It is a little bit of a nitpick that when people dislike monarchy, the first thing they point to the Windsors. If you're /brit/, it might be understandable (and perhaps that obscures the view, maybe the potential of what /monarchy/ could be for you) -- but for others there's also so much more.

>"It is an essential requirement of a working-class party to ensure the unity of ideology and leadership. This is effected by establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system. Only when this is done can the whole Party be armed with the Leader's intention and become a living organism, breathing and acting in conformity with his idea and will." >"It is important in establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system to pervade the whole Party with the Leader's idea." >"The Leader is the embodiment of the organizational will of the whole Party and his idea is explicitly the guiding ideology of the Party. The ideological unity of the Party is brought about only on the basis of the Leader's idea." - Kim Jong Il --- >"The revolutionary cause of the working class is precisely the cause of its Leader. The Leader is the top brain of the revolution and its highest Leader and as such he plays the decisive role in the accomplishment of the revolutionary cause of the working class." - Kim Jong Il --- >"The Party's monolithic ideological system is, in other words, the Leader's ideological system and system of guidance. Without them the existence of our Party is inconceivable. The revolutionary idea of the Leader is the eternal guiding ideology of our Party and revolution." - Kim Jong Il --- >"If the Masses are an Almighty Being, our Leader is the Sun of the Masses, who personifies the hearts of the People." - Kim Jong Il --- >"The process of the building of our Party is a process of patterning it on the Juche idea. Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea is a continuation and a higher stage of our Party's historic struggle to model itself on that idea." >"Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea means, in essence, strengthening and developing our Party for all time into a party of Comrade Kim Il Sung." >"Strengthening and developing our Party into the party of the great Comrade Kim Il Sung implies having him eternally at its head and holding fast to his ideology and line and implementing them throughout all generations." >"The respected Comrade Kim Il Sung is the great leader who has, for the first time in their history of several thousand years, been acclaimed by our People; he is the Teacher and Father of our Party and People." - Kim Jong Il

>"The unity and cohesion of our Party are great and unbreakable because the entire membership is united around the great Comrade Kim Il Sung and because they are based on its infinite loyalty to the Party and the Leader. The Leader is the centre of the Party's unity and cohesion, and its strength depends on how firmly the entire membership is united behind him. The unity and cohesion of our Party are not just achieved out of duty. They are based on the membership's infinite respect for, and absolute trust in, the Party and the Leader, and founded on its unshakeable revolutionary belief and sense of gratitude which cause it to defend and protect the Party and the Leader politically and ideologically and to fight for them even at the cost of its members' lives." >"The unity and cohesion of our Party are great and unbreakable because they are based on unity of idea and purpose. The important thing in the Party's unity and cohesion is to achieve the unity of idea and will. Unity based on a single idea and purpose must be durable, otherwise it cannot achieve lasting unity. The single ideology means precisely the revolutionary idea of the Leader, the founder of the Party. The Leader's revolutionary idea is the basis of the Party's unity and cohesion; the unity and cohesion of the working-class party is the unity of idea and purpose based on the revolutionary idea." - Kim Jong Il

>"The Leader is, indeed, the infinitely benevolent father of our people and our children. We must give schoolchildren a clear understanding that their happiness is entirely due to the Leader's love for them and his consideration for them. Only then will the children remember the Leader's benevolence, support him from the bottom of their hearts and become revolutionary fighters who are unfailingly faithful to him, when they are adults." - Kim Jong Il >"Our Leader is the supreme revolutionary genius, the Sun of the nation and the benevolent father of our People, who has built a socialist paradise on this land and brought the People the happiness and glory we see today, by leading the arduous Korean revolution along the path of trials to victory without the slightest vacillation. Because of the immortal feats he has performed for mankind, his extraordinary intelligence, outstanding leadership ability and lofty communist virtues, the Leader is supported and boundlessly revered by the People. Our People eagerly desire to meet their fatherly Leader who, by devoting his entire life to the freedom and liberation of the People and leading the vanguard of the revolution and socialist construction, has provide them with the greatest happiness and continues to provide the condition for their lives to flourish, and once they have met him, they brim over with the resolution to give their wholehearted loyalty to the Leader, and are engrossed in infinitely solemn feelings and emotions." - Kim Jong Il

