/monarchy/ - monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8001

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

Ghost Screen
Don't forget the global announcement this week
Saturday Evening


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Peasant 06/23/2023 (Fri) 06:09:25 No. 6435
grace containment thread p2
(1.62 MB 3100x3100 Grace icup ball.png)

(664.07 KB 720x404 mon test.mp4)

<Upcoming /monarchy/ events. >+ New Grace art by the end of every month (So check on /monarchy/ monthly for new art) >+More /monarchy/ - /tkr/ banter >/monarchy/ to participate in icup8 if there is an icup8, but the majority seems okay w/ our board playing
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠠⠤⠐⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠀⠤⢀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠔⢊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠐⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡐⠁⠀⠠⡁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠕⡀⠀⠑⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠬⠠⢀⠠⠍⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢒⣀⡠⠈⢂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠎⡄⠀⠀⠀⢁⠒⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠈⠀⠀⠀⢆⢂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡘⣼⠀⠀⠀⠀⡌⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠀⠀⠀⠘⡎⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢡⠉⠀⠀⠀⢠⢇⣀⣤⣤⣶⣄⠀⠀⠀⣴⣶⣤⣤⣀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⡾⢰⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡘⡎⡇⠀⠔⠒⢹⠉⠀⢀⠴⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣦⠀⠈⠉⡟⠒⠤⠀⠁⠇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⠁⠃⠀⠀⢠⡼⣳⢲⣶⣮⣗⡤⠀⠀⠀⢔⡾⣵⣶⣶⠺⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢡⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢷⡈⢟⡿⢋⠇⠛⠀⠀⠀⠋⢫⡿⢟⠝⣰⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⡎⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⡇⠀⡇⠀⠀⢀⢨⠻⠦⠤⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⠤⠤⠴⠋⡇⡄⢀⠀⠀⠀⡇⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠁⠀⠃⡌⡆⠈⣼⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠸⡇⠈⠂⡇⠀⣿⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠆⢠⢰⠀⠘⠁⢡⢠⠀⡧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠾⠁⢁⠃⠐⠀⠀⠟⡀⢃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡘⠀⠆⠈⡆⠀⠀⠀⠻⠀⢱⠈⠲⢄⡀⠈⠁⠀⠉⠀⢀⡤⠞⢁⠇⠠⠎⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⢡⠈⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁⡜⠀⠀⠰⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⢧⠀⢀⡏⠒⠠⠤⠖⠚⢉⡀⠀⡜⣠⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠃⠀⠀⠆⠐⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠃⡐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠱⣠⡀⠀⣄⠘⡊⢧⣇⢣⡀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠇⣵⡮⠺⠃⣠⠀⢀⢀⠂⠀⠀⠀⠈⠄⠱⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠆⡐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⢗⠤⣈⢳⣺⣫⡳⡕⢌⠐⡐⢊⡠⡪⢊⢾⣑⢜⡁⠔⡽⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡄⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠌⡰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣾⡻⡢⡐⣵⣿⡥⢊⢔⢵⣿⣿⣷⣦⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡄⢂⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡘⠠⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣍⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣵⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⡈⠄⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠰⢀⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠱⠘⡀⠀ ⠀⢠⠃⡌⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣏⡯⣷⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠆⠰⠀ ⠀⡌⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⣇⣫⣌⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠇ ⢠⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⠤⠤⠴⠶⠤⠤⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠖⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠞⠁⢀⠞⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢆⠀⠀⡄⠀⠘⢦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠋⠀⠀⡞⠀⠀⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⣇⠀⠸⡄⠀⠈⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡏⠀⠀⢰⠡⠤⢴⡧⠄⠀⠀⠀⢠⠤⡯⡦⣀⡇⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⣼⠒⣒⡃⣓⠒⠒⠒⠒⢒⣒⠃⠣⠤⡇⠀⠀⠀⣹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠀⠀⠀⣿⡞⡟⠋⢛⣦⠀⠀⠰⣾⠋⠋⢹⢷⡇⠀⠀⠀⡟⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⢹⠙⠙⢒⢚⠁⢀⠀⠀⠘⠒⠒⠋⠃⡇⠀⠀⠀⡇⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⢸⡄⠘⠘⠊⠀⠈⠃⠀⠀⠊⠛⠃⢰⠇⠀⠀⠀⡇⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡟⡄⠀⠀⡀⢟⢦⡀⠀⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠀⣀⡴⣺⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⢻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠱⣰⡀⠱⣾⣆⡈⡗⠦⠤⣀⠤⠔⣮⣁⢠⣷⢃⣰⢁⡏⠀⠸⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠙⢿⠢⣷⡾⡫⡳⢄⠀⠀⢀⡠⡫⢪⢯⠟⠋⢸⡞⠀⠀⠀⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀⠀⣀⡤⠵⡝⣜⢞⢮⣢⣽⡗⣯⢎⡴⣡⢪⣳⠦⣘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⢏⣤⠶⠋⠁⠈⠀⠘⢮⠢⡑⣽⣤⣿⢟⡫⢳⡵⡵⠃⠀⠈⠙⠦⣄⠀⠀⠘⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⠃⡞⠻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⠜⠋⠗⠕⢋⣴⠹⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⢳⡀⠀⠘⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡴⠁⢸⢱⠀⠹⡄⡤⠀⢀⣀⣀⡟⠀⠀⠀⣰⠻⡜⡇⡿⡇⠀⠰⡄⢠⠟⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠈⢆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⢸⡸⠀⠀⢻⠛⠀⣯⣽⡿⠀⠀⠀⢀⠇⢀⡔⢠⣿⣻⡆⠀⣷⠏⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠈⢧⡀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⠀⢸⠃⠀⠀⣼⣀⡜⠙⢿⡇⠀⠀⢀⣾⠀⠋⠀⣼⣻⡿⢧⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣰⠁⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⣿⣟⠀⠀⠀⠙⠦⣠⣿⣿⣆⢀⡬⠞⠉⠀⠈⢣⣾⡆⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢧⠀⠀ ⢠⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⡇⢀⣴⠏⠈⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⣿⡟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⡁⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⠀ ⣸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣯⡏⠹⠃⠀⠀⠀⠙⠢⣄⠀⢀⡾⣻⠹⡄⠀⠀⢀⣠⡞⠃⠈⢿⠆⢸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⠀ ⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢵⡾⢶⣿⠶⠟⣤⠒⠉⠈⠀⠀⠀⠈⠃⡞⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀ ⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡹⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣏⣀⣀⣺⣉⣓⣘⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇ ⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠘⢦⣀⣀⣠⠤⠖⡧⢼⠀⠀⠀⠀⡧⠤⠤⡽⠒⠦⡤⠤⠞⠁⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⡇
[Expand Post]⠸⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡟⣆⠀⢀⠞⠓⢒⠒⠷⠽⠤⠤⠤⠤⠯⠭⠵⠓⠒⠒⢣⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠁ ⠀⢳⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⠈⢦⡯⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠱⡄⠀⠀⢠⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠐⠚⢀⡞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⡄⢀⡎⡜⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⠤⠃⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⡍⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⡀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⠴⠚⠃⠉⠉⠉⠁⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠃⠶⣠⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠶⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠚⢆⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠲⡢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠁⠀⠀⠀⡰⠁⠀⠀⣼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣄⠀⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡳⠁⠀⠀⠀⢠⡓⠒⠊⣹⢹⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠐⠒⠒⣺⠺⣓⠠⡦⠀⠀⠀⠂⠠⢀⢩⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⠇⢀⢰⡇⢸⡄⠀⢀⠀⠀⠆⠀⠀⢀⣿⠀⣧⡆⣻⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠞⣧⢻⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠯⠼⢼⣼⡃⢘⠽⠿⠜⠛⠟⠻⠻⠿⡏⠇⠀⠸⣄⣹⡄⠀⠈⠀⠀⠘⢩⡜⣥⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠁⠀⠀⠀⠂⢸⣴⡾⡻⣹⣿⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣵⣾⣿⣿⡶⣦⣀⡇⠀⠀⡀⠁⠀⣿⢰⢹⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⣟⣇⠉⢸⡓⣿⠟⣻⠓⠀⠀⠀⠐⠟⣹⠧⣿⡿⢿⡍⢿⡧⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢾⣈⡈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠄⠀⢰⣧⠈⠂⠘⠓⠚⠿⠎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⠮⠼⠵⠾⠣⢋⡇⠀⠀⠂⠈⢸⢼⡠⠇⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢧⠀⠀⠀⡀⠸⣹⠀⠐⠡⠊⠃⠀⠀⠀⢰⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠔⡠⢠⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⣎⣼⠑⣲⢸⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡏⡀⢸⡀⠀⢸⢸⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⡞⠀⢀⢀⡆⢠⢣⡧⠩⡔⡜⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⢱⣡⠢⢥⠀⠰⡹⡽⣄⠀⠀⠀⢫⡖⢲⡉⠖⡛⠦⣭⠃⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⡃⠀⣠⢣⢁⢎⡽⣐⠣⠜⣃⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡇⡞⣦⠘⣦⢣⢸⡐⢧⡘⠕⢦⣀⡀⠙⠢⠼⠡⠾⠒⠁⠀⣀⡤⢖⣋⠖⣡⠎⢥⢢⢋⡼⣑⠢⣉⠖⡸⢸⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⢡⠱⡘⢧⢺⢦⡃⢿⢼⡘⡘⢆⡦⢽⠑⠒⠤⠤⠔⠒⠊⠉⢰⠫⠆⡼⣋⡽⡘⢢⣞⠼⡑⢢⡑⢆⢪⠑⡃⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⠏⠆⡥⠙⣌⠛⣦⣙⠺⢆⣱⠝⢞⢄⠪⠄⣀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⠤⠘⡂⢔⠕⡶⠵⣚⣹⣊⣆⡙⡔⠌⠦⣁⢋⠼⠘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡟⡘⣜⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡘⡜⡌⢪⢑⢄⠀⢩⣶⡉⠁⣀⠔⡪⠜⡡⡪⢋⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣅⢎⠢⡇⢹⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡞⡰⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣻⣿⣿⣧⡘⠜⢆⠙⢤⣽⣿⣿⣷⠥⠚⢉⡠⣚⠜⣡⣿⣿⣿⣿⣽⣿⣻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣔⢡⠀⢳⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠏⠰⣼⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⡿⣟⠛⠻⣷⣿⣷⡈⢊⢣⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠔⣡⠖⠥⠜⢛⣉⠩⠻⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⣿⣯⣿⣿⣿⡜⡀⠀⠹⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡾⠃⢀⢳⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⢀⠔⠀⠉⡖⠬⣙⢻⣿⣄⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣎⠀⣸⠔⢨⡁⠀⠑⢄⠀⠙⢻⣿⣿⣷⣿⣿⣯⣿⡇⣡⠀⠠⠑⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠎⠀⠀⣘⢺⣿⣿⣿⠀⠠⠃⠀⢀⠎⠀⠀⢀⠝⠻⣿⣿⣿⣯⣿⣿⣿⢿⣿⠞⠑⡀⠀⠑⠄⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣯⣿⣾⣿⣿⡇⢥⠂⢁⠀⠈⢧⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡝⠁⠀⠀⢠⢣⢹⣿⣿⣟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⢰⠁⠀⢠⠘⣿⣿⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠈⢂⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣟⣿⣷⣿⡇⣎⣱⠀⠂⠀⠈⣷⡀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⡼⢮⢻⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣤⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢾⡍⡆⠀⠀⠘⠘⣧⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⣰⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡓⣌⢺⣿⣿⣟⣿⠙⠦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣽⣷⣿⣿⣽⣿⡷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⠖⠁⠈⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⠘⡤⡘⡇⠀⠀⡀⢁⢱⡆⠀ ⠀⠠⡟⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⡜⡔⢢⠩⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠉⠓⠲⠤⣤⣄⣠⠮⠌⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠉⠉⠒⠒⠒⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣽⡏⡜⡰⢑⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⢟⡀ ⠀⢾⠁⠀⠀⠠⠀⢰⡉⢆⠣⡑⣿⣿⣷⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣟⣿⣽⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣴⣿⣿⡿⣿⡇⣒⢑⡊⠼⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⢸⡃ ⢠⡏⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⡘⡌⢆⢣⠑⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣴⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠰⣈⠦⡑⢎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣧ ⢸⡃⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⡓⢬⠘⡤⢋⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣤⣤⣤⣄⣠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣻⣽⣿⣿⡟⣠⠃⢦⢉⠆⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⠈⣣⠀⠀⢀⠀⠠⢍⠢⢍⠴⡁⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣽⣿⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⣷⣿⣿⣿⢿⣿⣿⣷⣿⣿⣽⣿⣷⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢃⠤⢋⡔⢊⡜⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⡏ ⠀⠸⣆⠀⠀⠀⠐⣊⠱⢊⡔⠩⢼⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣟⣿⣿⣿⢿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣽⣿⣿⣿⣯⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣯⣷⣿⣿⢿⣾⣿⣿⣽⣾⣿⣿⠨⠜⢢⡘⠆⡔⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⢸⠇ ⠀⠀⠘⢦⣀⠀⠀⢣⡉⠖⣈⠓⣼⣿⣿⣷⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣿⣿⣯⣿⣿⣟⣿⣽⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡿⣿⣾⣿⢿⣻⡿⣈⢣⡑⢌⡚⠄⠀⠀⡀⠀⢀⡟⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⡴⠞⠛⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠶⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⡟⠁⡀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠱⠌⢻⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⡿⠀⢰⠃⠀⣰⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⢘⡆⠀⠀⡀⠀⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣟⠇⠀⡿⢤⠔⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠒⠂⣿⣂⣀⠾⣹⠀⠀⢸⡀⠘⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⡯⠔⣛⣛⠶⠶⠤⠤⠐⠛⣻⣶⣍⡉⢹⡄⠀⠀⡇⠀⢿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣹⠀⡄⣷⢟⣵⣿⡷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠺⣷⣿⣮⣿⣾⠃⠀⠀⣇⠀⢸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⠀⢛⣹⡇⣏⣛⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣏⣛⣹⠘⣻⣠⠀⢀⡟⡄⠈⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠸⣆⢸⢹⡷⢤⣠⠀⠀⣆⠀⠀⠀⠰⠴⠂⢠⢧⢸⢀⢸⠃⢣⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡟⠱⢿⣼⠀⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠰⢛⡇⣼⢳⢷⠁⠈⡄⢿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⡇⡇⠘⣎⡀⢈⠳⣤⣀⠀⠙⠒⠋⠀⠀⣀⡴⣿⠃⠀⠀⡞⠀⠀⠹⣼⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⢰⠁⠀⠘⢷⣼⡳⠇⣼⣿⠒⠦⠴⠒⢋⣡⣾⣽⣆⣴⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⡽⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢁⣾⢯⡫⡛⣦⡤⢚⡿⣪⢕⡽⣫⡿⠦⢤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠃⢹⢿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡟⢀⠃⢀⣀⡤⠖⠋⠻⣿⡣⡙⣾⠻⡞⢧⢊⡵⣫⡾⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠲⠤⣀⢏⢿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⡿⠁⣼⠖⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣺⠇⢰⡃⠈⢧⣪⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢻⣎⢻⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠁⡜⡏⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⢰⠃⠀⠈⠁⢀⣼⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⢆⠹⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡿⠁⡰⢹⠃⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⣧⣿⣿⡇⠀⡀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡏⢆⠘⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡾⠁⡰⠁⣸⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡴⢲⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠤⡄⠀⠀⠀⡇⢠⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢧⠈⡄⠈⢿⡀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠁⢰⠃⠀⣿⠀⡏⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠙⠲⠤⣤⣰⣃⣀⣠⡤⠶⠚⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⢹⡼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠘⡀⠘⣷⡀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠁⢠⠃⢰⠁⣿⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡀⠀⢱⠀⠸⣇⠀ ⠀⠀⢠⡿⠁⢀⠎⢀⡟⠀⢹⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⠯⠿⣄⡀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣸⣩⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣇⠀⠀⡇⠀⢿⡄ ⠀⢀⣾⠁⠀⡜⠀⣜⡇⠀⢸⠀⠈⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠒⢾⠶⠖⠒⠛⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⡇⠀⢸⠀⢸⡇ ⠀⣼⠃⠀⢰⠁⢀⣿⡇⠀⡿⠀⠀⢹⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⣿⠀⠘⡄⠘⣷ ⢠⡟⠀⠀⡎⠀⢸⡿⠇⠀⡇⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⣿⠀⠀⡇⠀⣯ ⣼⠁⠀⢀⠃⠀⣸⣿⠀⢰⡇⠀⠀⠸⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣧⠀⠀⡇⠀⣿
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠠⠤⣤⣤⣤⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⠶⠚⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠶⡤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠞⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡾⠃⠀⡰⠂⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡟⠀⠀⡼⠁⠀⣠⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠀⠀⣰⠃⢀⡾⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢇⠀⠀⠀⠰⡀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠈⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠳⠀⢰⡏⠒⢺⢳⠓⠒⠒⠠⠤⠤⠄⢀⣀⠀⣾⣾⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⠐⠠⢀⢸⠀⠸⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠀⠀⣾⠀⢀⠗⢺⠤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠏⡇⠒⠤⠄⣀⢸⡀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠄⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⡇⠀⢰⣇⣀⣀⣀⡈⠉⠉⠉⠒⠒⠲⠤⠤⣀⠼⠖⣗⣒⡋⠉⠉⢉⢇⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⢀⢸⡇⣿⢹⣟⣿⣿⡗⡦⡀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⣀⠉⠁⢺⢸⠀⠀⠀⣷⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡇⡌⠎⢱⠹⡘⣇⠛⢠⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠃⡗⢻⠟⣻⢉⡿⠂⣸⠸⣰⢦⠰⡟⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⡇⡇⠀⡈⢇⠀⠈⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠂⠷⠒⠒⠃⠉⠀⡐⢱⢰⠁⡎⡼⠀⡇⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⢹⠃⠀⢹⡒⠵⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⣀⢴⠃⢸⠇⠀⠇⢹⢆⠃⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⡜⢨⡆⢀⠀⠳⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢍⣉⣠⠎⠀⢸⠀⢠⠀⢸⠎⢸⢻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡟⣇⠇⠘⣼⡀⢠⠈⡷⢄⡀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠑⠀⠀⢀⡀⠤⠒⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢈⡤⠊⠀⢸⢸⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⡁⠟⠀⠀⠘⠳⣸⢣⡇⢠⡾⡓⠤⣀⣀⣀⣠⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡠⠚⠓⠤⢤⣀⠈⡌⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⢁⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⠀⢡⡟⢝⠮⡢⣀⠀⢀⣸⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠔⠉⠀⠀⣠⠞⠀⠈⠳⣔⢹⡀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠃⡌⣀⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠴⠲⡓⢌⠢⡑⢌⡲⢕⣾⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠒⠒⠓⠒⠒⡄⡴⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⡌⣧⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣼⠃⣘⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠳⣄⠀⠈⠢⡑⢌⠢⣉⢢⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢧⠸⣇⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⣸⠇⢠⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢣⡀⢠⠈⠢⡑⠮⡏⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡄⢻⡄⠀ ⠀⢠⡏⢀⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⣸⡄⠀⠈⠚⠀⢻⠉⠉⠒⠒⠢⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢱⠀⣧⠀ ⠀⣾⠀⡘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⠀⡆⢸⡆ ⢠⡇⠀⠇⢻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⢸⠀⣧ ⢸⠁⢠⠀⢸⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡇⠀⠀⡆⢹
Jean Bodin / French Royalism, Loyalty, & Patriotism >The King is so united with his subjects, that they are still willing to spend their goods, their blood, and lives, for the defence of his estate, honour, and life; and cease not after his death to write, sing, and publish his praises, amplifying them also in what they can. >But we pour out all our fortunes and our blood for the safety of King and Country
Dynastic patriotism: Hitler decried it. I support it. Bossuet on the Royal Bond / Hereditary State >The people, by themselves, have grown accustomed to this. "I saw all men living, that walk under the Sun with the second young man, who shall rise up in his place. >The second reason which favors this government, is that it makes the authorities who guide the State the ones who are most interested in its preservation. The prince who works for the State works for his children; and the love he bears his kingdom, mixed with that he has for his family, becomes natural to him." >Thus it is that peoples become attached to royal houses. The jealousy that one naturally feels against those whom one sees above him here turns into love and respect.
Gryffith Williams / A Kingdom = Great Family >A family being nothing else but a small Kingdom, wherein the paterfamilias had Regal power… and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family. Why are ants and bees called royal animals? Because like Aristotle notes. Aristotle / Suckled by the same milk, of the same blood >And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk'] All ants in a monogamous ant colony are related to the ant queen as their parent and they are offspring. A royal monarchy as father or mother of the people emulates this relationship: Jean Bodin / The best prince, the best father >The best Prince is the best Father. >The Prince, whom you may justly call the Father of the Country, ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father, as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God. Robert Filmer / Kings are the Fathers of their People >It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shews the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction. >If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference but only in the Latitude and Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferior Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People. Thomas Hobbes / Kings are the fathers of families >To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death. >But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty. King James VI & I / For a King is truly Parens Patriae >Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his People. Bossuet / My Father the King >Man who, as has been said, saw the image of a kingdom in the union of several families under the leadership of a common father, and who had found gentleness in that life, brought themselves easily to create societies of families under kings who took the place of fathers… it is apparently for that reason that the ancient people's of Palestine called their kings Abimelech, that is to say: my father the king. Subjects took themselves to be children of the Prince: and, each calling him, My father the king. Aristotle / The Association of Father & Son, the Ideal of Monarchy >For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule. Ramses II / Speech for his Father >For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him. >My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 06/26/2023 (Mon) 22:03:26.
(1003.95 KB 1500x1500 grace 22 kitto.png)

