Such medicine was necessary to a commonwealth ravaged by so many seditions and insurrections, and for a licentious and unruly populace, everlastingly plotting against the new duke, though he was accounted one of the wisest and most virtuous princes of his age. >Not only is the subject guilty of high treason who kills his prince, but so also is he who has merely attempted it, counselled it, wished it or even considered it… We read that the most holy doctors that the Jews ever knew, those who were known as the Essenes or experts in the law of God, held that Sovereign princes, of whatever character, should be regarded by their subjects as sacred and inviolable, and given of God. One cannot doubt that David, king and prophet, was informed by the spirit of God if ever man was, having always before his eyes the law of God. It was he who said, "Slander not the Prince, nor speak evil of the magistrate." Nothing is more insisted on in the Holy Writ than the wickedness of compassing the death of the prince, or any responsible magistrate, or even making any attempt against their life or honour, even though, adds the Scripture, they be evil men.

<O how many Tyrants should there be: >O how many Tyrants should there be, if it should be lawful for Subjects to kill Tyrants? How many good and innocent Princes should be as Tyrants perished by the conspiracy of their subjects against them? He that should of his subjects but exact subsidies, should be then, as the vulgar people esteem him, a Tyrant: He that should rule and command contrary to the good licking of the people, should be a Tyrant: He that should keep strong guard and garrisons for the safety of his person, should be a Tyrant: He that should put to death traitors and conspirators against his State, should be also counted a Tyrant. How should good Princes be assured of their lives, if under colour of Tyranny they might be slain by their subjects, by whom they ought to be defended? >And in this, the princes much deceive themselves [and namely they which give reward to them that have slain Tyrants, to make them a way unto the sovereignty]. For they shall never assure themselves of their own lives, if they severely punish not the conspirators against their own prince and murderers of him, although he was never so great a Tyrant. As most wisely did Severus the emperour, who put to death all them which had any part in the murder of the emperour Pertinax: which was the cause (as says Herodian) that there was no man which durst attempt his life. So also Vitelliu the emperour put to death all the murderers and conspirators against Galba, who had presented requests signed with their own hands unto the emperour Otho, to have had of him reward for their disloyalty. And Theophilus emperour of Constantinople caused them all to be called together, who had made his father emperour, after they had slain Leo the Armenian, as if he would have well recompensed them for so great a turn: who being come together with many other, who though not partakers of the murder, were yet desirous to be partakers of the reward; he caused them altogether to be slain. And that more is, the emperour Domitian put to death Epaphroditus, Nero his servant, and secretary to the state, for having helped Nero to kill himself, who most instantly requested him so to do, being thereby delievered from the executioner's hands, and cruel exemplary death. And these things we read not only Tyrants, but even good kings also to have done, not so much in regard of their own safety, as of the dignity of them who were slain. As David did unto him who in hope of reward brought him his father in law's head cut off, but slain by his enemies. And Alexander the Great caused cruelly to be put to death him who had murdered king Darius, abhorring the subject which durst to lay hand upon his king: although Alexander himself by lawful war sought after his life and state, as being his lawful enemy. The same, I'll add, happened to a notable conspirator against Caligula, Cassius Chaerea.