>Our Party equipped all our people fully with the Juche idea, united them closely behind the Leader organizationally, ideologically and morally, and thus made the revolutionary ranks a socio-political organism. >Today the Workers' Party of Korea stands firmly in the centre of the revolutionary ranks in our country, and the masses of the people, who have withstood every manner of ordeal by sharing their destiny with the Party in the long revolutionary struggle, are united rock-firm behind the Party and the Leader, sharing one mind and one will. - Kim Jong Il

>Our Party regarded education in the monolithic ideology as its basic ideological task and carried it out energetically. As a result, a single ideology has prevailed throughout the Party, and all its members have been armed firmly with the Leader's revolutionary idea, the Juche idea, and have come to think and act as required by this idea. >Another important factor in establishing the monolithic ideological system is to achieve the Leader's unitary leadership absolutely. >The Leader is the supreme controller of a party, and the party's leadership is precisely his leadership. Our Party has set up a well-regulated system under which all its organizations and members act as one man under the unitary leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, give absolute authority to Party policies and defend and implement them without question. - Kim Jong Il, The Workers' Party of Korea is a Juche type revolutionarty party which inherited the glorious tradition of the DIU

>>7500 I think what Rousseau says here, by the way, touches a lot, not only the likening civil government to domestic government, but also this is key in understanding the history of political thought: How dynastic patriotism, which identifies the general will with the corporate will, and is tangentially related to the notion civil / domestic are alike, has also initially phased from monarchy where the notion was the State was unified as One Household (which others rebuke as Despotism) would later see the divergence between one-party states with democratic centralism and fascism merging corporate will with general will, as well as the dichotomy between one-party States and multi-party Democracies. You can follow it from Plato and Aristotle, and also Absolute Monarchies, well into the modern age. As stereotypical and trite as it sounds, absolute monarchies and modern dictatorships do have that common thread in dynastic patriotism in a way, since indeed the corporate entity is merged with the general will, which mirrors the discussion about political and economical not differing, which is very critical for absolute monarchists to consider.

>>7585 And I know people get caught up between notions of popular sovereignty or something more divinely inspired, but there's more depth to the conversation. All that matters is it achieves that unitary aim. I also said before, that multi-parties have come to replace the notion of the estates, and one-parties with the more unitary views of absolute monarchists which holds that political and economical are no different, and so the state should be under one head (a monarch) like one household is domestically...

This is a controversial opinion of mine. If any monarchists are reading this, understand that corporatism for these regimes shares a common thread with monarchy. While Hobbes' Leviathan thought that his corporatism was unprecedented, I still look back and also find a kind of corporatism in Plato's Republic, and later for Fascism. Plato Republic: >That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity. This is important to understand, primarily because the objections to corporatism in Aristotle's Politics, are also likewise Aristotle's objections to Absolute Monarchy. Because Aristotle says, that this corporatism makes the State into a Monarch (and for Aristotle, that isn't right -- he considers monarchy only appropriate for economic unit or as one among equals, the political constitution isn't appropriate for monarchy... this is where many of the problems Absolute Monarchists are faced with -- originate with, and these ideologies like Fascism and Juche are in the same boat with Absolute Monarchists in grappling against this...). The criticism towards these one-party states is also akin to the criticism of one-man rule (in fact, many of them are said to be dictatorships which in its formal quality has the resemblance of one-man rule). Monarchy is fundamentally more soundly laid upon the foundation of unity -- the ideal of the State as unity suits Monarchy far more for the same reason it does for big tent or one party states -- I've come to grasp and realize that Monarchy's unity of one person, and corporatisms unity of one personhood, have more in common. And Rousseau is right, first in suggesting how necessary it is, that for the benefit of the royalist agenda, 1. That domestic and civil government are likened & 2. that one house or any corporate entity (such as a royal house or political party or church) match the general or political power, which the former idea re-affirms, and where the ideal of unity as the nature of the state comes into being, by matching the corporate power with governmental power -- that is why Mussolini boasted, that never before had a nation been governed by one party in the manner of his regime -- corporatism means the unification of all to go out as one person, and the ideal of absolute monarchy is the same -- to unite people with one person, or have the political rule of one person (a monarch). This is why I disagree with & reject the so-called Radical Monarchists (or, those who wish to disassociate with anything they regard as radical or extreme outside of monarchy -- communism, natsoc, fascism). While absolute monarchists are very different from these ideologies in many ways, the critical common thread we have with Fascism & Marxist Leninists (in their perceived criticism of these ideologies) certainly goes back to Plato's Republic, and the notion of a community of pleasures and pains, and the Absolute Monarchist resolve has been to bring such a unity, not by abolishing private property, but with the unity of One Person such as a monarch. And that's where absolute monarchists ultimately diverge from constitutional monarchists: while constitutional monarchists pretend to value unity, they're more in line with Aristotle's view, and so support multi-party democracy instead of one-party states... which is a stance I cannot endorse for all I have learned, and why I find myself disagreeing with constitutional monarchists & right libertarians (who are firmly rooted in the opposing view of monarchy), and find myself instead studying these other regimes. So I would hope that other monarchists read and understand where we fundamentally diverge (if you're a constitutional monarchist or more of a right libertarian taking a liking to monarchy).