(60.51 KB 680x536 1640097083409-1.jpg)

The true meaning of royalism King & Kin or King and Country. Loyalism espoused in royalism is a familial kind of loyalty. Majesty or monarchical pre-eminence or monarchical sovereignty is when the whole state is united in the person of their sovereign monarch, indivisible in his person, a true royal bond.
(309.96 KB 1218x1655 grace chibi.jpg)

(8.73 MB 720x404 Bees Bee Queen.mp4)

(2.22 MB 3000x2000 Monarchia Triumphans 03.png)


As bees in service of the bee queen. So countrymen in service of their king is a broad act of filial piety. By unity in one person and having a royal bond, the people become a great family. Opposed to royalism, the people become base grasshoopers. >Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies, >Who have no King, by their confusion dies. >Others live long, as th' Ant and Royal Bee. >A Guard who keeps, lives, dyes in Majesty. >Their Hives, Walls, Combs, Cities, Holes, Houses are, >Stings are their Arms, one rules in peace and war. Majesty is more than possession of goods: it is mirrors infinity in glory; it is the most supreme and mighty power, the sovereignty of the whole state. Jean Bodin / Majesty >they confused the rights of inheritance with the majesty of empire as though they were discussing booty and possession of goods Believe in Majesty, believe in Sovereignty, believe in Monarchical Pre-eminence: where the state of one person reigns supreme.
(208.51 KB 2048x1182 Caligula quote.jpg)



(13.50 KB 339x319 illiad zeus king rage.png)

As Homer's famous monarchist maxim says, Let there be One ruler
(181.75 KB 500x500 Grace pik 6 jean bodin.png)

(281.36 KB 600x912 Grace Bodin 01.png)

(240.02 KB 600x912 Grace book Bodin methodus.png)

A thorough reading of Jean Bodin: Six Books of a Commonwealth & Easy Method for the Comprehension of History It'll clear up the strawmans and misconceptions of what absolute monarchy is. important for absolute monarchists to understand who dabble in it; because many start off with the crude notion of monarchical pre-eminence or are ignorant and will be easily mislead by our detractors He is THE author to start with for absolute monarchists who want to understand the origins of their political thought and sovereignty. of course, there is the Herodotus Debate and other places to look to begin with, but Bodin will teach the formalized understanding of monarchical pre-eminence refined we call sovereignty or majesty & if you've a crude seed of monarchical pre-eminence in your mind, Bodin will refine and nourish it into Majesty & show you the roots!
(387.35 KB 512x315 qgqdmWCOPITTFUTWx.png)

>>6480 Important b/c it's like a windy, twisted, thorny, wild path & you'll be mislead by our detractors and it's easy to go astray along the way for those learning our politics.
Hobbes Behemoth >A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim. The King, hearing of it, called the Houses of Parliament together again, on December the 14th, and then pressed again the business of Ireland: (as there was need; for all this while the Irish were murdering the English in Ireland, and strengthening themselves against the forces they expected to come out of England): and withal, told them he took notice of the bill in agitation for pressing of soldiers, and that he was contented it should pass with a salvo jure both for him and them, because the present time was unseasonable to dispute it in. <B: What was there unreasonable in this? >A: This was cruel proceeding. Do not the Kings of England use to sit in the Lords’ House when they please? And was not this bill in debate then in the House of Lords? It is a strange thing that a man should be lawfully in the company of men, where he must needs hear and see what they say and do, and yet must not take notice of it so much as to the same company; for though the King was not present at the debate itself, yet it was lawful for any of the Lords to make him acquainted with it. Any one of the House of Commons, though not present at a proposition or debate in the House, nevertheless hearing of it from some of his fellow-members, may certainly not only take notice of it, but also speak to it in the House of Commons: but to make the King give up his friends and counsellors to them, to be put to death, banishment, or imprisonment, for their good-will to him, was such a tyranny over the king, no king ever exercised over any subject but in cases of treason or murder, and seldom then. >A: Nothing: what is unreasonable is one question, what they quarrelled at is another. They quarrelled at this: that his Majesty took notice of the bill, while it was in debate in the House of Lords, before it was presented to him in the course of Parliament; and also that he showed himself displeased with those that propounded the said bill; both which they declared to be against the privileges of Parliament, and petitioned the King to give them reparation against those by whose evil counsel he was induced to it, that they might receive condign punishment. >A: I pray you do not ask me any reason of such things as I understand no better than you. I tell you only an act passed to that purpose, and was signed by the King in the middle of February, a little before the Archbishop was sent to the Tower. Besides this bill, the two Houses of Parliament agreed upon another, wherein it was enacted, that the present Parliament should continue till both the Houses did consent to the dissolution of it; which bill also the King signed the same day he signed the warrant for the execution of the Earl of Strafford. <B: What a great progress made the Parliament *towards their own ends, or at least towards the ends of the most seditious Members of both Houses in so little time! They say down in November, and now it was May; in this space of time, which is but half a year, they won from the King the adherence which was due to him from his people; they drove his faithfullest servants from him; beheaded the Earl of Strafford; imprisoned the Archbishop of Canterbury; obtained a triennial Parliament after their own dissolution, and a continuance of their own sitting as long as they listed: which last amounted to a total extinction of the King's right, in case that such a grant were valid; which I think it is not, unless the Sovereignty itself be in plain terms renounced, which it was not.<B: But what money, by way of subsidy or otherwise, did they grant the King, in recompense of all these his large concessions? >A: None at all; but often promised they would make him the most glorious King that ever was in England; which were words that passed well enough for well meaning with the common people.
<B: But the Parliament was contented now? For I cannot imagine what they should desire more from the King, than he had now granted them. >A: Yes; they desired the whole and absolute sovereignty, and to change the monarchical government into an oligarchy; that is to say, to make the Parliament, consisting of a few Lords and about four hundred Commoners, absolute in the sovereignty, for the present, and shortly after to lay the House of Lords aside. For this was the design of the Presbyterian ministers, who taking themselves to be, by divine right, the only lawful governors of the Church, endeavoured to bring the same form of Government into the civil state. And as the spiritual laws were to be made by their synods, so the civil laws should be made by the House of Commons; who, as they thought, would no less be ruled by them afterwards, than they formerly had been: wherein they were deceived, and found themselves outgone by their own disciples, though not in malice, yet in wit. <B: What followed after this? >A: In August following, the King supposing he had now sufficiently obliged the Parliament to proceed no further against him, took a journey into Scotland, to satisfy his subjects there, as he had done here; intending, perhaps, so to gain their good wills, that in case the Parliament here should levy arms against him, they should not be aided by the Scots: wherein he also was deceived. For though they seemed satisfied with what he did, whereof one thing was his giving way to the abolition of episcopacy; yet afterwards they made a league with the Parliament, and for money, when the King began to have the better of the Parliament, invaded England in the Parliament’s quarrel. But this was a year or two after. >A: Besides, they obtained of the King the putting down the Star-chamber and High-Commission Courts. <B: Methinks this last was a very great fault. For what good could there be in putting the King upon an odd course of getting money, when the Parliament was willing to supply him, as far as to the security of the kingdom, or to the honour of the King, should be necessary? >A: But I told you before, they would give him none, but with a condition he should cut off the heads of whom they pleased, how faithfully soever they had served him. And if he would have sacrificed all his friends to their ambition, yet they would have found other excuses for denying him subsidies; for they were resolved to take from him the sovereign power to themselves; which they could never do without taking great care that he should have no money at all. In the next place, they put into the remonstrance, as faults of them whose counsel the King followed, all those things which since the beginning of the King’s reign were by them misliked, whether faults or not, and whereof they were not able to judge for want of knowledge of the causes and motives that induced the King to do them, and were known only to the King himself and such of his privy-council as he revealed them to. <B: But what were those particular pretended faults? >A: 1. The dissolution of his first Parliament at Oxford. 2. The dissolution of his second Parliament, being in the second year of his reign. 3. The dissolution of his Parliament in the fourth year of his reign. 4. The fruitless expedition against Calais. 5. The peace made with Spain, whereby the Palatine’s cause was deserted, and left to chargeable and hopeless treaties. 6. The sending of commissions to raise money by way of loan. 7. Raising of ship-money. 8. Enlargement of forests, contrary to Magna Charta. 9. The design of engrossing all the gunpowder into one hand, and keeping it in the Tower of London. 10. A design to bring in the use of brass money. 11. The fines, imprisonments, stigmatizings, mutilations, whippings, pillories, gags, confinements, and banishments, by sentence in the Court of Star-chamber. 12. The displacing of judges. 13. Illegal acts of the Council-table. 14. The arbitrary and illegal power of the Earl Marshal’s Court. 15. The abuses in Chancery, Exchequer-chamber, and Court of Wards. 16. The selling of titles of honour, of judges, and serjeants’ places, and other offices. 17. The insolence of bishops and other clerks, in suspensions, excommunications, deprivations, and degradations, of divers painful, and learned, and pious ministers. >18. The excess of severity of the High Commission-Court. 19. The preaching before the King against the property of the subject, and for the prerogative of the King above the law. And divers other petty quarrels they had to the government, which though they were laid upon this faction, yet they knew they would fall upon the King himself in the judgment of the people, to whom, by printing, it was communicated. >Again, after the dissolution of the Parliament May the 5th, 1640, they find other faults; as the dissolution itself; the imprisoning some members of both Houses; a forced loan of money attempted in London; the continuance of the Convocation, when the Parliament was ended; and the favour shewed to Papists by Secretary Windebank and others. <B: All this will go current with common people for misgovernment, and for faults of the King, though some of them were misfortunes; and both the misfortunes and the misgovernment, if any were, were the faults of the Parliament; who, by denying to give him money, did both frustrate his attempts abroad, and put him upon those extraordinary ways, which they call illegal, of raising money at home.
>A: You see what a heap of evils they have raised to make a show of ill-government to the people, which they second with an enumeration of the many services they have done the King in overcoming a great many of them, though not all, and in divers other things; and say, that though they had contracted a debt to the Scots of 220,000l. and granted six subsidies, and a bill of poll-money worth six subsidies more, yet that God had so blessed the endeavours of this Parliament, that the kingdom was a gainer by it: and then follows the catalogue of those good things they had done for the King and kingdom. For the kingdom they had done, they said, these things: they had abolished ship-money; they had taken away coat and conduct money, and other military charges, which, they said, amounted to little less than the ship-money; that they suppressed all monopolies, which they reckoned above a million yearly saved by the subject; that they had quelled living grievances, meaning evil counsellors and actors, by the death of my Lord of Strafford, by the flight of the Chancellor Finch, and of Secretary Windebank, by the imprisonment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Judge Bartlet, and the impeachment of other bishops and judges; that they had passed a bill for a triennial Parliament, and another for the continuance of the present Parliament, till they should think fit to dissolve themselves. <B: That is to say, for ever, if they be suffered. But the sum of all these things, which they had done for the kingdom, is: that they had left it without government, without strength, without money, without law, and without good counsel. >A: They reckoned, also, putting down of the High-Commission, and the abating of the power of the Council-table, and of the bishops and their courts; the taking away of unnecessary ceremonies in religion; removing of ministers from their livings, that were not of their faction, and putting in *their places* such as were. <B: All this was but their own, and not the kingdom's business. >A: The good they had done the King, was first (they said) the giving of 25,000/. a month for the relief of the northern counties. <B: What need of relief had the northern, more than the rest of the counties of England? >A: Yes, in the northern counties were quartered the Scotch army which the Parliament called in to oppose the King, and consequently their quarter was to be discharged. <B: True; but by the Parliament that called them in. >A: But they say no; and that this money was given to the King, because he was bound to protect his subjects. <B: He is no further bound to that, than they give him money wherewithal to do it. This is very great imprudence; to raise an army against the King, and with that army to oppress their fellow-subjects, and then require that the King should relieve them, that is to say, be at the charge of paying the army that was raised to fight against him. >A: Nay, further; they put to the King's account the 300,000/. given to the Scots, without which they would not have invaded England; besides many other things, that I now remember not. <B: I did not think there had been so great impudence and villainy in mankind.
From Charles I's speech on scaffold >I shall begin first with my innocence. In troth I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I. More from Behemoth >A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim. >A: It is also worth observing, that this petition began with these words, Most gracious Sovereign: so stupid they were as not to know, that he that is master of the militia, is master of the kingdom, and consequently is in possession of a most absolute sovereignty. >A: I know not what need they had. But on both sides they thought it needful to hinder one another, as much as they could, from levying of soldiers; and, therefore, the King did set forth declarations in print, to make the people know that they ought not to obey the officers of the new militia set up by ordinance of Parliament, and also to let them see the legality of his own commissions of array. And the Parliament on their part did the like, to justify to the people the said ordinance, and to make the commission of array appear unlawful. >A: King William the Conqueror had gotten into his hands by victory all the land in England, of which he disposed some part as forests and chases for his recreation, and some part to lords and gentlemen that had assisted him or were to assist him in the wars. Upon which he laid a charge of service in his wars, some with more men, and some with less, according to the lands he had given them: whereby, when the King sent men unto them with commission to make use of their service, they were obliged to appear with arms, and to accompany the King to the wars for a certain time at their own charges: and such were the commissions by which this King did then make his levies. >A: After the sending of these propositions to the King, and his Majesty’s refusal to grant them, they began, on both sides, to prepare for war. The King raised a guard for his person in Yorkshire, and the Parliament, thereupon having voted that the King intended to make war upon his Parliament, gave order for the mustering and exercising the people in arms, and published propositions to invite and encourage them to bring in either ready money or plate, or to promise under their hands to furnish and maintain certain numbers of horse, horsemen, and arms, for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws); promising to repay their money with interest of 8l. in the 100l. and the value of their plate with twelve-pence the ounce for the fashion. On the other side, the King came to Nottingham, and there did set up his standard royal, and sent out commissions of array to call those to him, which by the ancient laws of England were bound to serve him in the wars. Upon this occasion there passed divers declarations between the King and Parliament concerning the legality of this array, which are too long to tell you at this time. >B: Nor do I desire to hear any mooting about this question. For I think that general law of salus populi, and the right of defending himself against those that had taken from him the sovereign power, are sufficient to make legal whatsoever he should do in order to the recovery of his kingdom, or to the punishing of the rebels.
King James VI & I >The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of diverse members. >The style of Pater patriae was ever, and is commonly used to Kings. And the proper office of a King towards his Subjects, agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body, and all the members thereof: For from the head, being the seat of Judgement, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding, and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof. >The head cares for the body, so does the King for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head. For if the King wants, the State wants >And though it in a sort this may seem to be my particular; yet it cannot be divided from the general good of the Commonwealth; >For the King that is Parens Patriae, tells you of his wants. Nay, Patria ispa by him speaks unto you. >For if the King want, the State wants, and therefore the strengthening of the King is the preservation and standing of the State; >And woe be to him that divides the weal of the King from the weal of the Kingdom. King James VI & I Speech >I am the husband, and all the whole isle is my lawful wife; I am the head, and it is my body; I am the shepherd, and it is my flock. >So my Sovereignty obliges me to yield to you love, government and protection: Neither did I ever wish any happiness to myself, which was not conjoined with the happiness of my people. I desire a perfect Union of Laws and persons, and such a naturalizing as may make one body of both Kingdoms under me your King, That I and my posterity (if it so please God) may rule over you to the world's end; Such an Union as was of the Scots and Picts in Scotland, and of the Heptarchy in England. And for Scotland I avow such an Union, as if you had got it by Conquest, but such a Conquest as may be cemented by love, the only sure bond of subjection or friendship: >That as there is over both but unus Rex, so there may be in both but unus Grex & una Lex My descent, the loins of Henry VII >First, by my descent lineally out of the lions of Henry the seventh, is reunited and confirmed in me the Union of the two Princely Roses of the two Houses of Lancaster and Yorke, whereof that King of happy memory was the first Uniter, as he was also the first groundlayer of the other Peace.
(1.05 MB 3000x3000 Grace 03.png)