<It is okay to judge and kill Limited Monarchs, but not Absolute Sovereign Monarchs; Or if Defeated by Right of Conquest by a Foreign nation or Prince >But the chief question of this our discourse, is to know, whether a Sovereign Prince come unto that high estate by election, or by lot, by rightful succession, or by just war, or by the especial vocation of Almighty God; forgetting his duty, and become without measure cruel, covetous, and wicked, so perverting the laws of God and man, and such an one as we commonly call a Tyrant, may be lawfully slain or not. And true it is that many interpreters, both of God's and man's laws, have said it to be lawful: many of them without distinction joining these two incompatible words together, a King a Tyrant: which so dangerous a doctrine has been the cause of the utter ruin and overthrow of many most mighty empires, and kingdoms. But to decide this question well, it behooves us to distinguish an Absolute Sovereign Prince, from him which is not so: and also subjects from strangers, according as wee have before declared. For it is great difference to say that a Tyrant may lawfully be slain by a prince a stranger; or by his own subject. >And for that only cause Timur, whom our writers commonly call Tamerlane emperour of the Tartars, denounced war unto Bayezid I, Sultan of the Turks, who then besieged Constantinople; saying that he was come to chastise his tyranny, and to deliver the afflicted people; whom indeed he in a set battle vanquished in the plains near unto Mount Stella: and having slain three hundred thousand Turks, kept the tyrant (taken prisoner) in chains in an iron cage until he died. <Neither in this case is it material whether such a virtuous prince being a stranger proceed against a Tyrant by open force, or fineness, or else by way of justice. True it is that a valiant and worthy prince having the tyrant in his power, shall gain more honour by bringing him unto his trial, to chastise him as a murderer, a manqueller, and a robber: rather then to use the law of arms against him.

>We have also another more rare example of Saul, who possessed with an evil spirit, caused the priests of the lord to be without just cause slain, for that one of them had received David flying from him, and did oftentimes what in his power was, to kill, or cause to have been killed the same David, a most innocent prince, by whom he had got so many victories over his enemies: at which time he fell twice himself into David his hands; who blamed of his most valiant soldiers (over whom he then commanded) for that he would not suffer his so mortal an enemy then in his power, to be slain, being in most assured hope to have enjoyed the kingdom after his death, he detested their counsel, saying, God forbid that I should suffer the person of a king, the Lords anointed to be violated. Yea moreover he himself defended the same king persecuting of him, when as he commanded the soldiers of his guard overcome by wine and sleep to be wakened. And at such time as Saul was slain, and that a soldier thinking to do David a pleasure, presented him with Saul his head: David forthwith caused the same soldier to be slain, which had brought him the head, saying, Go thou wicked, how durst thou lay thine impure hands upon the Lords anointed? thou shalt surely die therefore: and afterwards without all dissimulation mourned himself for the dead king. All which is worth our good consideration. For David was by Saul persecuted to death, and yet wanted not power to have revenged himself, being become stronger than the king by the aid of his enemies, unto whom he fled even against his will: besides that he was the chosen of God, and anointed by the hands of Samuel, to be king of the people, and had also married the kings daughter: and yet for all that he abhorred to take upon him the title of a king, and much more to attempt any thing against the life or honour of Saul, or to rebel against him, but chose rather to banish himself out of the realm, than in any sort to seek the kings destruction. So we also read, that the most holy and best learned men that ever were amongst the Jews whom they called the Essei (that is to say, the true executors of the law of God) held, that Sovereign Princes whatsoever they were, ought to bee unto their subjects inviolable, as persons sacred, and sent unto them from God. And we doubt not, but that David a king and prophet, led by the spirit of God, had always before his eyes the law of God, which says, Thou shalt not speak evil of thy prince, nor detract the Magistrate. Neither is there any thing more common in all the holy Scripture, than the forbidding not only to kill or attempt the life or honour of a prince, but even for the very magistrates also, although (says the Scripture) they be wicked and naught. If therefore he be guilty of treason against God and man, which doth but detract the magistracy; what punishment then can be sufficient for him that shall attempt his life? >For the law of God is in this case yet more precise than are the laws of men: For the law Julia holds but him guilty of treason, which shall give counsel to kill the magistrate, whereas the law of God expressly forbids in any sort to speak of the magistrate evil, or in any wise to detract him. Wherefore to answer unto the vain and frivolous objections & arguments of them which maintain the contrary, were but idly to abuse both our time and learning. But as he which doubts whether there be a God or nor, is not with arguments to be refuted, but with severe punishments to bee chastised: so are they also which call into question a thing so clear, and that by books publicly imprinted; that the subjects may take up arms against their prince being a Tyrant, and take him out of the way howsoever:

<Howbeit that the most learned divines, and of best understanding, are clear of opinion, that it is not lawful for a man not only to kill his Sovereign Prince, but even to rebel against him, without an especial and undoubtful commandment from God; as we read of Jehu, who was chosen of God, and by the prophet anointed king of Israel, with express commandment utterly to root out all the house of king Achab. He before as a subject had right patiently borne all his wickedness and outrages. Yea the most cruel murders and torturing of the most holy prophets, and religious men, the unworthy murders, banishments, and proscriptions of the subjects; as also the most detestable witchcraft of queen Jezebel: yet for all that durst he attempt nothing against his Sovereign Prince, until he had express commandment from God, by the mouth of his prophet, whom God indeed so assisted, as that with a small power he slew two kings, caused seventy of king Achab his children to be put to death, with many other princes of the kings of Israel and of Juda, and all the idolatrous priests of Baal, that is to say of the Sunne, after that he had caused Jesabel the queen, to be cast headlong down from an high tower, and left her body to be torn in pieces and eaten up of dogs. >But we are not to apply this especial commandment of God, unto the conspiracies and rebellions of mutinous subjects against their Sovereign Princes. And as for that which Calvin says, if there were at this time magistrates appointed for the defense of the people, and to restrain the insolency of kings, as were the Ephori in Lacedemonia, the Tribunes in Rome, and he Demarches in Athens, that they ought to resist and impeach their licentiousnesse and crueltie: he sheweth sufficiently, that it was never lawful in a right Monarchy, to assault the prince, neither to attempt the life or honour of their Sovereign King: for he speaks not but of the popular and Aristocratique states of Commonwealths. And we have before showed, that the kings of Lacedemonia were no more but plain Senators and captains: and when he speaks of states, he says, Possibly, not daring to assure any thing. Howbeit that there is a notable difference betwixt the attempting of the honour of his prince, and the withstanding of his tyranny; between killing his king, and the opposing of ones self against his cruelty.

>We read also, that the Protestant princes of Germany, before they entered into arms against Charles the emperor, demanded of Martin Luther if it were lawful for them so to do or not; who frankly told them, That it was not lawful, whatsoever tyranny or impiety were pretended; yet was he not therein of them believed: so thereof ensued a deadly and most lamentable war, the end whereof was most miserable, drawing with it the ruin and destruction of many great and noble houses of Germany, with exceeding slaughter of the subjects: whereas No cause (as saith Cicero) can be thought just or sufficient for vs to take up arms against our country. And yet it is most certain, that the sovereignty of the empire rests not in the person of the emperour, (as we will in due place declare) but being chief of the state, they could not lawfully take up arms against him, but by a general consent of the state, or of the greater part of them, which was not done: then much less is it lawful to take up arms against a Sovereign Prince. I cannot use a better example, than of the duty of a son towards his father: the law of God says, That he which speaks evil of his father or mother, shall be put to death. Now if the father shall be a thief, a murderer, a traitor to his country, as an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, an atheist, or what so you will else; I confess that all the punishments that can bee devised are not sufficient to punish him: yet I say, it is not for the son to put his hand thereunto, Quia nulla tanta impiet as, nullum tantum scelus est, quod sit parricidio vindicandum. For that (as saith an ancient Orator) no impiety can be so great, no offense so heinous, as to be revenged with the killing of ones father. >And yet Cicero reasoning upon the same question, says, our country to bee dearer unto us than our parents. Wherefore the prince whom you may justly call the father of the country ought to be unto every man dearer & more reverend than any father, as one ordained & sent unto vs by God. I say therefore that the subject is never to be suffered to attempt any thing against his Sovereign Prince, how naughty & cruel soever he be lawful it is, -- not to obey him in things contrary unto the laws of God & nature: to flee and hide ourselves from him; but yet to suffer stripes, yea and death also rather than to attempt any thing against his life or honour. O how many Tyrants should there be; if it should be lawful for subjects to kill Tyrants? how many good and innocent princes should as Tyrants perish, by the conspiracy of their subjects against them? He that should of his subjects exact subsidies, should be then (as the vulgar people call him) a Tyrant: he that should rule and command contrary to the good liking of the people, should be a Tyrant: (as Aristotle in his Politics says him to be) he that should keep strong guards and garrisons for the safety of his person, should be a Tyrant: he that should put to death traitors and conspirators against his state should be also counted a Tyrant. And indeed how should good princes be assured of their lives, if under the colour of tyranny they might bee slain of their subjects, by whom they ought to be defended? Not for that I would say it not to be lawful for other Princes by force of arms to prosecute tyranny (as I have before said) but for that it is not lawful for subjects so to doe