In other words, the State as one personhood, like a private corporation. Let's briefly chart the history: <Plato Republic: >That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity. Aristotle Politics >For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. Thomas Hobbes >And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.” So we're on the same page about corporatism, a common misconception about Fascist corporatism is that it is the corporatism of private corporations in bed with the government. We've seen this Mussolini quote >Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power What Mussolini means -- is not the merge of numerous, concordant private corporations with the governmental power (that would be closer to Aristotle's Politics, which also praises rule of the Estates & multi-parties, because his state is a plurality rather than a unity) -- what Mussolini truly means, by merger of state and corporate power is 1. a corporatism of the State itself (as one person) 2. one-party rule (a corporate body) with the general power of the state. Mussolini boasts, >A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. To really understand the full weight of why one party rule matters in this context, again, the doctrine that political & economical don't differ. It's taboo for constitutionalists to have one-party rule, because Aristotle deems political (civil) & economical (household) do differ, and what's appropriate for political rule is constitutionalism of freemen and equals, and the latter economic rule monarchy -- so the taboo of absolute monarchy (meaning a full monarchy having the capacity to rule an entire political domain) was seen as inappropriate for political rule to begin with (no matter the virtues of the monarch). Where one estate rules many estates, there's the same taboo: what Aristotle wanted was a plurality of estates forming the city, not one estate like a household ruling over the city as one household would -- before political parties, the notion was the estates-general (or the general of all the estates and houses together) and then political parties replaced the notion of the estates. One-party rule is taboo like absolute monarchy, because this corporate rule of one estate over many estates (or multi-parties) represents that idea of ruling the city like one household, but instead of a monarchy -- it is a kind of corporate monarch body. They call Plato's Republic totalitarian, because it asserts the nature of the state is unity, and that economical & political rule don't differ, and because of his aim of a community of pleasures and pains. Rousseau writes >Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government... With the help of this supposition, it is easy to make out that royal government is preferable to all others, because it is unquestionably the strongest; and in addition to that, all it needs to be the best but doesn't have -- is a corporate will that is more in conformity with the general will. Rousseau denies Hobbes' foundation: a corporate will in conformity with the general will -- that was Hobbes' answer to Aristotle, by making the public inseparable from a corporate will... he disarmed effectively disarmed Aristotle & the complaints of the constitutionalists (which says a monarch should always have, like Rousseau points out, the consent & good liking of the people, which they invariably assume a monarch won't have). Fascist Corporatism & DPRK Juche have resolved Rousseau's shtick against royal government >needs but doesn't have -- is a corporate will that is more in conformity with the general will That is what you see in Fascist Corporatism & DPRK Juche.

Arguably, for Fascism, corporatism is more than class, and that is why it is able to surpass class interests. >However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers – relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger." - Giuseppe Bottai, The Corporative State >It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person. The State, for us, has an absolute moral value – as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable. - Giovanni Gentile

By corporatism, the unification of the People as One Personhood, or as a living organism with its own agency and will. In short, where all the people act as one person or as one man. This is what single-minded unity (practiced through democratic centralism) seeks to achieve, it appears (from what I have highlighted above). We could argue whether corporatism could be understood regardless of class, but I think this is the case in DPRK: that the idea of single-minded unity and the view of the Party is to make it like one corporate person with the Leaders embodying this.