(56.72 KB 310x462 Bodin poem.jpg)

(67.81 KB 550x413 jean bodin la-fresque.jpg)

(591.43 KB 1536x966 00dLIvdUE.jpg large.jpg)

Jean Bodin on Monarchy >If we should inspect nature more closely, we should gaze upon monarchy everywhere. To make a beginning from small things, we see the king among the bees, the leader in the herd, the buck among the flocks or the bellwether (as among the cranes themselves the many follow one), and in the separate natures of things some one object excels: thus, adamant among the gems, gold among the metals, the Sun among the stars, and finally God alone, the prince and author of the world. Moresoever, they say that among the evil spirits one alone is supreme. But, not to continue indefinitely, what is a family other than the true image of a state? Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king. >If, then, Plato were to change the nature of things and set up several lords in the same family, several heads for the same body, several pilots on a ship, and finally several leaders among bees, flocks, herds (if only the farmers will permit); if at length he would join several gods into an association for ruling, then I would agree with him that the rule of the optimates is better than a kingdom. >But if the entire nature of things protests, reason dissents, lasting experience objects, I do not see why we ought to follow Plato or anyone else and violate nature. What Homer has said, "No good thing is a number of masters; let one man be master, one man be king," Euripides has repeated, "Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities." For this reason Sibylla is said to have prophesied in her poems that the safety of the Roman Republic is founded upon a kingdom, that is, the citizens cannot be protected unless they have a king. >There are a thousand such like examples, which do show us the necessity to have one head or commander, not only in war (where there is greatest danger) but also to obey one sovereign prince in a Commonwealth: for even as an army is ill led, and most commonly defeated that has many Generals; even so is a Commonwealth that has many lords, either by division, or a diversity of opinions, or by the diminution of power given to many, or by the difficulty there is to agree and resolve upon any thing, or for that the subjects know not whom to obey, or by the discovery of matters which should be kept secret, or through altogether. And therefore whereas we said before, that in a well ordered State, the sovereign power must remain in one only, without communicating any part thereof… (for in that case it should be a Popular State and no Monarchy). <It shall suffice that we have made apparent demonstration, that a pure absolute Monarchy is the surest Commonweal, and without comparison the best of all
(5.72 MB 3135x3764 Louis XV.jpg)

(93.92 KB 468x600 King Louis XIV by himself.jpg)

<Louis XV speech >It is only in my person where the sovereign power resides, whose proper character is the spirit of advice, justice and reason; it is to me that my courtiers owe their existence and their authority; the fullness of their authority, which they exercise only in my name, always resides in me and can never be turned against me; To me alone belongs the legislative power without dependency and without division; it is by my authority that the officers of my Court proceed not to the formation, but to the registration, publication and execution of the law […]; public order emanates from me, and the rights and interests of the Nation, of which a separate body from the Monarch is usually made, are necessarily united to mine and rest only in my hands.
(49.05 KB 500x500 Grace_soft_smile.jpg)


>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies, >Who have no King, by their confusion dies. This is the people w/o a royal bond Renounce the partisanships & be a familial State. All the State revealed, One Person. No confusion, no political parties, no anarchy. Monarchy will be our Manifestation. <Hesiod: The Wisdom of Kingship >All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. he addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeases the parties with soft words. <Bossuet: Peace, Bliss, Happiness under Monarchy >The people must keep itself in a condition of repose under the authority of the Prince… As soon as there is a King, the people has only to remain at rest under his authority. If an impatient people stirs, and does not want to keep itself tranquil under royal authority, the fire of division will flare up in the State, and consume the bramble-bush together with all the other trees, that is to say the King and the nations… When a King is authorized, "each remains at rest, without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig-tree, from one end of the Kingdom to the other." …And every man tilled his land with peace… the ancient men sat all in the streets, and spoke together of the public good; and the young men put on them glory, and the robes of war… and every man sat under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and lived without fear. – …To enjoy this repose one needs not just external peace: one needs internal peace as well, under the authority of an absolute prince. >Men are the true riches of a king… One is delighted when he sees, under good kings, the incredible multitude of people and the astonishing largeness of the armies. By contrast one is ashamed of Achab and of the kingdom of Israel exhausted of people, when one sees his army encamp "like two little flocks of goats"–while the Syrian army which faced it covered the face of the earth… In the enumeration of the immense riches of Solomon, there is nothing finer than these words: Judah and Israel were innumerable, as the sand of the sea in the multitude." …But here is the pinnacle of felicity and of richness. It is that this whole innumerable people "ate and drank of the fruit of its lands, every one under his vine and under his fig-tree, and rejoicing." For joy makes bodies healthy and vigorous. <Caesar, Earth's greatest good! <Caesar, Heav'n's chiefest care!
(77.87 KB 1302x1550 Grace icup smile.png)

(304.52 KB 1536x894 Dante quote.jpg)

<Dante: Notable Praise of Monarchy from De Monarchia >Justice is the strongest with the Monarch. For the best structure of the world, it is necessary for Monarchy or Empire to exist. >Therefore it is better that the human race should be ruled by one than by more, and that the one should be the Monarch, who is a unique Prince. And if it is better, it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And inasmuch as between two things, that which is better will likewise best, between this rule by "one" and this rule by "more", rule by "one" is acceptable to God not only in comparative but in the superlative degree. Wherefore the human race is ordered for the best when ruled by One sovereign. >In regard to the will, it must first be noted that the worst enemy of Justice is cupidity… When cupidity is removed altogether, nothing remains inimical to Justice… Cupidity is impossible when there is nothing to be desired, for passions cease to exist with the destruction of their objects. Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean, there is nothing for a Monarch to desire… So we conclude that among the mortals the purest subject for the indwelling of Justice is the Monarch. >Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude towards Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in him can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective… That right love should indwell in the Monarch more than in all men besides itself thus: Everything loved is the more loved the nearer it is to him who loves; men are nearer to the Monarch than other princes; therefore they ought to be most loved by him. >The Monarch is capable of the highest degree of judgment and Justice, and is therefore perfectly qualified, or especially well qualified to rule. Those two qualities are most befitting a maker and executor of the law. >Therefore it is established that every good thing is good because it subsists in unity. As concord is a good thing itself, it must subsist in some unity as its proper root, and this proper root must appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord. Now concord is the uniform movement of many wills; and unity of will, which we mean by uniform movement, is the root of concord, or rather concord itself. For just as we should call many clods concordant because all descend toward the centre, and many flames concordant because they ascend together to the circumference, as if they did this voluntarily, so we call many men concordant because they move together by their volition to one end formally present in their wills… All concord depends upon unity in wills; mankind is at its best in concord of a certain king. For just as one man at his best in body and spirit is a concord of a certain kind, and as a household, a city, and a kingdom is likewise a concord, so it is with mankind in its totality. Therefore the human race for its best disposition is dependent on unity in wills. But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity. >With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gods. If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book, concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for ts own sake and not for the sake of another is free. For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake. >If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others: in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern according to the Philosopher when he says, "Every household is ruled by its eldest." >Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father. As "Man and the sun generate man," according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits. Now, human reason apprehends most clearly through philosophy that the entire heaven in all its parts, its movements, and its motors, s controlled by a single motion, the primum moble, and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when n all its movements and motors is controlled by One prince as by one mover, by one law as by one motion. On this account it is manifestly essential for the well-being of the world that there should exist a Monarchy of unified Principality, which men call the Empire. This truth Boethius sighed for in the words, "O race of men how blessed, dd the love which rules the heavens rule like your minds!" >Monarchy is therefore indispensible to the world, and this truth the Philosopher saw when he said, "Things have no desire to be wrongly ordered; inasmuch as a multitude of Princedoms is wrong, – let there be One Prince."
<Robert Filmer: That the First Kings were Fathers of Families >It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shows the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Hers to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Supreme Jurisdiction; and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers: And therefore we find, that God told Cain of his Brother Abel, His Desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him. Accordingly, when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus, Be Lord over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee. [Gen. 27. 29.] >It is confessed, that in the Infancy of the World, the Paternal Government was Monarchical… That the paternal Power cannot be lost… The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God, for the preservation of Mankind… All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly power, there being no other original to be found on any Power whatsoever… Even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood; he is both the King and Father of us all; as God hath exalted the Dignity of Earthly Kings, by communicating to them his own Title, by saying they are gods; so on the other side, he hath been pleased as it were to humble himself, by assuming the Title of a King, to express his Power, and not the Title of any popular Government. >Father and King are not so diverse; it is confessed, that at first they were all one, for there is confessed Paternum imperium & haereditarium, and this Fatherly Empire, as t was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by Patent, and seizable by an Usurper, as other goods are: and thus every King now is, hath a Paternal Empire, either by inheritance, or by Translation, or Usurpation; so a Father and a King may be all one. >As long as the first Fathers of Families lived, the name of the Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them: but after a few Descents, when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct, and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir, then the Title of Prince or King was more significant, to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy; by this means it comes to pass, that many a Child, by succeeding a King, hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude, and hath the Title of Pater Patriae. >It may be demanded what becomes the Right of Fatherhood, in Case the Crown does esheat for want of an Heir? Whether doth it not then Dissolve to the People? The Answer is, It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir: For an Heir there always is. If Adam himself were still living, and now ready to die, it is certain that there is One Man, and but One in the World who is next Heir, although the Knowledge who should be that One Man is quite lost. >In all Kingdoms or Commonwealths in the World, whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People, or but the true Heir of such a Father, or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation, or by Election of the Nobles, or of the People, or by any other way whatsoever; or whether some Few or a Multitude Govern the Commonwealth: Yet still the Authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all these, is the only Right and natural Authority of a Supreme Father. There is, and always shall be continued to the end of the World, a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude, although by the secret Will of God, many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it. >If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People. >According to that of Aristotle, A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government. <Dante on Aeneas as father of the Roman People >That the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king; and Titius Livus, illustrious writer of Roman deeds, confirms this testimony in the first part of his volume which begins with the capture of Troy. So great was the nobleness of this man, our ancestor most invincible and most pious, nobleness not only of his own considerable virtue, but that of his progenitors and consorts, which was transferred to him by hereditary right, that I cannot unfold it in detail, "I can but trace the main outlines of truth." >He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and her empire. <Giambattista Vico's New Science on Pater Familias >Axioms 67-76, and particularly the corollary to 69, show us that fathers in the family state must have exercised monarchical power which was subject to God alone. This power extended over the persons and property of their children, and to a greater extent over those of the family servants, famuli, who had sought refuge on their lands. This made them the first monarchs of the world. (We must interpret the Bible as referring to such men when it calls them patriarchs, which means "ruling fathers".) Throughout the Roman republic, their monarchical rights were guaranteed by the Law of the Twelve Tables, which says, "The family father shall have the right of life and death over his children". And it adds that "Whatever a son acquires, he acquires for his father".
(752.46 KB 1500x1500 grace 26 kitto.png)

(331.28 KB 1588x1155 Bastille_Exterior_1790_or_1791.jpg)

🏰 REBUILD THE BASTILLE 🏰 ⚜ VIVE LE ROI ⚜
(88.55 KB 437x550 Jean_Bodin.jpg)

(422.88 KB 450x500 King-James-1.png)

(698.46 KB 2400x2928 Thomas Hobbes portrait.jpg)

(412.41 KB 448x518 Jacques-Benigne_Bossuet_1.PNG)

7 names Grace-chan reveres. 1. Jean Bodin 2. King James VI & I 3. Thomas Hobbes 4. Robert Filmer 5. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet 6. Dante Alighieri 7. Caligula
(793.32 KB 1500x1500 grace 22 kitto.png)


(208.51 KB 2048x1182 Caligula quote.jpg)

>>6514 There would be no Graceposting w/o these names.
We must do a qualitative analysis of the various pros and cons of commiecat vs Grace. Commiecat pros include it having big tits and thicc thighs. What does Grace have in comparison?
>>6517 Pros of Grace: 1. She is of noble birth (i'm nobilitophile and i like noblewomen altough it is more my personal fetish) 2. She has long blonde hair (blonde color less important but long hair is indeed comely, in the old times it was symbol of health) 3. She is tall (propably over 6ft / 180cm) and she has good figure 4. She is very very chaste (there is almost no intimate pic of her, i say almost just in case because i've never seen one) 5. She is monarchist absolutist and as monarcho-absolutist-libertarian-militarist-pagan i could have nice little talk with her I can't say it about revolutionary socialist commiepussy 6. She is human, no matter how would you try you cannot make an heir to the kingdom with cat, sorry that's biology
>>6518 >she is tall Runty scrawny commiekitty with massive tits is better than tall though. >you cannot make an heir to the kingdom with cat Commiecat is cat*girl*, and secondly why would you want to impregnate a commiecat?
>>6519 >Secondly why would you want to impregnate a commiecat? To make an heir to demesse, that's purpose of marriage. And i don't want to impregnate commiecat, mainly because i'm affraid childreen would inherit her revolutionarism but she also because she isn't of noble birth. On the second hand Grace is complete opposite and i think she would be good mother that will read Machiavelli's or Jean Bodin's work instead of lullabies. I will say it again but shortly: TO MAKE AN HEIR TO DEMESSE
(309.96 KB 1218x1655 grace chibi.jpg)

(2.33 MB 720x720 1682904889550.webm)