Aristotle notes that taller regions or maybe suggesting mountainous ones are preferable for monarchies and oligarchies, Aristotle's Politics: >As to strongholds, what is suitable to different forms of government varies: thus an acropolis is suited to an oligarchy or a monarchy, but a plain to a democracy That doesn't explain Switzerland or monarchical empires ruling vast swaths of land, but I guess there was Montenegro and King of Haiti building his citadel on the height of Haiti: keep in mind this is also in light of a city-state, I suppose. ...I read in footnotes somewhere about Plato's Laws that for Plato didn't want his city on the sea because-- >because "exposure to the outside world would cause much diversity and perversity of manners"... I'm not altogether sure about this. I think I read in the Republic also about the importance of trade (but I think somewhere too about coastal cities, so I can't say for certain). They also stressed a smaller size or population, but I believe Hobbes or Bodin disregards this somewhere and says a commonwealth can be any size really. --I know that a State being reduced to a city-state was also disregarded.

>After Bokassa... we don't recognize ourselves anymore. Sovereignty truly is the civil soul; take away the archstone, all sense of identity disintegrates; people don't recognize themselves anymore, lose touch with their identity & name. When a country collapses and a new flag is adopted, people forget who they were. A new sovereignty is a new soul, a new name, a new identity, a new form. The formation of a new Leviathan (or, as Hobbes dubbed, a new mortal god under the immortal god), a new cult of personality. In the process of that destruction of that pre-eminent force, the archstone that holds all the stones together, they begin to collapse: >Tribalism came back; Nepotism came back; Regionalism came back; Tribal Wars came back.

The Hobbesian Bellum omnium contra omnes or the war of all against all is an unforgettable cautionary tale.

1st pic: How it really is with Graceposter & neofeudalists >Graceposter: Holy fuck, these neofeudalists are insufferable and annoying, they are applying Aristotle's city to a map, they hate Monarchy and are almost tantamount to being Oligarchyfags, they idolize the Middle Ages too much, and some are traditionalist constitutional monarchists; why are there so many anarcho-capitalists ancaps neofeudalists everywhere? they keep talking shit about absolute monarchists like myself and citing their Medievalist contemparies like Alexis de Tocqueville, De Jouvenel, Ernst Kantorowicz, with a right libertarian edge in vain attempts to refute our notions of monarchical pre-eminence and majesty. Don't these people realize how their clutch on the centralization and decentralization dichotomy inherently works against Monarchy itself as a form of State? I don't think I ever want to hear the word Feudalism again because I'm tired of listening to neofeudalists. I can't stand these feudfags! I will cite Alfredo Rocco, a Fascist & Minister of Italy, against their contrived Medievalist historical narrative against absolute monarchy and try to refute them and form my own counter historical narrative! >:( That will show them just how much I HATE these neofeudalists! vs 2nd pic: How /leftypol/ thinks (via historical materialism) of Graceposter & neofeudalism <Graceposter: I love neofeudalists and feudalism! in fact, I only talk about the feudalism and the Middle Ages; land-based utility and neofeudalism forever! I like it because it is so decentralized and akin to Aristotle's views of State. I'm all about decentralization no matter what, haha! Every monarch should be one among equals with the nobles and for the nobles to limit him! since the monarchy is one private estate among other private estates and by no means is he the State or pre-eminent. The clergy should also be superior to the monarch right down to the altar boy because, uh, spiritual sword > temporal sword and obviously considerations of State are inferiour and no consequence to the formal integrity of society as a whole and our moral upbringing! and I'm an ultramontanist tradcath too, btw. Yeah, I love limited monarchy and constitutionalism so much under a Medievalist paint! Consider me an anarcho-monarchist, anarchy should be the ideal, monarchy because no man rules alone! (Our view of Monarchy is not wrapped up in the terms of historical materialism, I should add. Our terms of Monarchy are expressed as a form of State in the express terms of the Herodotus Debate and as Bodin & Hobbes elaborated are understood universally, not to a particular time period like the Middle Ages only, but all time. Neither do I see Monarchy as only possible under Feudalism or a land-based economic formula, but Monarchy is any state where there is the rule of one person held in pre-eminence, simple as. Not that leftists have to share those views or abandon historical materialism).