What you need to understand is most neofeudalists & right libertarian monarchists & constitutional monarchists are mentally cucked by Aristotle's constitutionalism. & traditional Catholics also have a bone to pick with us, so be wary of them. Their view of the State, like Aristotle's, is as a plurality; Plato acknowledged the nature of the State as a unity, and laid the foundation for the more corporatist doctrines (which are associated with the modern state). They'll hit you with accusations of "centralization" and long about "decentralization"; this is none other than Aristotle's City, & it is incompatible with the notion of a full & simple Monarchy that Absolutists defend. The problems we have now with Monarchy are no thanks to them. It naturally believes that a monarch cannot fully govern the State, because economical (household) & political (city / politics) have a different science, the monarchy Aristotle ascribes to the former (economical / household), & because of this their view of the State is that it -cannot- be under one head or one party or any corporate unifying body -- the right libertarians have deeply inherited this point of view, and their criticisms of absolute monarchy are essentially this. Remember, Jean Bodin's maxim, following Plato, that the true image of the Commonwealth is the Household or Family well ordered. Political & economical don't differ in science. Every sincere monarchist has maintained this doctrine for good reason.

Plato Republic: >That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity. Plato Republic: >For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love. Plato Laws: >That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible Thomas Hobbes >The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men. Aristotle Politics: >Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men. Aristotle Politics >For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. See how Aristotle disapproves of Corporatism (while Plato praises it) b/c Aristotle doesn't think it is appropriate for the State to be a Monarch (or One Personhood); Aristotle says the nature of the State is more of a plurality, & criticized Plato on those lines; and also, Aristotle said that economical & political rule have a different science, and assigned monarchy to the household / economical role (which, in this context, is limited to their estate and not the State -- hence, "limited" & "constitutional" monarchy is not just obeying fundamental laws, but a view of monarchy that greatly diminishes it. Aristotle writes in Politics, >Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state. Aristotle: >The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: >whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. This is in response to Plato, & there are many instances like this that are troublesome for Monarchy.

I cannot stress this enough. This is quintessentially the root of the problem with right libertarians / constitutional monarchists / neofeuds when it comes to their criticisms of Absolute Monarchy (which narrows down to how Aristotle deemed Monarchy inappropriate for political rule & their preference for a concord of the heads of the estates with their conventions for the laws and a constitutionalism of freemen and equals -- and the view that the true nature of the State is plurality and not unity and that economical & political have a different science, so the monarch has no capacity of knowledge for political rule). The view of "one among equals" we reject, & personally any sincere monarchist should also reject.

We've been over this countless times: When they point to the HRE & appeal to "decentralization" or "europe of a thousand liechensteins" -- is it not Aristotle's City on a map? and is it not really the same idea? except drawn out from the estates or political rule (where the heads of estate have a concord and their convention?) that is the constitutionalism of freemen and equals with the masters of estates, and finally the idea of the true nature of the state as plurality (hence "decentralization") and not so much as a unity.

You have to understand. You cannot have absolute monarchy (if you deny the nature of the State is unity) & deny that economical & political have a like science. 1st, when you deny the unity, you obviously deny the case for Monarchy: when your ideal of the State is more as a plurality and more and more decentralized, it inevitably happens that Monarchy (well, Absolute Monarchy, in this case--but I consider that the true Monarchy) is going against the State's nature simply by having one ruler over many (or, as the right libertarian anon said -- "little monarchs"). And I consider the view of the State as plurality to be equally as antithetical to Monarchy, and the advocates among us more appropriately long for an Oligarchy (where the "little monarchs" have the supreme power together, not one monarch). 2nd, deny political & economical have the same science -- there goes the capacity for the monarch to have any knowledge of governing the State without essentially relying fully on democracy (as Aristotle would have wanted). & if you cannot have a polity well ordered like a family under one head, that also is a mark against Monarchy (and that's why Aristotle denied Corporatism of the State (as one Personhood). The Slippery Slope of Mixed Constitutionalism / Neofeud Faggotry And if you accept Aristotle's view on monarchy: 1st, you admit that Monarchy is an inferior estate to the political state / constitutionalism of freemen & equals, & basically to the people (which is a big win for democracy). 2nd, this will inevitably lead to elective monarchy, & "limited monarch" in the sense that they are more like a constituent part, & should take their turn in being governed. 3rd, the ideal monarch in a mixed constitution / composite State as John Cook boasted would be more like the Duke of Venice or the US President as Clement Attlee & David Starkey say (being more like how it was with King Billy). But ask yourselves, is this what most of you think of when it comes to Monarchy? I'm telling you, if you let the constitutional monarchists, right libertarians, & neofeuds have their way -- there's a slippery slope and the ultimate end would probably be like Malaysia where the royal families take their turns & you have many kings in the same State & there's rotational government, etc.