>>6517 We've been over this before: Alunya is flat as a plank. She only has a big butt. IDK where's your list of pros like >>6518 this anon?
>>6518 Okay then let's update: Pros: 1, 2, 5, and 6 unchanged and 3 and 4 deleted 7. She is practicing lesbomancy (those who played the witcher 3 know what is it) but alunya also do that. Cons: 1. She is practicing lesbomancy (for some it is con) 2. She has NSFW pics 3. Because she is practicing lesbomancy you would propably do some good old soldier style work easy to learn just talk with the russian conscript what was he doing on ukraine.
>>6523 I see big tits in this pic. List of pros: 1. Big tits 2. Big ass 3. Thicc thighs 4. Mindcrushingly stupid >>6520 Commiecat is not for make baby, commiecat is for rape.
>>6536 >Commiecat is not for make baby, commiecat is for rape. Ah now something we agree about! So she collectivized her body right?
>>6537 No, commiecats must always have a single owner.
>>6538 Oki (By the way where is that nice little board with those curious pic you now what i mean our previous discution ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). i, scrolled entire 8chan and haven't found it)
>>6540 Thanks again good anon!
(97.52 KB 330x312 Grumpy Grace grrr.png)

(257.98 KB 498x494 depressed dog.png)

>>6538 >commiecats must always have a single owner. That owner is Grace-chan. >>6536 >I see big tits in this pic. Photoshopped.
>>6543 But Grace-chan is part of commiecat's natural diet. How could she own a commiecat?
>>6544 Commiecat eats grace so commiecat becomes made from grace-atoms so commiecat becomes grace and grace owns herself
>>6546 I don't think that's how it works.
(208.51 KB 2048x1182 Caligula quote.jpg)

(678.53 KB 2048x1856 F1eRomCCC.jpg)


(97.52 KB 330x312 Grumpy Grace grrr.png)

(94.05 KB 1360x768 russian empire chains.jpg)

(194.83 KB 1440x816 Elizabeth1England.jpg)

(190.90 KB 1200x853 North-Korea-1200x853.jpg)

Jean Bodin / Noblemen had to ask permission to leave & monarchy promoted blood & soil literally >So that oftentimes the subject dare not so much as to depart out of the country without leave, as in England, Scotland, Denmark, and Sweden, the noble men dare not to go out of their country without leave of the prince, except they would therefore loose their goods: which is also observed in the realm of Naples, by the custom of the country. As also it was forbidden by the emperour Augustus to all Senators to go out of Italy without his leave, which was always right straightly looked unto. And by the ordinances of Spain it is forbidden the Spaniards to passe over into the West Indies, without the leave of the king of Spain: >But in such places and countries as wherein tyrants rule, or which for the barreness of the soil, or intemperature of the air are forsaken by the inhabitants; not only the citizens, but even the strangers also are oftentimes by the princes of such places prohibited to depart, as in Muscovy, Tartaria, and Ethiopia This is where ethnonationalists don't realize why monarchy is indirectly better for their cause. Apart from why I think dynastic patriotism is better also.
Jean Bodin adds about the Venetians in the 1500s: >The Venetian state suffers also from the danger that when they admit a countless multitude of foreigners and resident aliens, they risk being driven from control by these newcomers. >This danger, therefore, is to be feared in the case of Venice. For when a census of the whole city was taken in the year 1555, there were counted 159,459 resident aliens in addition to the patricians. Women and boys over six years were included in this number. About 1,500 patricians controlled these people, for the juniors under 25 years are not admitted to the assembly and to a share in power, except a few occasionally. The Venetians do not seem to have acted wisely in counting the people; first, since by divine law it is forbidden; then, when strangers and poor people understand their numbers and strength, of course there is danger lest they form some plot against the optimates. When the senate of the Romans once decreed that the slaves should be distinguished from the freeborn citizens by ornaments and clothing, Seneca said it would become dangerous if the slaves started to count their number.
>If you are my fan I consider you as my family, blood related. <Over the years we became a family. You are all my family. My children are your children and all children of the world are our children and our responsibility. >It was you who put your heart on the line. It was you who stepped forward to defend someone you love. It was you, on a worldwide basis who supported me as my army, my soldiers of love. You were always there. You are always loyal and I love you forever. -Michael Jackson
(256.89 KB 1547x1953 1633897281981.png)

(422.88 KB 450x500 King-James-1.png)

(201.49 KB 626x769 ezgif-2-19634d7424.jpg)

King James II the late Catholic king, like his Protestant grandfather King James I (who had read Bodin, btw), would appeal to absolute sovereignty (& an absolutist understanding thereof) & his prerogative in his declaration / proclamation: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Proclamation_(James_VII) >Have therefore thought fit to Grant, and by our Soveraign Authority, Prerogative Royal and absolute power, which all our Subjects are to obey without Reserve >by our Soveraign Authority, Prerogative Royal, and Absolute Power aforesaid >we by Our Authority and Absolute Power
Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors >But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected. But three Commonwealths or forms of State >Forasmuch as we have before sufficiently spoken of Sovereignty, and of the rights and marks thereof; now it behooves us to consider who they be which in every Commonweal hold that Sovereignty; thereby to judge what the estate is: as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy: but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [Or, in more proper wording, Oligarchy]. Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governours good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths; we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite. Now it is certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and exctricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion infinite numbers of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths: a thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say that there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy >There can be no forth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular, (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice). Rejection of a mixed State or mixed Constitution >All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point. Jean Bodin on Herodotus: >It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms >Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities. >Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written. This is where the stress on 3 forms of State originates w/ absolute monarchists.
(71.20 KB 425x639 7182684462_52a62f945c_z.jpg)

(213.04 KB 1280x720 Hobbes Leviathan picture.jpg)

Thomas Hobbes' anti-scholasticism / Universities >All the Presbyterians were of the same mind with Gomar: but a very great many others not; and those were called here Arminians, who, because the doctrine of free-will had been exploded as a Papistical doctrine, and because the Presbyterians were far the greater number, and already in favour with the people, were generally hated. It was easy, therefore, for the Parliament to make that calumny pass currently with the people, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Laud, was for Arminius, and had a little before, by his power ecclesiastical, forbidden all his ministers to preach to the people of predestination; and when all ministers that were gracious with him, and hoped for Church preferment, fell to preaching and writing for free-will, to the uttermost of their power, as a proof of their ability and merit. Besides, they gave out, some of them, that the Archbishop was in heart a Papist; and in case he could effect a toleration here of the Roman religion, was to have a cardinal's hat: which was not only false, but also without any ground at all for a suspicion. >It is a strange thing, that scholars, obscure men that could receive no clarity but from the flame of the state, should be suffered to bring their unnecessary disputes, and together with them their quarrels, out of the universities into the commonwealth; and more strange, that the state should engage in their parties, and not rather put them both to silence [Presbyterians & Arminians] They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities >They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities. For such curious questions in divinity are first started in the Universities, and so are all those politic questions concerning the rights of civil and ecclesiastic government; and there they are furnished with arguments for liberty out of the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and out of the histories of Rome and Greece, for their disputation against the necessary power of their sovereigns. >Therefore I despair of any lasting peace amongst ourselves, till the Universities here shall bend and direct their studies to the settling of it, that is, to the teaching of absolute obedience to the laws of the King, and to his public edicts under the Great Seal of England. For I make no doubt, but that solid reason, backed with the authority of so many learned men, will more prevail for the keeping of us in peace within ourselves, than any victory can do over the rebels. But I am afraid that it is impossible to bring the Universities to such a compliance with the actions of state, as is necessary for the business. The core of rebellion – the Universities >The core of rebellion, as you have seen by this, and read of other rebellions, are the Universities; which nevertheless are not to be cast away, but to be better disciplined: that is to say, that the politics there taught be made to be, as true politics should be, such as are fit to make men know, that it is their duty to obey all laws whatsoever that shall by the authority of the King be enacted, till by the same authority they shall be repealed; such as are fit to make men understand, that the civil laws are God’s laws, as they that make them are by God appointed to make them and to make men know, that the people and the Church are one thing, and have but one head, the King; and that no man has title to govern under him, that has it not from him; that the King owes his crown to God only, and to no man, ecclesiastic or other; and that the religion they teach there, be a quiet waiting for the coming again of our blessed Saviour, and in the mean time a resolution to obey the King’s laws, which also are God’s laws The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino, That Of Other Pastors Is Jure Civili >If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office, as the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21.23.) asked our Saviour, “By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority:” he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth it by the Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or Assembly that representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute their charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God, that is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but Kings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely ) Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their Mandates, “By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a Diocesse;” or as Civill Ministers, “In his Majesties Name.” For in saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the Civill State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their Civill Subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth. >So that where a stranger hath authority to appoint Teachers, it is given him by the Soveraign in whose Dominions he teacheth. Christian Doctors are our Schoolmasters to Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of Families, and may receive Schoolmasters for their Subjects from the recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall redound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the Publique good; the care of which they stand so long charged withall, as they retain any other essentiall Right of the Soveraignty. >And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the Master of the Family. >The third place, is John 21.16. “Feed my sheep;” which is not a Power to make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a Schoolmaster to Teach his children. The Universities… Again >Seeing the Universities have heretofore from time to time maintained the authority of the Pope, contrary to all laws divine, civil, and natural, against the right of our Kings, why can they not as well, when they have all manner of laws and equity on their side, maintain the rights of him that is both sovereign of the kingdom, and head of the Church? <Why then were they not in all points for the King’s power, presently after that King Henry VIII was in Parliament declared head of the Church, as much as they were before for the authority of the Pope? >Because the clergy in the Universities, by whom all things there are governed, and the clergy without the Universities, as well biships as inferior clerks, did think that the pulling down of the Pope was the setting up of them, as to England, in his place, and made no question, the greatest part of them, but that their spiritual power did depend not upon the authority of the King, but of Christ himself, derived to them by a successive imposition of hands from bishop to bishop; notwithstanding they knew that this derivation passed through the hands of popes and bishops whose authority they had cast off. For though they were content that the divine right, which the Pope pretended to in England, should be denied him, yet they thought it not so fit to be taken from the Church of England, whom they now supposed themselves to represent.
(112.31 KB 1146x752 DqM0hpXU8AIyb5C.jpg)


(502.27 KB 770x513 kim jong il poster.jpg)

Bizi besleyen baba - the father who feeds us The title of the Sultan among the Janissaries.
(97.52 KB 330x312 Grumpy Grace grrr.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

We hear absolute power corrupts absolutely and so and so. Even Jean Bodin concedes here and there about the power of the Monarch, but I don't believe for the bare necessities of sovereignty (which involves an absolute power) – but really it's about the capacity and how the monarch doesn't need to micromanage every single thing. It is said that the sovereign monarch is lord of all goods, but there's no need to hoard and retain a monopoly on each industry. As a state usually divides these and channels their yield to return to the common good. A monarchy might have a couple monopolies and wealth. (& I think this works well because when the monarch use taxes even by the consent of assemblies they'll complain about it–but sadly this is considered the route to a lordly monarchy to retain the land and power and influence within the economy. Bodin even says the lordly monarchies can last longer, but nevertheless the ideal monarchy is deemed royal monarchy. & lordly monarchy is different from tyrannical monarchy. Saudi Arabia is a good example. They have hardly have taxes there except a corporate tax, I believe, b/c they have tremendous wealth. It's a dilemma with absolute monarchists knowing how the power of the purse can be abused and anchored against monarchy and have the monarch making concessions even cutting into his sovereignty like it was with King Charles I. But if not a lordly monarchy where the royal family has considerable wealth and influence within the economy, then like Bodin says it goes back to finding a way to get taxes and making this work to support monarchy. Thomas Hobbes also pondered this issue considerably – I am beginning to think a little bit of lordly monarchy is not a bad idea if it means having a bit more of a substantial wealth apart from taxes which are too conspicuous in rousing people against monarchy – but if can done without the the power of the purse leveraged too much against the monarchy and the monarchy can attain what is necessary for sovereignty it would be ideal also). This is the biggest stumbling block for absolute monarchists, imo.
Dialogue Hobbes speaks through P >L: But I know, that there be statutes express, whereby the King hath obliged himself never to levy money upon his subjects without the consent of his Parliament. One of which statutes is 25 Edw. 1. c. 5, in these words: We have granted for us, and our heirs, as well to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and other folk of holy Church, as also to earls, barons, and to all the commonalty of the land, that for no business from henceforth, we shall take such aids, tasks, or prizes, but by the common consent of the realm. There is also another have been since that time confirmed by diverse other Kings, and lastly by the King that now reigneth. >L: In the said statutes that restrain the levying of money without consent of Parliament, is there any thing you can take exceptions to? >P: No, I am satisfied that kings that grant such liberties, are bound to make them good, so far as it may be done without sin: but if a King find that by such grant he be disabled to protect his subjects, if he maintain his grant, he sins; and therefore may, and ought to take no notice of the said grant. For such grants, as by error or false suggestion are gotten from him, are, as the lawyers do confess, void and of no effect, and ought to be recalled. Also the King, as in on all hands confessed, hath the charge lying upon him to protect his people against foreign enemies, and to keep the peace betwixt them within the kingdom: if he do not his utmost endeavour to discharge himself thereof, he committeth a sin. >P: Nor do I hereby lay any aspersion upon such grants of the King and his ancestors. Those statutes are in themselves very good for the King and the people, as creating some kind of difficulty for such Kings as, for the glory of conquest, might spend one part of their subjects' lives and estates in molesting other nations, and leave the rest to destroy themselves at home by factions. That which I here find fault with, is the wrestling of those, and other such statutes, to the binding of our Kings from the use of their armies in the necessary defense of themselves and their people. The late Long Parliament, that in 1648 murdered their King, (a King that sought no greater glory upon earth, but to be indulgent to his people, and a pious defender of the Church of England,) no sooner took upon them the sovereign power, than they levied money upon the people at their own discretion. Did any of their subjects dispute their power? Did they not send soldiers over the sea to subdue Ireland, and others to fight against the Dutch at sea; or made they any doubt but to be obeyed in all that they commanded, as a right absolutely due to the sovereign power in whomsoever it resides? I say not this as following their actions, but as testimony from the mouths of those very men that denied the same power to him whom they acknowledged to have been their sovereign immediately before >P: I know what it is that troubles your conscience in this point. All men are troubled at the crossing of their wishes; but it is our own fault. First, we wish impossibilities; we would have our security against all the world upon right of property, without paying for it; this is impossible. We may as well expect that fish and fowl should boil, roast, and dish themselves, and come to the table, and that grapes should squeeze themselves into our mouths, and have all other contentments and ease which some pleasant men have related of the land of Cocagne. Secondly, there is no nation in the world where he or they that have the sovereignty, do not take what money they please for the defense of those respective nations, when they think it necessary for their safety. The late Long Parliament denied this; but why? Because there was a design amongst them to depose the King. Thirdly, there is no example of any King of England that I have read of, that ever pretended any such necessity for levying money against his conscience. The greatest sums that ever were levied, comparing the value of money, as it was at that time, with what it is now, were levied by King Edward III and King Henry V; kings in whom we glory now, and think their actions great ornaments to the English history >P: All this I know, and am not satisfied. I am one of the common people, and one of that almost infinite number of men, for whose welfare Kings and other sovereigns were by God ordained: for God made Kings for the people, and not people for Kings. How shall I be defended from the domineering of proud and insolent strangers that speak another language, that scorn us, that seek to make us slaves, or how shall I avoid the destruction that may arise from the cruelty of factions in civil war, unless the King, to whom alone, you say, belongeth the right of levying and disposing of the militia by which only it can be prevented, have ready money, upon all occasions, to arm and pay as many soldiers, as for the present defense, or the peace of the people, shall be necessary? Shall not I, and you, and every man, be undone? Tell me not of a Parliament, when there is no Parliament sitting, or perhaps none in being, which may often happen. And when there is a Parliament, if the speaking and leading men should have a design to put down monarchy, as they had in the Parliament which began to sit the third of November, 1640, shall the King, who is to answer to God Almighty for the safety of the people, and to that end is intrusted with the power to levy and dispose of soldiery, be disabled to perform his office, by virtue of these acts of Parliament which you have cited? >And by that means the most men, knowing their Duties, will be the less subject to serve the Ambition of a few discontented persons, in their purposes against the State; and be the less grieved with the Contributions necessary for their Peace, and Defence; and the Governours themsleves have the less cause, to maintain at the Common charge any greater Army, than is necessary to make good the Publique Liberty, against the Invasions and Encroachments of foraign Enemies
Jean Bodin on the same >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. >And yet for all that the just Monarchy, hath not any more assured foundation or stay, than the Estates of the people, Communities, Corporations, and Colleges: For if need be for the king to levy money, to raise forces, to maintain the Estate against the enemy, it cannot be better done, than by the estates of the people, and of every Province, Town, and Community. For where can things for the curing of the diseases of sick Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just reforming of the Estate, be better debated and handled, than before the Prince in his Senate before the people? There they confer of the affairs concerning the whole body of the Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just complaints and grievances of the poor subjects, which never otherwise come unto the prince's ears; there are discovered and laid open the robberies and extortions committed in the Prince's name; whereof he knoweth nothing, there the requests of all degrees of men are heard. Besides that, it is almost a thing incredible to say, how much the subjects are eased, and how well they are also pleased, to see their king to sit as chief in the assembly of the estates, and to hear him discouring; how every man desirabeth to be seen of him, and if it please him to hear their complaints, and to receive their requests, albeit that they be often times denied the same; yet O how it pleaseth them to have had access unto their Prince…[Although] Our Kings do not so often call together the assemblies of their estates, as do the kings of England. Personally, I am conflicted with Bodin's testimony in context of Hobbes' testimony. I think they say it's not too necessary to have a provision of land and wealth – I forgot who said so – I think Hobbes considering that even for lordly monarchy, it is preferable to have the wealth flow from all across the land rather than some estates the sovereign has… since the aim is ultimately for the commonweal and will have this channeled back. It is clear lordly monarchies don't have this problem, but with royal monarchies when it works it works considerably well.
(202.46 KB 562x516 grace cookie bite.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