There is the unity of one person like in a household under one head, and the sword and crosier, for the perfection of State. It is no matter of stratocracy or hierarchy, warrior caste or priest caste, for both functions fall under all functions of every profession, every service, and employment of the household: the unity of the household accounts for it all, the unity of State all the households with every person and rank in consideration as the moral unity and grand total of them all together, united. North Korea has the right idea: >It is said soldiers should be commanded by one general *breaks sword*

We should abhor a pretense of partiality like this (temporal vs spiritual power; Thomas Beckett era antics), that brings imperfection of State and breaks it, divides it against itself with one community (the priests) against the other community (the warriors), and not only against each other, but both estates (which accounts for them both) under a political unity which no estate in the city should see itself detached from or for an estate to detach and become alien to it: this is far from ideal and perfection of the State and common good. Many traditionalists know that the divorce between church and state is bad for them: that when the church is alien to the state, they are in a way divorced from the public. They don't want to become aliens and detached from political life, so neither should they under pretext of temporal and spiritual power, divide the state against itself, as a house divided against itself cannot stand: so for perfection of State, the sword and crosier must be united, and above all like in a household, under one person. The political is by no means just mundane and the culture uninspired for its temporal location and identity: it would be a shame to label the greatest heroes and virtuous leaders in history, uninspiring and mundane, and beneath the office of an even an altar boy, for those reasons.

As vast as the sea, as high as the sky The achievements of the General Are all for the people

I always felt this song perfectly described the pre-eminent monarchy absolutism is infatuated with. >That the earth and the heavens >ring out the sound of his glowing glory This pre-eminent prince has majesty, unites the temporal and spiritual glory with his unity of person. >'It is in vain to trouble him, everything is united, all conspires >It is in vain that leagues of kings envy The pre-eminent one (the sovereign monarch) makes Tocquevillists and Oligarchists seethe, wanting to have Aristotle's City and the rule of a few, but we hold Homer's monarchist maxim, that there should be one ruler in the state and not many petty kings or one among equals, for there was a time when there were many kings and by no means not a monarchy albeit there were royalty, as many kings are not one king. So Caligula in having a monarchy said to his client kings who wanted to share a table with him, that there should be one ruler. And these leagues of kings envy him. >We must admire him everywhere >Let's talk of his virtues, recounting his exploits Like Aristotle described, a kind of pre-eminent virtue, majesty or sovereignty. >Barely can we suffice >With all our voices Louis XIV's motto: Nec pluribus impar, not unequal to many. The pre-eminent monarch has the relationship of the whole State itself in his person. And as Jean Bodin says, not only equal to them all together, but even a superiour. >Happy Empire >Who follows his laws He is a living law. As James VI & I said, he is a living law, and the law a dumb king. >It must be said a hundred and one hundred times Like Plato said, people are in a state of disbelief that there can be such a pre-eminent person and he should have the authority of an absolute & simple monarchy invested with majesty, so it must be said a hundred and one hundred times until people finally understand the pre-eminence of their king and dispel the doubt of an incredulous people. –Which is why Bossuet says the public has to be dazzled with the royal splendour & there should be parades like in Aladdin to dispel their incredulity. People are in a state of doubt naturally when thinking of monarchy, too eager to kill a person when in a state of disbelief, and to doubt a person at every turn and question it: but when a people are under the state of pre-eminence, they'll follow and won't be as eager to kill or stop at every turn and action… obedience being, as Xenophon says in Cyropaedia, the wheel of the State.