It isn't that an absolute monarch may tax them w/o their consent, but if anyone has the authority to make the call for taxing whole State -- it is the Sovereign Monarch. Jean Bodin / Taxes >As for the right to impose taxes, or imposts upon the subjects, is as proper unto sovereign majesty, as is the law it self: not for that Commonwealth cannot stand without taxes and tallages, as the President the M. hath well noted, that taxes were not levied in this realm, but since the time of Saint Louis the king. But if it must needs be that they must for the public necessity be levied or taken away; it cannot be done but by him that hath the sovereign power; as it hath been judged and by a decree of parliament, against the duke of Burgundy; and many times since, aswell in the high court of parliament, as also in the privy council. >But here might some object and say, "That the estates of England suffer not any extraordinary charges and subsidies to be laid upon them, if it be not first agreed upon and consented unto in the high court of parliament: for so it is provided by an ancient law of Edward the first, king of England, wherewith the people as with a buckler hath been oftentimes seen to defend itself against the prince. Whereunto mine answer is, "That the other kings have in this point no more power than the kings of England: for that it is not in the power of any prince in the world, at his pleasure to taise taxes upon the people, no more than to take another man's goods from him; as Philip Commines wisely showed in the parliment holden at Tours, as we read in his Commentaries: and yet nevertheless if the necessity of the Commonwealth be such as cannot stay for the calling of a parliament, in that case the prince ought not to expect the assembly of the states, neither the consent of the people; of whose good foresight and wisdom, next unto God, the health & welfare of the whole state dependeth.

>constitutional monarchy or neofeudalism? What you have there is fool's gold & fake monarchy The constitutional monarchists & right libertarians are all mentally cucked by Aristotle's constitutionalism. Anything short of what effectively becomes democracy or an oligarchy of petty nobles they'll call "tyranny" & "despotism". If you look back in history, what we're dealing with are the same people. They were mentally cucked by Aristotle back then hundreds of years ago & now. John Cook after the regicide of King Charles I primarily condemned him b/c he wasn't one of "Aristotle's Kings" & advocated for elective & limited monarchy & cried about wanting to be more like Venice or Poland or the Scandinavian royalty.

Konstantin Pobedonostsev >In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it.

Corporatism & Absolute Monarchy are one struggle. On one hand, Corporatism, views the State as One Personhood, & on the other, Absolute Monarchy, the State is defined by the actual rule of One Person.

There is no community of goods or commonwealth or common good or economy without unity first. ... This is a chief point I think is critical for understanding sovereignty in relation to not only the economy (or the bundle of all the houses constituting the body-politic) but absolutism in relationship to the estates-general or parliament: before there is the estates-general, there must be a unity first, and the monarch as sovereign is that unity, and before there can be concord of any kind between any of the estates or economic body -- the same is asserted Many monarchists don't want to acknowledge this (*cough, cough, for a certain free market bias), but this is a point fundamental for establishing monarchy. I've talked about the evolution of these terms -- common good or community of goods --> commonwealth --> the economy --> the free market -- how gradually, these terms lost the connotation with political meaning, that now people don't even speak of the economy, but the free market as if it were completely independent of politics or like Jean Bodin tells us -- as if you were to have a city without houses. It's my conviction nobody will honestly believe sincerely in monarchical rule, if the monarchy isn't respected as fundamental to these institutions, and isn't seen as the progenitor and provider of these estates That's what the other monarchists don't understand to the detriment of monarchy: otherwise, it leads to apathy and disbelief, if they don't see how governance plays a crucial role here & arguably the whole regimen of governance is fulfilled via these means, when the people are employed and well ordered under these various estates, they are in a way being governed and with the help of the unity of sovereignty this community of goods may flourish to their general benefit, like blood being pumped into the body from the heart, stemming from the heart and into branches -- so too does sovereignty divide the channels of the city, and furnish the people with propriety of goods and lands, and makes a community of goods possible with every measure of language and standards as a means to communicate