Right, it was Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes / The Public Is Not To Be Dieted >In the Distribution of land, the Common-wealth itself, may be conceived to have a portion, and possess, and improve the same by their Representative; and that such portion may be made sufficient, to sustain the whole expence to the common Peace, and defence necessarily required: Which were very true, if there could be any Representative conceived free from humane passions, and infirmities. But the nature of men being as it is, the setting forth of Public Land, or of any certain Revenue for the Commonwealth, is in vain; and tends to the dissolution of Government, and to the condition of mere Nature, and War, as soon as ever the Sovereign Power falls into the hands of a Monarch, or of an Assembly, that are either too negligent of money, or too hazardous in engaging the public stock, into a long, or costly war. Commonwealths can endure no Diet: For seeing their expence is not limited by their own appetite, but by externall Accidents, and the appetites of their neighbours, the Public Riches cannot be limited by other limits, than those which the emergent occasions shall require. And whereas in England, there were by the Conquerour, diverse Lands reserved to his own use, (besides Forests, and Chases, either for his recreation, or for preservation of Woods,) and diverse services reserved on the Land he gave his Subjects; yet it seems they were not reserved for his Maintenance in his Public, but in his Natural capacity: For he, and his Successors did for all that, lay Arbitrary Taxes on all Subjects land, when they judged it necessary. Or if those public Lands, and Services, were ordained as a sufficient maintenance of the Commonwealth, it was contrary to the scope of the Institution; being (as it appeared by those ensuing Taxes) insufficient, and (as it appears by the late Revenue of the Crown) Subject to Alienation, and Diminution. It is therefore in vain, to assign a portion to the Commonwealth; which may sell, or give it away; and does sell, and give it away when tis done by their Representative. I have mixed feelings here. For instance, I recall that a taxation policy under an imperial dynasty of China was to have a portion of farmland on each farm and its yield reserved for the public. Or certain quotas would be another tax policy. Hobbes deemed it dieting and insufficient for the sovereign to rely on his own estates or expand them, but it might certainly help a Monarch (knowing the needs of monarchs is greater to attain all splendid royal things they might want a few monopolies and estates to cover this so dissenters will have less to bitch about when it comes to the public expense covering royal accommodations). Imo the Monarch should have these and I know it annoys the free marketeers to have a monarch meddling in the economy or monopolies or any royal provisions or royal estates. Besides, it happens regardless for any form of State – they will have a hand in the economy and the nature of economy is political anyways like I mentioned. IDK I think Hobbes thinks if we removed these pretenses about taxes, it wouldn't be a problem.
Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Soveraign, But Onely Of Another Subject >From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Soveraign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed voyd. It is true, that a Soveraign Monarch, or the greater part of a Soveraign Assembly, may ordain the doing of many things in pursuit of their Passions, contrary to their own consciences, which is a breach of trust, and of the Law of Nature; but this is not enough to authorise any subject, either to make warre upon, or so much as to accuse of Injustice, or any way to speak evill of their Soveraign; because they have authorised all his actions, and in bestowing the Soveraign Power, made them their own. But in what cases the Commands of Soveraigns are contrary to Equity, and the Law of Nature, is to be considered hereafter in another place. >The seventh Doctrine opposite to Government, is this, That each subject hath an absolute Dominion over the goods he is in possession of. That is to say, such a propriety as excludes not only the right of all the rest of his fellow−subjects to the same goods, but also of the Magistrate himself. Which is not true; for they who have a Lord over them, have themselves no Lordship, as hath been proved, Chap. 8. Artic. 5. Now the Magistrate is Lord of all his Subjects, by the constitution of Government. Before the yoke of Civill Society was undertaken, no man had any Proper Right; all things were common to all men. Tell me therefore, how gottest thou this propriety but from the Magistrate? How got the Magistrates it, but that every man transferred his Right on him? And thou therefore hast also given up thy Right to him; thy Dominion therefore, and Propriety, is just so much as he will, and shall last so long as he pleases; even as in a Family, each Son hath such proper goods, and so long lasting, as seeme good to the Father. But the greatest part of men who professe Civill Prudence, reason otherwise; we are equall (say they) by nature; there is no reason why any man should by better Right take my goods from me, than I his from him; we know that mony sometimes is needfull for the defence and maintenance of the publique; but let them, who require it, shew us the present necessity, and they shall willingly receive it. They who talk thus, know not, that what they would have, is already done from the beginning in the very constitution of Government, and therefore speaking as in a dissolute multitude, and yet not fashioned Government, they destroy the frame. >Farthermore, its necessarily requisite to the peoples defence, that they be fore−armed. Now to be fore−armed is to be furnisht with Souldiers, Armes, Ships, Forts and Monies, before the danger be instant; for the listing of Souldiers, and taking up of Armes after a blow is given, is too late at least, if not impossible. In like manner, not to raise Forts, and appoint Garrisons in convenient places, before the Frontiers are invaded, is to be like those Country Swains (as Demosthenes said) who ignorant of the art of Fencing, with their Bucklers guarded those parts of the body where they first felt the smart of the strokes. But they who think it then seasonable enough to raise Monies for the maintenance of Souldiers, and other Charges of War, when the danger begins to shew itself, they consider not surely how difficult a matter it is to wring suddenly out of close−fisted men so vast a proportion of Monies; for almost all men, what they once reckon in the number of their goods, doe judge themselves to have such a right and propriety in it, as they conceive themselves to be injured whensoever they are forced to employ but the least part of it for the publique good >Now a sufficient stock of monies to defend the Country with Armes, will not soon be raised out of the treasure of Imposts, and Customes; we must therefore, for fear of War, in time of Peace hoord up good summs, if we intend the safety of the Common−weal. Since therefore it necessarily belongs to Rulers for the Subjects safety to discover the Enemies Counsell, to keep Garrisons, and to have Money in continuall readinesse, and that Princes are by the Law of Nature bound to use their whole endeavour in procuring the welfare of their Subjects, it followes, that its not onely lawfull for them to send out Spies, to maintain Souldiers, to build Forts, and to require Monies for these purposes, but also, not to doe thus, is unlawfull. To which also may be added, whatsoever shall seeme to conduce to the lessening of the power of foreigners whom they suspect, whether by sleight, or force. For Rulers are bound according to their power to prevent the evills they suspect, lest peradventure they may happen through their negligence. >The fourth opinion (viz.): that subjects have their meum, tuum, and suum, in property, not only by virtue of the sovereign power over them all, distinct from one another, but also against the sovereign himself, by which they would pretend to contribute nothing to the public, but what they please, hath been already confuted >For the second grievance concerning meum and tuum, it is also none, but in appearance only. It consisteth in this, that the sovereign power taketh from him that which he used to enjoy, knowing no other propriety, but use and custom. But without such sovereign power, the right of men is not propriety to any thing, but a community; no better than to have no right at all, as hath been shewed Part I. chap. XIV, sect. 10. Propriety therefore being derived from the sovereign power, is not to be pretended against the same; especially when by it every subject hath his propriety against every other subject, which when sovereignty ceaseth, he hath not, because in that case they return to war amongst themselves. Those levies therefore which are made upon men’s estates, by the sovereign authority, are no more but the price of that peace and defence which the sovereignty maintaineth for them. If this were not so, no money nor forces for the wars or any other public occasion, could justly be levied in the world; for neither king, nor democracy, nor aristocracy, nor the estates of any land, could do it, if the sovereignty could not. For in all those cases, it is levied by virtue of the sovereignty; nay more, by the three estates here, the land of one man may be transferred to another, without crime of him from whom it was taken, and without pretence of public benefit; as hath been done. And this without injury, because done by the sovereign power; for the power whereby it is done, is no less than sovereign, and cannot be greater. Therefore this grievance for meum and tuum is not real; unless more be exacted than is necessary. But it seemeth a grievance, because to them that either know not the right of sovereignty, or to whom that right belongeth, it seemeth an injury; and injury, how light soever the damage, is always grievous, as putting us in mind of our disability to help ourselves.
Apart from belittling it as a mere pretense against the necessity of having funds via taxation, I'm not sure Hobbes has a solution other than that commonwealths inevitably will ignore those pretenses anyways. Maybe this is right. States today don't make as big a pretense than they did against Monarchies (as others have pointed out). As for taxation, Hobbes suggests a consumption tax as equitable and fair. While I am convinced that it is ideal to have funds from all across the lands funnel, a bit of lordly monarchy and revenue feels like what most people would accept as the path of least resistance. Monarchist apologists today make this case: they say that the British monarchy today doesn't take much at the public expense because of money earned from the crown estates and tourism. This is all is lordly monarchy is, but at a much larger scale… so people prefer a lordly monarchy in the sense that the monarchy has monopolies and immense wealth and lands. It doesn't ache them as much as taxation under a royal monarchy, so I'm not sure with Hobbes about the problem of dieting. I see his point that the Monarch will inevitably have to tax and adjust accordingly so a strict diet wouldn't do, but some dieting to funnel into the public wealth might help with lessening the tax burden or the grievances. But maybe States today are better primed since I know many right libertarians are complaining about the exorbitant taxes of the modern day. So I'm sure that by now they'd be used to it or wouldn't think they'd be better off with another form of State.
Following the Sun rising from Mt. Paektu 🌄 Our hearts are beating faster with every step 🫀🩸 We are the children of the Grand Marshal Kim Il Sung 🇰🇵 Aristotle on Education >No one will doubt that the legislator should direct his attention above all to the education of youth; for the neglect of education does harm to the State. The citizen should be molded to suit the form of State under which he lives. For each State has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it. >And since the whole City has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private–not as at present, when every one looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best; the training in things which are of common interest should be the same for all. Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the State, and are each of them a part of the State, and the care of each part is inseparable from the care of the Whole. Xenophon Cyropaedia <The education of youth >It is true that he was brought up according to the laws and customs of the Persians, and of these laws it must be noted that while they aim, as laws elsewhere, at the common weal, their guiding principle is far other than that which most nations follow. >Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. (3) But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object. <Friend & Enemy distinction: careful not to teach children dangerous things >Yes, my son, it is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage. And he drew the line between what one should do to one's friends and what to one's enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right to even deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose. (This is important b/c regicide theories would also use the basis of friend / enemy distinction between a king or tyrant & justify killing their king; though I think that the subjects shouldn't be taught to distinguish their Sovereign as any such enemy–their relation like children & the sovereign monarch their father–if they are taught anyone is an enemy, it is the opponents of their Sovereign & never the Sovereign himself, b/c esp. the monarchy-haters are too apt to abuse this). >And in teaching these lessons he had also to train the boys to practise them upon one another, just as also in wrestling, the Greeks, they say, teach deception and train the boys to be able to practise it upon one another. When, therefore, some had in this way become expert both in deceiving successfully and in taking unfair advantage and perhaps also not inexpert in avarice, the did not refrain from trying to take an unfair advantage even of their friends. >In consequence of that, therefore, an ordnance was passed which obtains even unto this day, simply to teach out boys, just as we teach our servants in their relations towards us, to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage; and if they should act contrary to this law, the law requires their punishment, in order that, inured to such habits, they may become more refined members of society. (All States today do this: they teach their citizens at birth to uphold the values of their State & only a friendly image, & reserves the bad teachings for any enemies, like is said – that they may become more refined members of society) >But when they came to be as old as you are now, then it seemed to be safe to teach them that also which is lawful towards enemies; for it does not seem likely that you would break away and fun into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect. In the same way we do not discuss sexual matters in the presence of very young boys, lest in case lax discipline should give a free rein to their passions the young might indulge them to excess.
Thomas Hobbes on Instruction / Education >Another thing necessary, is rooting out from the consciences of men all those opinions which seem to justify, and give pretense of right to rebellious actions… that there is a body of the people without him or them that have the sovereign power… and because opinions which are gotten by education, and in length of time are made habitual, cannot be taken away by force, and upon the sudden: they must therefore be taken away also, by time and education. And seeing the said opinions have proceeded from private and public teaching, and those teachers have received from grounds and principles, which they have learned in the Universities… >Instruction of the people in the essential rights which are the natural and fundamental laws of sovereignty… it is his duty to cause them [his subjects] to be instructed; and not only his duty, but his benefit also. >Whereas the common people's minds, unless they be tainted with dependence on the potent, or scribbled over with the opinions of their doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatsoever the public authority shall be imprinted in them. >And, to descend to particulars, the people are to be taught, first, that they ought not to be in love with any form of government that they see in their neighbor nations, more than with their own, nor, whatsoever present prosperity they behold in nations that are otherwise governed than they, to desire change. For the prosperity of a people ruled by an oligarchical or democratical assembly comes not from Oligarchy, nor from Democracy, but from the obedience and concord of the subjects: nor do the people flourish in Monarchy because one man the has right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in any kind of state the obedience, and consequently the concord of the people, and they shall not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience to do no more than reform the Commonwealth shall find they do thereby destroy it; like the foolish daughters of Peleus, in the fable, which desiring to renew the youth of their decrepit father, did by the counsel of Medea cut him in pieces and boil him, together with strange herbs, but made not of him a new man. This desire of change is like the breach of the first of God's Commandments: for there God says, Non habebis Deos alienos: "Thou shalt not have the Gods of other nations," and in another place concerning kings, that they are gods. >[The Means to be Sovereign such as] appointing Teachers, and examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence, Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let the people be ignorant, or misinformed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essential Rights; because thereby men are easy to be seduced, and drawn to resist him, when the Common-wealth shall require their use and exercise. >But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty. >I conclude therefore, that in the instruction of the people in the Essentiall Rights (which are the Naturall, and Fundamentall Lawes) of Soveraignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a Soveraign has his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault, or the fault of those whom he trusteth in the administration of the Common-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not onely his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger that may arrive to himselfe in his naturall Person, from Rebellion. <The Use of Universities >As for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receive this Instruction, wee are to search, by what means so may Opinions, contrary to the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have neverthelesse been so deeply rooted in them… It is therefore manifest, that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the right teaching of Youth in the Universities. >It is his Duty, to cause them to be so instructed; and not only his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security…
<Alexander Hamilton / An absolute monarchy would be more tolerable than the authority of British Parliament over America >I'll go farther, & assert, that the authority of the British Parliament over America, would, in all probability, be a more intolerable & excessive species of despotism than an absolute monarchy. The power of an absolute prince is not temporary, but perpetual. >He is under no temptation to purchase the favour of one part of his dominions, at the expence of another; but, it is his interest to treat them all, upon the same footing. >Very different is the case with regard to the Parliament: The Lords and Commons both, have a private and separate interest to pursue. To be found in Hamilton's Farmer Refuted in response to Samuel Seasbury: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0057 What Alexander Hamilton says is eerily similar to Hobbes' Leviathan >From whence it follows, that where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced. Now in Monarchy, the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a Monarch arise only from the riches, strength and reputation of his Subjects. For no King can be rich, nor glorious. nor secure; whose Subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissention, to maintain a war against their enemies: Whereas in a Democracy, or Aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune.
>ywn spank Grace How does it feel anons?
(814.83 KB 3000x3000 Grace wink OC.png)

(481.37 KB 839x1200 E3g-TxuXIAEA6cL.jpg)

(300.22 KB 1920x1080 312_mussolini.jpg)