I compared this Wizard of Oz scene to Hobbes Leviathan. Here you have this artificial man. They are in a state of awe – Hobbes always described this Common Power for his pre-eminent monarchy to place them in a state of awe. >Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei <There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Hobbes understood the nature of monarchical pre-eminence (this is a lost art among monarchists; many don't understand & how it is inherent to the question of monarchy) & also what he was responding to with Aristotle. … I'd say there are 5 keys to restoring confidence & obedience for royal monarchy: 1. The Monarch is a Teacher, source of Wisdom 2. The Monarch is a Provider / Caretaker, like a Father 3. The Monarch is a Protector, like a Soldier 4. Blood Relationship, that the Monarch is the lifeforce and sovereign of the State, & a royal bond 5. Majesty and pre-eminence secured, to be in relation of the whole State itself. Now part of the problem is monarchists themselves are under no spell of pre-eminence, really, compared to leftists who follow their leaders and hold the very names of them. Unlike monarchists, I don't think I ever see leftists pondering when to kill their leaders, but monarchists do all the time and somewhat justify it because it is the only way – but how I see it with monarchists is they are in that state of doubt Plato described and if we must have monarchy that is an obstacle to overcome… as many people doubt royalty and see them as incompetent without a chance compared to the statesmen or experts. Which puts statesmen in a far greater place to become monarchs than royalty themselves. … Neither do they think Monarchy provides. The economic schools don't help with that. And because many rightwingers believe in the pre-eminence of the free market, they are reluctant and don't want to see a monarch as a provider to begin with. … Does Monarchy protec? another problem is rightwingers doubt royalty have their best interests in mind for being in bed with globohomo as they call it. … Blood relationship? as an ant queen is the lifeforce of a monogamous ant colony and Christ's flesh and blood is important for salvation, it is hard to say people see a monarch as essential to the well being of their State – if they killed or removed any royalty, they don't think it would change their identity or rock the ship of state. They also don't feel any kinship: many nationalists see royalty as foreigners and traditionalists unwittingly to their own stupidity encourage this mentality and say it is a good thing royalty should be seen as alien to the people they rule. The traditionalists do this in an appeal to go back to a time when religious affiliation mattered more than where you were from or what nationality, but those days are long gone and it pertained moreso to supporting Christ's kingship and not their own.

Xenophon Cyropaedia >“When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves... You may see how the sick man will beg the doctor to tell him what he ought to do, how a whole ship's company will listen to the pilot, how travellers will cling to one who knows the way better, as they believe, than they do themselves. 'You would have me understand', said Cyrus, 'that the best way to secure obedience is to be thought wiser than those we rule?' 'Yes', said Cambyses, 'that is my belief.' >“None quicker, my lad, than this: wherever you wish to seem wise, be wise.” >“Well, my son, it is plain that where learning is the road to wisdom, learn you must, as you learn your battalion-drill, but when it comes to matters which are not to be learnt by mortal men, nor foreseen by mortal minds, there you can only become wiser than others by communicating with the gods through the art of divination. But, always, whenever you know that a thing ought to be done, see that it is done, and done with care; for care, not carelessness, is the mark of the wise man. From what I have seen and experienced, Xenophon's advice is very true, but people don't see the throne as a seat of wisdom. There is also two forces that compel obedience: love and fear, rewards and punishments.

People know politicians provide, they have all these platforms and promises to provide for the people… in antiquity, rulers made sure people knew they were the ones providing for them by putting their faces on their money, so when they bought bread with that money the correlation between the ruler and the money they used to sustain themselves connected. So people are more ready to eat from the hands of statesmen than royalty. All the royal monarchies that have power tend to be incredibly wealthy and that is for a reason: a royal with all that at his disposal can provide for the people. Or palace economies. Or they are very socialized economies. This is almost tantamount to a lordly or despotic monarchy, but all monarchies should assert themselves as providers to gain obedience and rule the people.