>>7616 I bring up the Tower of Babel as a good example: so long as they had unity, they were building that tower -- once that unity was severed, and pushed into diverse languages -- there was no communication via the unity of language, and therefore no community of goods to build the tower -- the same could be said for the City or Political State concerning the economical estates or estates-general constituting it -- without unity, what concord is there? it's not the concord, but the unity -- like Thomas Hobbes truly says and in credit to Plato also with regard to Corporatism. ... Another good example is an ant colony: white vinegar or powdered cinnamon disrupts their pathing and communication. You can utterly destroy an ant colony by destroying their unity and severing their bond, whether it be a monogamous or polygamous ant colony -- and especially in a monogamous colony, if you take out the queen -- watch how the lifeforce subsides and decays. We believe this is true for all societies (no matter any pretense of centralization) -- destroy any bond of any society and watch the collapse (no matter how supposedly decentralized or centralized, I believe this is the case). ... Whatever unites us makes us stronger, be it religion, ideology, common language and race. A monarch has unity of one person to guide the people. Judges 21:24-25 >At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance. >In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

Kim Jong Un Aphorism #1 >The socialist motherland is the Leader and the embrace of the motherland is his embrace. Kim Jong Un Aphorism #2 >Devotion to the country is precisely loyalty to the Leader. Kim Il Sung Aphorisms: Love of Family, love of Country >A man who does not love his home, parents, wife and children cannot love his country and people. >Earnest devotion to the revolution represents the supreme love for one's family. >Only a man who loves both his country and his family can be called a truly dutiful son. >One's family is the original source of one's patriotism and revolutionary spirit. >When his love for his family cools, a man's enthusiasm for the revolutionary struggle will cool also.

Absolute Monarchists claim there's an absolute & sovereign power, but a common misconception is only for Monarchy; all States are said fundamentally have an absolute & sovereign power to make / change laws. This sovereign & absolute power is natural and fundamental to all States, we believe, and in part has the original in the power of the pater familias and the simplicity of the State & its unity, (& especially for Corporatism which asserts the nature of the State as a living personhood), & like a point and compass is able to draw the bounds and extent of a circle -- the same point is the matter with Sovereignty & Absolutism. Bodin spoke in general for all States, & Hobbes pic related. Thomas Hobbes / For all Monarchies, and all other States are truly indeed Absolute >Secondly, they object, That there is no Dominion in the Christian world Absolute; which indeed is not true, for all Monarchies, and all other States, are so; for although they, who have the chief Command, do not all those things they would, and what they know profitable to the City, the reason of that is not the defect of Right in them, but the consideration of their Citizens, who busied about their private interest, and careless of what tends to the public, cannot sometimes be drawn to perform their duties without the hazard of the City. Wherefore princes sometimes forbear the exercise of their Right, and prudently remit somewhat of the act, but nothing of their Right. ... If there is a power to make new laws & change or amend existing laws, that power is a sovereign power & is absolute (since it can make, change, or even revoke laws). With the exception of the laws of God & Nature & fundamental laws, Jean Bodin always says* but human laws, yes. ... Even Edward Coke & William Blackstone agree w/ Parliamentary Sovereignty, which like Absolute Monarchy, asserts an Absolute Power & Sovereignty nonetheless here: & other notions of Sovereignty also acknowledge this well into the modern era. William Blackstone / Sir Edward Coke: <The Absolutism of Parliamentary Sovereignty >The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds. And of this high court he adds, it may be truly said "si antiquitatem spectes, est vetustissima; si dignitatem, est honoratissima; di juridictionem, est capacissima." It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal: this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms. All mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. It can regulate or new model the succession to the crown; as was done in the reign of Henry VIII and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land; as was done in a variety of instances, in the reigns of King Henry VIII and his three children. It can change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves; as was done by the act of union, and the several statutes for triennial and septennial elections. It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it's power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo. So that it is a matter most essential to the liberties of this kingdom, that such members be delegated to this important trust, as are most eminent for their probity, their fortitude, and their knowledge; for it was a known apothegm of the great lord treasurer Burleigh, "that England could never be ruined but by a parliament:" and, as sir Matthew Hale observes, this being the highest and greatest court, over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom..."