In fact, Fascism is no less absolutist. Mussolini >For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative. Giovanni Gentile: >It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs These are absolutist talking points, maintaining our notion of an indivisible, absolute sovereignty in modern times. Giovanni Gentile: >The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself. The Fascist State is a sovereign state: a sovereign or majestic State, like Bodin's sovereignty. What about Fascist corporatism? Thomas Hobbes >And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union Hobbes testifies, the same had not been taken notice of the body-politic, neither had innumerable writers of politics beforehand observed such a union: that the political or state would be a corporation of one person, a monarch. Giovanni Gentile: >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. Thomas Hobbes: Definition of a Commonwealth: >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.” Giovanni Gentile >Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning. >For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual. Mussolini >In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. >It is not the nation which generates the State >Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity. Giovanni Gentile: >For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis. This necessary synthesis, that Giovanni Gentile talks of, of State and Individual, is none other than the monarchical pre-eminence, that groundwork of sovereignty or majesty: where the individual is insufficent; the political sufficient; monarchical pre-eminence puts the individual on par with the political, the person with majesty has the relationship of the whole to the part, like Aristotle describes. Yet Hobbes started individual, to know ones' self, then ended individual in the State or Leviathan as a corporation of one person, that's why I tend to respect his legacy as a monarchist. This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly– >Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course. -Bertrand De Jouvenel
[Expand Post] <The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: Giovanni Gentile mentions how nationalists place the whole prior to the part, or state conceived as prior to the individual. Aristotle: >Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part. Yet for Fascism, Gentile says– >For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis. Imo this builds off Thomas Hobbes. It was Thomas Hobbes aspiration to build a foundation for monarchical pre-eminence on popular sovereignty that allowed him to make individual and state inseperable: in the same way he would justify his monarchical pre-eminence by making the King and the People one and all, making the King's majesty also the totality of the people, united in one monarchical person. That famous portrait of Mussolini with the Si, si, si, si, reminds me of the total consent of the multitude into one person, w/ Mussolini's persona being representative. Thomas Hobbes: Generation of a Commonwealth or Leviathan >The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industry, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills [si, si, si, si[, by plurality of voices [si, si, si, si], unto one Will [si, si, si, si] What about this passage Mussolini says, that the State generates the people? Well, Bossuet likewise borrowed from Hobbes: since the Leviathan or State is one person, formally called the people, it is the sovereignty that makes the people. Mussolini >In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. >It is not the nation which generates the State >Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity. Bossuet: >To imagine now, with M. Jurieu, in the people considered to be in this condition, a sovereignty, which is already a species of government, is to insist on a government before all government, and to contradict oneself. Far from the people being sovereign in this condition, there is not even a people in this state. There may be families, as ill-governed as they are ill-secured; there may well be a troop, a mass of people, a confused multitude; but there can be no people, because people supposes something which already brings together some regulated conduct and some establshed law – something which happens only to those who have already begun to leave this unhappy condition, that is to say, that of anarchy. Joseph de Maistre >If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people of
(212.63 KB 1669x1136 LXad970e.jpg)

(990.06 KB 2000x1252 header_essay-bruschetti.jpg)

Let's talk about the so-called Fascist concept of life & its totalitarian character & immanentism. In other words, biopolitics. Mussolini >The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. >Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values. Giovanni Gentile: >The first point, therefore, that must be established in a definition of Fascism, is the totalitarian character of its doctrine, which concerns itself not only with political order and direction of the nation, but with its will, thought and sentiment. Giovanni Gentile: >A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit Mussolini: >The State guarantees internal & external safety of the country, but it safeguards & transmits the spirit of the people, in language, its customs, its faith. >Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. Giovanni Gentile: >Morality & religion, essential elements in every consciousness, must be there, but they must be subordinated to the laws of the State, fused in it, absorbed in it. Mussolini: >The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual & raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Giovanni Gentile: >Thus, its formation is a product of the consciousness of each individual, & thus of the masses, in which the power of the State consists. >That explains the necessity of the Fascist Party & propaganda and of education to foster the political & moral ideals of Fascism. Giovanni Gentile: >To be a Catholic meant to live in the Church & under its discipline. Therefore, it was a necessity for the Fascist State to recognize the religious authority of the Church; a political necessity, a political recognition, w/ respect to the realization of the State itself. >The ecclesiastical politics of the Italian State must resolve the problem of maintaining its sovereignty, intact & absolute, even before the Church, w/o casting itself athwart the Catholic consciousness of Italians, nor Church that consciousness is subordinated. >It's a grave problem, as the transcendent conception that rules Catholicism contradicts the immanentist character of the political conception of Fascism. >Far from being a negation of liberalism & democracy, Fascism aspires to be a perfection of liberalism & democracy. This is the totalitarian character of Fascism: it is concerned with the total, the whole, the general power. This is fostered in part due to actual idealism & its immanentism. This makes Fascism very heterodox, but monarchical absolutism was heterodox in its own ways. This Fascist concept of life is the Leviathan holding both Sword & Crosier, the political AND spiritual power, imo, & the immanentism helps justify it, but heavily political doctrines like Fascism or monarchical absolutism necessarily have to be a bit heterodox to uplift the political. Evola & his traditionalists in general tends to look down on the political, whereas Fascism, like monarchical absolutism, uplifts the civil power and the political authority. Also contradicts Fascism's immanentism that embraces life and enables its totalitarianism w/o directly stating it wants Sword & Crosier, thereby enabling it to work within the modern world w/o appearing too anachronistic. What about Fascism's unitary beliefs? Giovanni Gentile: >The Fascist State, in order to penetrate & direct the consciousness of its citizens, wishes to organize them in national unity; a unity possessed of a soul. >That unity would manifest itself as a unitary being, possessed of powerful will, & conscious of its own ends. Thomas Hobbes: >For the Sovereign, is the public Soul, giving Life and Motion to the Commonwealth [State]. >[The Sovereign] relation to the City is not that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
[Expand Post]>The error concerning mixed government 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. Jean Bodin >For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens Fascism's unitary being, a unity possessed of a soul, is none other than our sovereignty, Could Fascism not be more monarchical? yes, in the leadership principle fascists have. Giovanni Gentile: >So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses. You might ask yourself, Fascism couldn't sound anymore like monarchical absolutism, right? or as anachronistic to appeal to something like the divine right of kings or something–? Read this quote & look at my 2nd pic related: (that picture is a good match for the quote below) Giovanni Gentile: <That Leader advances, secure, surrounded in an aura of myth, almost a person chosen by the Deity, tireless and infallible, an instrument employed by Providence to create a new civilization.
(964.91 KB 1500x1500 grace 7 kitto.png)


(428.51 KB 1109x951 Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

You need to understand that even before Hobbes the English had the distinction of the natural and political person of the King with the great seal. In the same way Catholics ex cathedra. Which is indeed like Warhammer 40k and the god emperor seated on the throne, much akin to that is the artificial person of the commonwealth styled that mortal god. As remarked here, W.P. Esq: >For he is a Corporation of himself, and has two capacities, (to wit) a Natural Body, in which he may inherit to any of his Ancestors, or purchase Lands to him, and the Heirs of his Body, which he shall retain, although he be afterwards removed from his Royal Estate; and Body Politick, in which he may purchase to him and his Heirs, Kings of England, or to him and his Successors, yet both Bodies make but one individual Body. Plowden It's important to understand the context behind this in the English Civil Wars. Thomas Hobbes notes here– >[Roundheads furnished supplies] for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws) See how they abused the political person of the king against the natural person of the king? the resolution Hobbes sought to resolve was trying to make them more united. John Cook, regicide and lawyer from the trial of King Charles I. Cook writes here >Greater than any one, but less than all This is in part related to the food for the table argument from Aristotle's Politics: that albeit one wise man could outsmart any one of an assembly, the assembly brings all the food to the table: this is a critical problem for monarchists – how to put the monarch or the individual on par with the people in general? that is the task of monarchical pre-eminence as a basis to justify monarchical authority – you must think like a monarchist to understand this. Others have written about this issue John Cook brings up. Francis Theobald >That the King is greater than any particular single man, but less than the whole body of men in a nation. >If there be any force in this way of arguing, by the same reason it will follow, that a flock of sheep are more excellent than a man, because the shepherd is found out for the sheep, and not the sheep for the shepherd; for if there were no flocks of sheep, there would be no need of a shepherd. Thomas Hobbes' answer to this dilemma, how to start with one person and end with one person in monarchical pre-eminence on par with the strength of the people and indivisible from them is part of his genius. Thomas Hobbes >This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the Sovereignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of Sovereign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of less power than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signify the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they understand them as one Person (which person the Sovereign appears,) then the power of all together, is the same with the Sovereign's power; and so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the Sovereignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it not; and yet the power of Sovereignty is the same in whomsoever it be placed. This is Thomas Hobbes' answer to John Cook. That is the magic of Leviathan, like pushing a camel through the eye of a needle. The whole business of monarchical pre-eminence, or majesty, or sovereignty is the groundwork for justifying the supremacy of the monarch. How to give the monarch that relationship, as Aristotle puts it, of being that pre-eminent person who has the relationship of the whole to the part. Or as Louis XIV calls it, Nec Pluribus Impar, meaning, Not Unequal to Many, which was his personal motto, the very meaning of this was equivalent to saying – I am the State. <Thomas Hobbes: The Multitude vs the People <In the last place, it's a great hindrance to Civill Government, especially Monarchicall, that men distinguish not enough between a People and a Multitude. The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are Citizens, that is to say, Subjects. In a Democraty, and Aristocraty, the Citizens are the Multitude, but the Court is the People. And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seeme a Paradox) the King is the People. >The common sort of men, and others who little consider these truthes, do alwayes speak of a great number of men, as of the People, that is to say, the City; they say that the City hath rebelled against the King (which is impossible) and that the People will, and nill, what murmuring and discontented Subjects would have, or would not have, under pretence of the People, stirring up the Citizens against the City, that is to say, the Multitude against the People.
(809.17 KB 1500x1500 grace 11 kitto.png)

(10.32 MB 640x360 Vincere! Vincere! Vincere!.mp4)


part 2 of an absolutist inquiry on fascism. Mario Palmieri explicitly maintains an absolutist view on monarchy; Mario makes the sovereignty indivisible & puts the 3 branches of govt in the king's sovereignty and lists Bodin's marks of sovereignty. This is extremely unique to me b/c maintaining an absolutist stance like this is very antiquated and striking in the year 1936. It has to be very deliberate to revive the political absolutism: that is very striking to me about this Fascist work. Mario Palmieri in Philosophy of Fascism: Mario Palmieri >While the King personifies the sovereign authority of the State, authority which in itself sums up all powers; executive, legislative and judiciary, the Head of the Government represents only the King in his relationship with the People. >It is thus that in the Fascist reform of the State, the King is still the only one who has the right to declare war or to accept peace, the right of pardoning those condemned by the judiciary organs of the State, the right of stipulating in the name of the State, treatises of alliance with other states and, finally, the right to be outside and above all laws. This is an absolutist stance on monarchy. It unites executive, legislative, judiciary as offspring of an indivisible sovereign power summing up all the powers derived from Majesty. It lists Jean Bodin's marks of sovereignty (in a stunningly similar fashion to the Richard Knolles translation) – an absolute power above all laws – let's make the comparison with Jean Bodin. Jean Bodin's Marks of Sovereignty: >1. Make laws >2. Declare war / peace >3. Appoint magistrates >4. Hear last appeals >5. Give pardons >6. Receive fealty & homage >7. Coining of money >8. Regulation of weights & measures >9. Impose taxes >10. The power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punish Jean Bodin >So also is it proper unto sovereign majesty, to receive the subjects appeals, and the greatest magistrates, to place and displace officers, charge or exempt the subjects from taxes and subsidies, to grant pardons and dispensations against the rigor of the law, to have power of life and death, to increase or diminish the value and weight of the coin, to give it title, name, and figure: to cause all subjects and liegemen to swear for the keeping of their fidelity without exception, unto him to whom such oath is due: which are the true marks of sovereignty, comprised under the power of being able to give law to all in general, and to every one in particular, and not receive any law or command from any other >Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongeth an absolute power, not subject to any law. >It behooves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish other: which he cannot do that is himself subject laws or others In an older work, he lists them again. >I see the sovereignty of state involved in five functions. >One, and it is the principal one, is creating the most important magistrates and defining the office of each one; the second, proclaiming and annulling laws; the third, declaring war and peace; the fourth, receiving appeal from all magistrates; the last, the power of life and death when the law itself leaves no room for extenuation or grace. Back to Mario. Mario Palmieri >Above all, foundation and mainstay of the Fascist reform is the theory that all powers of the State belong to the King who personifies the very authority of the State, and that he simply delegates the executive, legislative and judiciary functions to the very organs of the State. >The King, in other words, not the people, is the true Sovereign of the Fascist State. It is outlandish, for sure, but Fascism has maintained or revived the doctrine of absolutism in some fashion. That had been unfashionable in the Anglosphere by the turn of the century into the 1700s, and unfashionable in continental Europe by the turn of the century into the 1800s (where the Victorian era saw a revival in constitutionalism, the more orthodox and traditional view compared to heterodox absolutism).
[Expand Post] Mario Palmieri marks it out well: the discredit and ridicule of our political ideals: >It is no more than a platitude to affirm that the birth of Fascism found the political world in a condition of anarchy and decadence. >The theocratic principle of the autocratic state, which derived the authority of the Sovereign from the will of God, was not only discredited but ridiculed as well. Benito Mussolini marks this out similarly in The Doctrine of Fascism: >Fascism is opposed to Classical Liberalism which arose as a reaction to Absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became an expression of the conscience and will of the people >Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts Vincere, vincere, vincere È la parola d'ordine D'una suprema volontà That supreme will, & word of order, in the song Vincere is the sovereign will, majesty, the highest power to command.
(401.05 KB 829x745 grace w laurel.png)

(15.58 MB 640x360 Saluto Al Duce special.mp4)

(14.30 MB 640x360 Rataplan delle camicie nere.mp4)

Alfredo Rocco in The Political Doctrine of Fascism also makes out a historical outlook sympathetic to monarchical absolutism: >This innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle Ages. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement started by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution was directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as a negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and fulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages. Socially and politically considered, the Middle Ages wrought disintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual weakening and ultimate extinction of the State, embodied in the Roman Empire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to Germany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady advance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the State and reciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant particularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement of the 17th and 18th centuries was not directed against the Middle Ages, but rather against the restoration of the State by great national monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions that had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new states, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against the State. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The novelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and in its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the feudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations had been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the bourgeoisie and of the popular classes. Many traditionalists too prefer constitutionalism on the basis that it had precedence in the Middle Ages contrary to absolutism of the early modernity starting in the late 1500s. & ancaps today repeat the Tocquevillist mantra and see Medievalism and the Holy Roman Empire as an anarchy and decentralization they admire. Alfredo Rocco brings up Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia & Aquinas De Regno: >It was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest political writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of unity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the dangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the State, says St. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly than he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as far as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always one. In the physical body only one organ is dominant—the heart; in the spirit only one faculty has sway—reason. Bees have one sole ruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign—God. Experience shows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of disc0rd while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice, and plenty. The states which are not ruled by one are troubled by dissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which are ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are gladdened by affluence. >Italy in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in practice the authority of the State was being dissolved into a multiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of State unity and authority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of the Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for centuries the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it existed no longer. Dante's De Monarchia deduced the theory of this empire conceived as the unity of a strong State. "Quod potest fieri per unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura," he says in the 14th chapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as an instrument for the attainment of the ends of the State, he concludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country. "Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars quaedam civitatis … homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum." (lib. II. 8). Mussolini in A Diary of the Will (1927): >Yes. The State is that unitary expression, absolute will, of the power and of the consciousness of the Nation >This executive power–is the sovereign power of the Nation. The supreme head is the King Then Mussolini on his leadership doctrine for Fascist party members: >Because in the subordination of all to the will of a Leader, which is not a capricious will, but a seriously meditative will, & proven by deeds, Fascism has found its strength. >There should be no limits. We must obey even if the Leader asks too much.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 10/09/2023 (Mon) 03:10:45.
Personally, I'm convinced it the decentralization / centralization babble in essence goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle disagreed with Plato, stating contrary to Plato that economical and political do have a contrary character, whereas Plato confers that they are no different and aren't of a contrary character. Because Aristotle asserts that political rule is the rule of constitutional freemen, and that democracy is freedom; but also that monarchy is the rule of a household, and monarchy is only concerned with staying in power – Aristotle sets the record that monarchy is despotism over constitutional freemen and ought to be one among equals or always to stay with popular convention of freemen and not like a master. Prior to the 1700s, there wasn't much talk of decentralization vs centralization like with left or right politics that's a staple of our more contemporary political lexicon–albeit we know the rudiments for this discussion in the past and how they came to be. Of course there was party politics and divisions of land and their concentration and separation. But after the colonization and constitutional debates between Americans over their colonial territory, after the French Revolution, & about the time of Alexis de Tocqueville and Bastiat, the terms decentralization and centralization were introduced with much more gravity and weight. They are words with no bearing on the concept of sovereignty. Imo, the pretense of decentralization has always been that: the independent rule of freemen, as Aristotle puts it, contrary to Plato: the idea that political and economical are of contrary characters, and that we must respect the political estate differently. That independent heads of houses are set apart from the city itself as freemen: but in this context it's not heads of households as freemen, but autonomous regions making the pretense against the notion of states and any wider authority. This is why Alexis de Tocqueville in the pretext of his work on the Old Regime sets it apart as the pretense of Liberty vs Despotism: that Liberty must prevail of Despotism. And despotism is the idea that the character of the political and economical are no different, like we say, back to Plato. The followers of Tocqueville and his political legacy, like Hoppe and De Jouvenel, tend to be aristocratic apologists. Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of the Ancien Regime brings up, however, that his study of the Middle Ages in search of the Old European Constitution is related largely to Germany / HRE (which, as we all know, muh border gore). It's what Ancaps and neofeuds always appeal to. Jean Bodin classifies the HRE / Germany to be an Aristocracy or kind of Oligarchy, so while Alexis de Tocqueville starts his analysis for the Old Constitution of Europe and his appeal to decentralization – it's important to note how it begins with a form of state that had been recognized as aristocratic or oligarchical. Because Alexis de Tocqueville's big blurt is about centralization and decentralization: his entire critique is standing upon this chair, and if you kick this chair from beneath the feat of Alexis de Tocqueville – he will collapse and break his bones. Alexis de Tocqueville notes in his work how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy, and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy Which is important to see how this is related to his study of Germany and the Prussian influence. Now I would babble about how these words decentralization / centralization are anathema to sovereignty and our political understanding, but suffice to say, that this pretense begins with Aristotle saying that the economy has a different character from the political will suffice enough, esp. when it comes to his idea of freemen (which Hobbes criticizes duly). A lot we see with American exceptionalism and democracy in terms of freedom and constitutionalism goes back to Aristotle. For a mixed constitution, it is largely attributed to Aristotle and Polybius, particularly Aristotle since Aristotle views whatever is whole to be a composite. I ward off their pretense of decentralization / centralization for absolute monarchy by these four points: 1. Political economy, how they aren't of a different character: all my political ancestors would agree more w/ Plato there than Aristotle. 2. The general is accepted over the particular. 3. These two words have no bearing on the concept of Sovereignty, & they confound a union or bond or state – with an association or concord or alliance. 4. Like the Anarchist symbol with an A within a circle, they appeal to decentralization to have order without rulers or a circle without a point. The doctrine of absolutism that Tocqueville slanders as the mother of all modern socialism has been acknowledged beforehand numerous times. He only begrudgingly admits that it had origins in the feudal system and his only pretense is the courts never admitted it – but if you read there's plenty of testimony behind the doctrine. – What I hate about Tocqueville here is the appeal to the Middle Ages and making a huff about how medieval royalism was different to renaissance and early modern royalism kinda originates with him and ancaps and anarcho-monarchists annoy me with it like Tocqueville does. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, says this: Alexander Hamilton >Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper. >When a nation abolishes aristocracy, centralization follows as a matter of course. -Alexis de Tocqueville How do I see Tocqueville's political legacy today? Tocqueville & Bastiat -→ De Jouvenel & Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -→ Hans-Hermann Hoppe A big influence on right libertarians w/ these names. They tend to be skeptical of democracy and monarchy and more forward w/ notions of aristocracy: it's b/c Hoppe has Tocquevillist reservations about monarchy that he doesn't consider himself a monarchist: but much like Tocqueville, Hoppe says he'd prefer an absolute monarchy to democracy in that way. It's very confusing b/c sometimes Tocqueville does appeal to democracy and patriotism and free cities (since right libertarians prior, again, appealed to free cities like Aristotle with freemen before the notion of the state and cities and commonwealth became odious to libertarians and they instead preferred free market).
[Expand Post]In my 3rd screencap, you can see the context of what I'm talking about: with a notation for Plato and how Aristotle calls it an erroneous opinion. My 2nd screencap is repudiations from my political ancestors over this doctrine, but they all seem to agree more with Plato than Aristotle on this issue.
(497.22 KB 1000x1000 20230826100405.png)