What is so especial about monarchy for monarchy's sake or such stress on monarchical form? What is it about the quality of one ruler? is having one ruler in itself really so important? P. Dormer in Monarchia Triumphans states here: >Pythagoras ascribes to one what's due to God

Nothing is more stupid to me than to oppose Monarchy to the Dictator. We all acknowledge how Kaiser & Czar are derived from the name of that literal dictator Julius Caesar. The Dictator has monarchical form & numerous dictators became royalty. Aristotle even describes a dictatorship as a form of royalty / monarchy.

Homer's Monarchist Maxim. Monarchy = one person rule. Period. This is the most essential thing about MONarchy, imo.

Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Queen Bee >Just as worker bees form a group and live in a disciplined way, centring on a Queen Bee, so the collective must have a centre and discipline. '''Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Household >If a family is to manage its household affairs well only one member of the family should control its finances. Likewise, if a nation is to manage its economic life properly it must use its finances on the principle of a single management system. Kim Il Sung -- Party Organization >Kim Il Sung repeated this question to himself, picking up a pencil and tapping it lightly on the table. After a while, he asked the foreign quest: "Do you know how bees live?" <"What do you mean?" asked the latter >With a meaningful smile on his face, Kim Il Sung resumed: Bees are united around the Queen Bee. Of course, this mode of experience is a natural phenomenon based on their instinct, but it may provide an answer to the question of how to build up a party. >He went on: "Just as bees live in an orderly fashion united around the Queen Bee, there must be a centre and discipline within a collective." >He said that what was essential in building up a party was to unite all its members firmly around the leader, concluding that a party, which achieved the unity of all its members in ideology and will with the leader at the centre, would be ever-victorious. '''Kim Il Sung -- The Peach Story >Kim Il Sung looked around the room, and picked up a peach from the table. >Then he answered, "A party should be built like a peach." <"Like a peach?" <The guests looked at the peach. >Pointing at the peach in his hand, Kim Il Sung said: Success can be achieved in the revolution and construction only when the single-hearted unity of a leader, the party and the masses is achieved; compared with this peach, the masses are the flesh, the party is the stone, and the leader is the core in the stone. Kim Jong Il -- The leader is the life of the socio-political community >The essence of the leader in all context lies in his being the centre of lthe life of the socio-political community. There is no doubt that the center of life is important for the existence and activities of the organism. Unless the masses are united, centring on the leader, they cannot acquire vitality as an independent socio-political community. We must understand and believe that the leader is the centre of the life of the socio-political community and that it is only when we are linked to the leader organizationally, ideologically and as comrades that we can acquire immortal socio-political integrity. Kim Jong Il - Fatherly Leader & Motherly Party >In order to have a deep understanding of the value of the organization, one must consider it in relation to one's own socio-political integrity. Only through the party organization, the parent body, can the popular masses be integrated into an independent socio-political organism and become the real masters of their own destiny. We must value and respect the Party organization as the parent body of our integrity. We refer to the leader as the fatherly leader and to the Party as the motherly Party because the Party organization with the leader at its centre is the parent body of our socio-political integrity.

I hate dealing with the two king-pins: the constitutional monarchists & the ultra-clerical traditionalists. Neither side is really inspired with the pre-eminent & political notions of monarchy that absolute monarchists upheld, so we're perpetually stuck in this dichotomy that doesn't amount to anything for monarchy to begin with, thanks to the constitutional monarchism and the the anti-politicalism of the ultra-clerical traditionalists. That & people are too cushy w/ the right libertarians. IDK why I bother lamenting I've probably said this a thousand times: worst thing about being a monarchist is the community is tangled in these overgrown weeds misdirecting everything. I get demoralized thinking about this never-ending malady.