(698.44 KB 2400x2928 Thomas Hobbes portrait.jpg)


Thomas Hobbes tried to tackle this issue with Aristotle. >Now seeing freedom cannot stand together with subjection, liberty in a commonwealth is nothing but government and rule, which because it cannot be divided, men must expect in common; and that can be no where but in the popular state, or democracy. And Aristotle saith well (lib. 6, cap. 2 of his Politics), The ground or intention of a democracy, is liberty; which he confirmeth in these words: For men ordinarily say this: that no man can partake of liberty, but only in a popular commonwealth. Whosoever therefore in a monarchical estate, where the sovereign power is absolutely in one man, claimeth liberty, claimeth (if the hardest construction should be made thereof) either to have the sovereignty in his turn, or to be colleague with him that hath it, or to have the monarchy changed into a democracy <[Semi-relevant, from a previous chapter] <[The subjection of them who institute a commonwealth amongst themselves, is no less absolute, than the subjection of servants. And therein they are in equal estate; but the hope of those is greater than the hope of these. For he that subjecteth himself uncompelled, thinketh there is reason he should be better used, than he that doth it upon compulsion; and coming in freely, calleth himself, though in subjection, a FREEMAN; whereby it appeareth, that liberty is not any exemption from subjection and obedience to the sovereign power, but a state of better hope than theirs, that have been subjected by force and conquest. And this was the reason, that the name that signifieth children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifieth freemen. And yet in Rome, nothing at that time was so obnoxious to the power of others, as children in the family of their fathers. For both the state had power over their life without consent of their fathers; and the father might kill his son by his own authority, without any warrant from the state.] <[Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest. A freeman therefore may expect employments of honour, rather than a servant. And this is all that can be understood by the liberty of the subject. For in all other senses, liberty is the state of him that is not subject.] In Leviathan: >The Athenians, and Romanes, were free; that is, free Common-wealths: not that any particular men had the Libertie to resist their own Representative; but that their Representative had the Libertie to resist, or invade other people. There is written on the Turrets of the city of Luca in great characters at this day, the word LIBERTAS; yet no man can thence inferre, that a particular man has more Libertie, or Immunitie from the service of the Commonwealth there, than in Constantinople. Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchicall, or Popular, the Freedome is still the same. >But it is an easy thing, for men to be deceived, by the specious name of Libertie; and for want of Judgement to distinguish, mistake that for their Private Inheritance, and Birth right, which is the right of the Publique only. And when the same errour is confirmed by the authority of men in reputation for their writings in this subject, it is no wonder if it produce sedition, and change of Government. In these westerne parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the Institution, and Rights of Common-wealths, from Aristotle, Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romanes, that living under Popular States, derived those Rights, not from the Principles of Nature, but transcribed them into their books, out of the Practice of their own Common-wealths, which were Popular; as the Grammarians describe the Rules of Language, out of the Practise of the time; or the Rules of Poetry, out of the Poems of Homer and Virgil. And because the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under Monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politiques,(lib.6.cap.2) “In democracy, Liberty is to be supposed: for ’tis commonly held, that no man is Free in any other Government.” Those are my thoughts on the contemporary bug words decentralization and centralization, and how I think it originates with Plato and Aristotle, but Aristotle particularly for differentiating the political from the household rule on the basis of freemen.
<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city >Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him. <Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth >So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed. <Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different >Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found. What I think by both communties, – means the State likewise has public servants. That an economic household, with its division of labors and servants, like a chef, tutor for the master's children, and maids, are no less modeled for the City: there's no difference between political (the city) and the household (economic). Or a nicer sounding way of saying it – a family as the economic is the true model for a political state. >Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular. <Hobbes / That a Family is a little City >"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."
>It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants, or these in their turn apart from each other by an interval of space, provided that they are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter has the final and public authority. The former limited and private rule. So, also, it is still the same government, made up of many families, even if the territories and the settlements are far apart, provided only that they are in the guardianship of the same sovereign power: either one rules all; or all, the individuals; or a few, all. From this it comes about that the state is nothing else than a group of families or fraternities subjected to one and the same rule. >Cicero's definition of the state as a group of men associated for the sake of living well indicates the best objective, indeed, but not the power and the nature of the institution. This definition applies equally well to the assemblies of the Pythagoreans and of men who also come together for the sake of living well, yet they cannot be called states without great confusion of state and association. Furthermore, there are families of villains, no less than of good men, since a villain is no less a man than a good man is. A similar observation must be made about the governments. Who doubts but that every very great empire was established through violence by robbers? The definition of a state offered by us applies to villages, towns, cities, and principalities, however scattered their lands may be, provided that they are controlled by the same authority. The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse, as the elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception. So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars, which was bounded by the same limits as the course of the sun. <Hobbes / Difference between concord or association and union or bond of a state >They who compare a City and its Citizens, with a man and his members, almost all say, that he who hath the supreme power in the City, is the relation to the whole City, such as the head is to the whole man. But it appears by what has been already said, that he who is endued with such a power (whether it be a man, or a Court) has a relation to the City, not as that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth >The error concerning mixed government 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. <Bodin / The unity of sovereignty >No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government. >Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together. <For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens
(964.91 KB 1500x1500 grace 7 kitto.png)

(484.65 KB 1200x1200 F6lIYovWEAAX5Lo.jpg)

(9.01 KB 715x371 F6lI1APWMAA9yfl.png)

>>6630 >>6631 >>6632 These 3 posts are overall why I tend to outright disregard the terms Decentralization & Centralization -- two words I think greatly contribute to our misunderstanding of politics -- two words, that also, I believe, have no bearing on the concept of sovereignty. We know that anarchists lately are big advocates of decentralization: because we take the anarchist A and circle, appealing to -- Order without rulers -- in the same way to have a circle without a point. As you'd imagine with me, that we draw a circle with a point and compass. I shouldn't have to explain so heavily why I have a problem with the pretense of decentralization so much as a monarchist and why I feel it is in origin anti-monarchist: I'll only point to what Jean Bodin says here & post a picture. >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens Compare and contrast the first picture with the 2nd picture: the anarchist symbol of order without rulers and measure -- is opposed to sovereignty as a guiding power. The appeal to decentralization is to not have a monarch -- always opposed to having any unity -- so they maintain we shouldn't draw and scale out human rulers as a measure and guidance for the people, repeating that pretense of Aristotle's freemen -- when in reality, it's Plato's household rule no less mirrored in the political, that need for a sovereign power and guidance to be our measure and our ruler, a monarch.
(775.92 KB 1500x1500 grace 9 kitto.png)

(59.25 KB 811x320 On Indivisibility 09.png)

(71.03 KB 810x367 On Indivisibility 06.png)

Like Putin criticized Lenin for -- it is important not to build a State constitution on temporary grounds, but as a perpetual body: that's why it's important to understand union or bond or state (perpetual) as opposed to an association or concord (temporary). A state compared to alliance doesn't abide by temporary conditions in the sense that its conditional for the parts... or like a defensive pact or association of a kind they are merely in league with -- very important to understand this understanding. Sovereignty, they say, is no more divisible than a point.
(787.31 KB 1500x1500 grace 8 kitto.png)

(150.18 KB 559x504 Tocqueville medievalist 05.jpg)

(445.68 KB 1100x600 Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

The pretense of Medievalism and Germany (muh HRE) and muh decentralization that's constantly hurled at us absolute monarchists by ancaps and traditionalists these days -- it originates with Alexis de Tocqueville. He appeals to the so-called Old Constitution of Europe which to really say is Germany -- which as we know Jean Bodin said was no less a sovereign state no less than others (despite the pretenses of decentralization), but an oligarchy of a few persons. That's partially why Tocquevillism has its strong pro-noble sensibilities: they're a kind of crypto-oligarchist. It's why Hoppe isn't a monarchist: Hoppe has Tocquevillist reservations about Monarchy.
(266.62 KB 1280x1520 Grace painted color - Copy.jpg)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

In summary for my /monarchy/ audience: 1. I talk about Fascism & how it's related to our Absolutism. 2. My problems with decentralization / centralization dichotomy & Tocqueville's legacy.
(213.62 KB 631x753 Grace VR 12 edit.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

>>6635 Now, HRE (Holy Roman Empire) or Germans are presented as the ultimate foil against absolute monarchy and our notion of sovereignty: But Jean Bodin already tackled the HRE & Tocquevillism's pretenses beforehand. Albeit we hear over and over about the border gore and decentralization and it being a kind of anarchy with the absence of a state on the merit of these, Jean Bodin classified the HRE to have been a sovereign state, particularly an oligarchical state, where three or four hundred persons at most had sovereignty, by convention of the imperial council. The pretense of decentralization stands upon the fact that an oligarchical state has similar attributes to democracy and monarchy: in the former, the assembly, but the latter great personal authority since an oligarchy is typically a plutocracy and rule of the wealthy, with great estates divested to great persons, acting in convention and unity with other great persons -- hence the border gore and diverse currencies -- this is a united sovereign body, but with diverse laws by the convention of the few, unilateral in their acceptance of each other. In this sense, albeit people point to the border meme, they choose to see the trees for the forest. Whereas Jean Bodin is able to see the forest for the trees in classifying the HRE: that is how we're able to bypass this misconception. The never really was a foil to our idea of absolute sovereignty, neither does the peace of westphalia (which people use as the basis for territorial sovereignty, which as we know by Bodin's testimony, isn't defined by territory since it doesn't matter how scattered the lands be or how far apart, a family remains a family in its integrity regardless). A thorough reading of Jean Bodin debunks this: the origin of the HRE as a foil dates back to Alexis de Tocqueville seeing Germany as the old constitution of Europe and his model... but we have to keep in mind that Tocqueville wasn't directly addressing our political ideas, but what he thought of the Ancien Regime and his testimony of it -- but the HRE isn't a foil and looking at Jean Bodin's classification of Germany and Alexis de Tocqueville's inclinations greatly towards the nobility, I'm further convinced in Jean Bodin was right about the HRE.
(99.22 KB 452x291 Grace looks at you.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

>>6637 So again: When Alexis de Tocqueville marks out, >how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy, and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy Even an Oligarchical estate for the former point has a point of convention: as these nobles have a relationship with each other, that assists them to rule as a class. By the later, that decentralization is possible by aristocracy, it only comes to mean that the Oligarchy, by convention of the great person assembled or their representatives, allows its members considerable influence in convention with each other: that's why one great noble estate is different from the next and a considerable degree of autonomy, yet still a sovereign state. As a sovereign body can permit a multitude of currencies (that originate with the wealth of its members) and even laws, but still act as a united sovereignty. Part of the confusion, again, is we look at our typical notion of an assembly, like a democratic assembly, think that's more centralized, because its members act in one room: but in an oligarchical estate, by the convention of great persons and landed elite, they could convene in one room and also return with their authority to their estates. This is what makes the pretense of decentralization, but nevertheless there is a sovereign power albeit these great members are scattered and dispersed. As Jean Bodin says, >It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants >The definition of a state offered by us applies to villages, towns, cities, and principalities, however scattered their lands may be, provided that they are controlled by the same authority. So albeit they are scattered or decentralized, there is still a soul and sovereignty for them as a whole in relation to each other. Not an association, but a union. >The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse >So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars As you see, it doesn't particularly matter whether it is a city-state, nation-state, or empire state, defined by its territorial size and integrity -- since like Bodin says as an elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception... so the people making the pretense of city-states only as opposed to nation-states or empires only are merely nitpicking about the size and overlooking the main point: whether it's a small house or a mansion, there is a household rule. It's a pointless charade to me and Bodin.
(131.32 KB 1920x2078 Grace pixel.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

Also, I think it's seemingly stronger with Aristocracy or Oligarchy primarily because it mirrors Aristotle's pretense of freemen most closely in contrast to Plato stating that the political state is like an economical household rule, and like we say a household is under one head: so the pretense of free regions or free cities or autonomous regionalism against a unilateral governance is no less than Aristotle appealing to freemen (who would be masters themselves) as constitutional rulers, as opposed to Plato who makes political and economical estate the very same in character. 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 why Alexis de Tocqueville in his book on the Ancien Regime appeals to Despotism vs Liberty beforehand in discussing centralization / decentralization: it's because he is opposed to the concept of a state being operated like a household rule... whereas the constitutional rule is freemen who are themselves masters. Alexis de Tocqueville is repeating that Aristotelian dynamic contrary to the Plato's assertion. This is why ancaps and traditionalists of this sort lash out at absolute monarchists (who uphold Plato's doctrine that political and economical really aren't of different character). And Aristotle himself oddly enough maintains that monarchy is squarely the economic or household rule: but doesn't mark it as political character. Aristotle: >For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations. But absolute monarchists maintain a full political / economical character in monarchy, seeing monarchy itself as a political form of state: that's why Jean Bodin identifies three forms of state / commonwealth / republic (whatever you call it, and, yes, even republic) -- monarchy, oligarchy, democracy. That is essentially why I feel they conflict with us, but also why Hoppe could almost endorse us at the same time: since monarchy is a household management, Hoppe feels partial to it; but Hoppe being a right libertarian and partial to this Aristotelian pretense of freemen, cannot bear the household rule on a political scale itself and thereby clings to Tocquevillist reservations about Monarchy. That's why I feel the centralization / decentralization debacle is another cloaked pretense of Aristotle's constitutional freemen, but no another level: not constitutional freemen as heads of families before the political city, but autonomous regions before the state. And about Oligarchical states-- Great nobles in league with each other have considerable wealth and autonomy, so they are a league of many families, and have their own familial laws and even currencies. This is supported because the oligarchs or optimates in league with each other are great persons, so they can have great autonomy: but for them to maintain their form of state and governance, they have to convene with each other... it's no coincidence you see the state of affairs in something like the HRE without their convention to maintain that. While they might have civil wars or in-fighting (which is very prompt for democracies and oligarchies), there is still a sovereignty and convention of the oligarchs / optimates like a democratic assembly.
(497.22 KB 1000x1000 20230826100405.png)

(257.98 KB 498x494 depressed dog.png)

Another problem is decentralization also simply becomes merely a call for association. For instance, looking at the imageboard community, the WeBring was described like a friend list: A friend list is an association, but not a union. Alliance or defensive treaties don't make a state. Where independent bodies meet up as a concord or association, they aren't a perpetual body or state. You might have a multitude of many states associate and have alliances, but it's by no means a state. When you have a multitude of states absorbed into bigger bodies or an assembled power already in one room as a nation, then it's not easy to go back: like snow clustering up into a ball for a snowman, it works against its formation and there's a great inertia against breaking up: at this point, it might as well be the destruction of a sovereign soul into new bodies, not old bodies: people maintain decentralization on this term as if it could do that and still remain the very same state, but what they really want is an association of many states and the destruction of that former state. I find the terms centralization / decentralization disingenuous and harmful to political understanding for these reasons: that's why I disavow the terms in the first place and think they make a bad inclusion in our political lexicon. The introduction of the terms to politics is about as old as the Left vs Right distinction. Like Charles Maurras says, they're ugly terms (and he was a big advocate for the decentralization meme). These terms decentralization / centralization are anathema to Majesty or Sovereignty. It lacks the soul and outlook of Majesty also, because it tends to be about whether things are close in proximity or scattered in proximity: but Majesty is about their soul and sovereign bond. As a monarchist I feel like others (monarchists themselves) can attack the idea of monarchy itself without thinking too much about the terms also. I absolutely hate that: b/c they divide their conceptional and political thinking about the form of state to what they learn in history and textbooks as historical royalty & policies... without consideration... that's why the terms annoy me as a monarchist apart from how far you can take the pretense of decentralization against the idea of monarchy itself: until you abandon the idea of one ruler, because one is typically central and unifying and so on It is a source of frustration for me b/c it's my opponents main contention with absolute monarchy, so I hear it everyday and all the time.
ngl, reading these texts on Fascism has made me more partial to Classical Italian Fascism than beforehand. Too bad /fascist/ is a bit dead and doesn't vibe too well with /monarchy/ lately.
Another unpopular / heterodox thing I do like Italian Fascism is admire North Korea Juche for their dynastic patriotism.
(2.07 MB 2000x1000 Ebenezer Gay part one.png)

(1.99 MB 2000x1000 Ebenezer Gay part two.png)

Traits of Monarchy: -Monarchy is the majesty of one person -Monarchy is personal rule -Does not take its turn in being governed; perpetual -Monarchy lifelong rule -Monarchy is paternal -Monarchy is household rule -Blood relationship; kinship; the heart and sovereign power. Characteristics of Monarchy: -Monarchy is the majesty of one person -Monarchy is personal rule -No rule by turns; perpetual -Monarchy is lifelong rule -Monarchy is paternal -Monarchy is modeled after a household -Blood relationship: kinship; blood signifies the heart, sovereign, and giving motion Every absolute monarchist start on Jean Bodin's Methodus & Six Books of a Commonwealth Then read-- -Dante De Monarchia -King James VI & I Political Works -Hobbes Leviathan, De Cive, Elements of Law, Dialogue, & Behemoth -Filmer Patriarcha & other works -Bossuet Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture -Joseph de Maistre political works As supplements to this reading: -A Worthy Panegyrick Upon Monarchy -Monarchia Triumphans -The Divine Right of Kings asserted in general, ours in particular Along with this quote by Gryffith Williams & this from Vico's New Science. It's important to think about monarchy's individual nature: this is the majesty of one individual person. -What or how will I justify the reign and rule of a monarch? What is the case for monarchical pre-eminence? -One person, supreme; one person, superior or on par to myriads. Absolute monarchists should be familiar with the notion of monarchical pre-eminence in Aristotle (which aptly compares such a pre-eminent person to be like a lion to hares) AND where we also strongly disagree with Aristotle on many grounds: like his doctrine of constitutional freemen and making a household rule different from a political rule... and his making a whole composite -- whereas we make the state simple and indivisible -- and especially how we agree with Plato on the political and economical being no different in this character. As well as all the marks of sovereignty and it's nature as an indivisible and perpetual union that Bodin and Hobbes aptly cover.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 10/20/2023 (Fri) 09:34:12.
(147.07 KB 550x616 Grace cropped.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

>>6650 The state is simple and indivisible, not compound or mixed. That is where we disagree with Aristotle also. Apart from the constitutional freemen differing from a household for the political.
Bossuet 4 properties of royal authority. 1. Royal authority is sacred; 2. It is paternal; 3. It is absolute; 4. It is subject to reason.
>>6651 Why does Grace not have a dog?
Words like Pre-eminence & Sovereignty are synonymous w/ Majesty. Jean Bodin / Majesty >Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth [La Souveraineté est la puissance absoluë & perpetuelle d’une République], which the Latins call Majestas; the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; and the Italians segniora, a word they use for private persons as well as for those who have full control of the state, while the Hebrews call it tomech shévet – that is the highest power of command. >As for the title of Majesty itself, it sufficiently appears, that it only belongs to him that is a sovereign prince: so that for him that hath no sovereignty to usurp the same, were a very absurd thing: but to arrogate unto himself the addition of most excellent and sacred majesty, is much more absurd the one being a point of lightnes, and the other of impiety: for what more can we give unto the most mighty and immortal God, if we take from him that which is proper unto himself? And albeit that in ancient time neither emperors nor kings used these so great addition or titles: yet the German princes nevertheless have oft times given the title of Sacred Majesty unto the kings of France; aswell as unto their emperor. As I remember my self to have seen the letters of the princes of the empire, written unto the king, for the deliverance of countie Mansfeld, then prisoner in France: wherein there was sixe times V. S. M. that is to say, Vestra, Sacra, Majestas, or Your Sacred Majesty an addition proper unto God, apart from all worldly princes. As for other princes which are not soueraignes some use the addition of His Highnesse, as the dukes of Loraine, Sauoy, Mantua, Ferrara, and Florence: some of Excellency, as the princes of the confines; or else of Serenitie, as the duke of Venice. >Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness. >For so here it behoveth first to define what Majesty or Sovereignty is, which neither lawyer nor political philosopher hath yet defined: although it be the principal and most necessary point for the understanding of the nature of a Commonweal. And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power: it rest to be declared, what is to be understood by the name of a most high and perpetual power. <We have said that this power ought to be perpetual, for that it may bee, that that absolute power over the subject may be given to one or many, for a short or certain time, which expired, they are no more than subjects themselves: so that whilest they are in their puissant authority, they cannot call themselves Sovereign princes, seeing that they are but men put in trust, and keepers of this sovereign power, until it shall please the people or the prince that gave it them to recall it >Who always remained ceased thereof. <For as they which lend or pawn unto another man their goods, remain still the lords and owners thereof: so it is also with them, who give unto others power and authority to judge and command, be it for a certain time limited, or so great and long time as shall please them; they themselves nevertheless continuing still ceased of the power and jurisdiction, which the other exercise but by way of loan or borrowing.
>For otherwise if the high and absolute power granted by a prince to his lieutenant, should of right be called Sovereignty, he might use the same against his prince, to whom nothing was left but the bare name of a prince, standing but for a cipher: so should the subject command his Sovereign, the servant his master, than which nothing could be more absurd: considering that in all power granted unto magistrates, or private men, the person of the prince is always to be excepted; who never gives so much power unto another, but that he always keeps more unto himself; neither is ever to be thought so deprived of his sovereign power, but that he may take unto himself the examination and deciding of such things as he hath committed unto his magistrates or officers, whether it be by the way of prevention, concurrence, or evocation: from whom he may also take the power given them by virtue of their commission or institution, or suffer them to hold it so long as shall please him. >These grounds thus laid, as the foundations of Sovereignty, wee conclude, that neither the Roman Dictator, nor the Harmoste of Lacedemonia, nor the Esmynaet of Salonick, nor he whom they cal the Archus of Malta, nor the antient Baily of Florence, (when it was gouerned by a popular state) neither the Regents or Viceroyes of kingdoms, nor any other officers or magistrats whatsoeuer, vnto whom the highest, but yet not the perpetual power, is by the princes or peoples grant commit∣ted, can be accounted to have the same in Sovereignty. >And albeit that the ancient Dictators had all power given them in best sort that might be (which the ancient Latins called Optima Lege) so that from them it was not lawful to appeal and upon whose creation all offices were suspended; until such time as that the Tribunes were ordained as keepers of the peoples liberty, who continued in their charge notwithstanding the creation of the Dictator, who had free power to oppose themselves against him; so that if appeal were made from the Dictator, the Tribunes might assemble the people, appointing the parties to bring forth the causes of their appeal, & the Dictator to stay his judgement; as when Papirius Cursor the Dictator, condemned Fabius Max the first, to death; and Fabius Max the second had in like manner condemned M•…nutius, both Colonels of the horsemen, for that they had fought with the enemy contrary to the command of the Dictator; they were yet both by appeale and judgement of the people acquitted. For so saith Livy, Then the father of Fabius said, I call upon the Tribunes, and appeal unto the people, which can do more than thy Dictatorship whereunto king Tullus Hostilius gave place. Whereby it appears that the Dictator was neither sovereign prince, nor magistrat, as many have supposed; neither had any thing more than a simple commission for the making of war, the repressing of sedition, the reforming of the state on instituting of new officers. >So that Sovereignty is not limited either in power, charge, or time certain. And namely the ten commissioners established for the reforming of custom and laws; albeit than they had absolute power, from which there was no appeal to be made, and that all offices were suspended, during the time of their commission; yet had they not for all that any Sovereignty; for their commission being fulfilled, their power also expired; as did that of the Dictators.
<"Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness." >And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power From a different author (I forgot his name). Talks briefly about the history of the style Majesty: <A TRIVIAL circumstance first discovered the effects of this great elevation upon the mind of Charles. In all the publick writs which he issued as king of Spain, he assumed the title of Majesty, and required it from his subjects as a mark of their respect. Before that time, all the monarchs of Europe were satisfied with the appellation of Highness, or Grace; but the vanity of other courts soon led them to imitate the example of the Spanish. The epithet of Majesty is no longer a mark of pre-eminence. The most inconsiderable monarchs in Europe enjoy it, and the arrogance of the greater potentates has invented no higher denomination.
>King Lear / Pre-eminence, Majesty Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower: For, by the sacred radiance of the sun, The mysteries of Hecate, and the night; By all the operation of the orbs From whom we do exist, and cease to be; Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood, … I do invest you jointly with my power, [and] Pre eminence, and all the large effects That troop with Majesty. Ourself, by monthly course, With reservation of an hundred knights, By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain The name, and all the additions to a king; The sway, revenue, execution of the rest, Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm, This coronet part betwixt you.
(92.80 KB 508x524 pvUGsLV3.jpg small.jpg)

(428.51 KB 1109x951 Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

Ebenezer Gay >Light is an Emblem of Authority. It is the Firstborn of Things visible: Hath the Pre-eminence among them, or Predominancy over them: >Rulers are the light of a People, and as when the Sun shineth brightly, there is a pleasant Day over the face of the Earth, so when they shine with Wisdom, Justice, Meekness and the like, and shed abroad the reviving Rays and benign Influences of good Government, there is a cheerful Day of Prosperity enjoyed; truly their Light is sweet.
Jean Bodin >As for the right of coining money, it is of the same nature as law, and only he who has the power to make law can regulate the coinage. That is readily evident from the Greek, Latin, and French terms, for the word nummus [in Latin] is from the Greek word nomos, and [the French] loi (law) is at the root of aloi (alloy), the first letter of which is dropped by those who speak precisely. Indeed, after law itself, there is nothing of greater consequence than the title, value, and measure of coins, as we have shown in a separate treatise, and in every well-ordered state, it is the sovereign prince alone who has this power. Thomas Hobbes >And the Right of Distribution of Them – The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongs in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign power…. And this they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own. >All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness, but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General: Who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land… And though a People coming into possession of a land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as of the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour. Dante Alighieri >And I urge you not only to rise up to meet him, but to stand in reverent awe before his presence, ye who drink of his streams, and sail upon his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores and the summits of the mountains that are his; ye who enjoy all public rights and possess all private property by the bond of his law, and no otherwise. Be ye not like the ignorant, deceiving your own selves, after the manner of them that dream, and say in their hearts, We have no Lord. King James VI & I >It is evident by the rolles of our Chancellery (which contain our eldest and fundamental Laws) that the King is Dominus omnium bonorum [Lord of all goods], and Dominus directus totius Dominii [Direct lord of the whole dominion (that is, property)], the whole subjects being but his vassals, and from him holding all their lands as their overlord.
From An Appeal to Caesar wherein gold & silver is proved to be the King Majesty's royal commodity by Thomas Violet >The Gold and Silver of the Nation, either Foreign coin, or Ingot, or the current Coin of the Kingdom, is the Soul of the Militia, and so all wise men know it, that those that command the Gold and Silver of the Kingdom, either Coin, or Bullion, to have it free at their disposal, to be Judges of the conveniency and inconveniency, or to hinder, or to give leave to transport Gold and Silver at their pleasure, is the great Wheel of the State, a most Royal Prerogative inherent in Your Majesty, Your Heirs and Successors, (and none other whomsoever, but by Your Majesty's License, and cannot be parted with to any Persons, but by Your Majesty most especial Grant;) your Majesty, and your Privy Councel being by the Law the only proper Judges Alexander Hamilton >"Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper." Jean Bodin continued <Of course each man was ruler of his family and had the right of life and death not only over the slaves but also over his wives and children, as Caesar himself testified. Justinian, in addition to many others, erred in alleging, in the chapter on a father's power, that no people had so much power over their sons as the Romans had, for it is evident from Aristotle and the Mosaic Law that the custom is also common to the Persians and the Hebrews. The ancients understood that such was the love of the parents toward their sons that even if they wished very much to abuse their power, they could not. Moreover, nothing was a more potent cause of virtue and reverence in children toward their parents than this patriarchal power. <Therefore, when they say that they are masters of the laws and of all things, they resemble those kings whom Aristotle calls lords, who, like fathers of families, protect the state as if it were their own property. It is not contrary to nature or to the law of nations that the prince should be master of all things and of laws in the state, only he must duly defend the empire with his arms and his child with his blood, since the father of a family by the law of nations is owner not only of the goods won by him but also of those won by his servants, as well as of his servants <Even more base is the fact that Jason when interpreting in the presence of King Louis XII a chapter of law well explained by Azo, affirmed recklessly that all things are the property of the prince. This interpretation violates not only the customs and laws of this kingdom but also all the edicts and advices of all the emperors and jurisconsults. All civil actions would be impossible if no one were owner of anything. "To the Kings," said Seneca, "power over all things belongs; to individual citizens, property." And a little later he added, "While under the best king the king holds all within his authority, at the same time the individual men hold possessions as private property." All things in the state belong to Caesar by right of authority, but property is acquired by inheritance
>Jean Bodin on Fatherly Monarchy >"The best Prince is the best Father." >"The Prince, whom you may justly call the Father of the Country, ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father, as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God." >Thomas Hobbes on Fatherly Monarchy >"To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death." >But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty. >King James VI & I briefly on Fatherly Monarchy >"Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his People." >Bossuet on Fatherly Monarchy >"Man who, as has been said, saw the image of a kingdom in the union of several families under the leadership of a common father, and who had found gentleness in that life, brought themselves easily to create societies of families under kings who took the place of fathers… it is apparently for that reason that the ancient people's of Palestine called their kings Abimelech, that is to say: my father the king. Subjects took themselves to be children of the Prince: and, each calling him, My father the king." >Aristotle on Fatherly Monarchy >"For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule." >"The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus –father of Gods and men – because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son."
"The Household / Family well ordered is the true image of the Commonwealth." -Jean Bodin "My old home the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth "Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of Despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in Despotism." -Friedrich Nietzche "A family being nothing else but a small Kingdom, wherein the paterfamilias had Regal power… and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family." -Gryffith Williams "For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations." -Aristotle "The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head." -Aristotle "Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him." -Plato "So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed." -Jean Bodin
Xenophon Cyropaedia >The father of Cyrus, so runs the story, was Cambyses, a king of the Persians, and one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race The education of youth >It is true that he was brought up according to the laws and customs of the Persians, and of these laws it must be noted that while they aim, as laws elsewhere, at the common weal, their guiding principle is far other than that which most nations follow. >Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. (3) But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object. Friend & Enemy distinction: careful not to teach children dangerous things >Yes, my son, it is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage. And he drew the line between what one should do to one's friends and what to one's enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right to even deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose. (This is important b/c regicide theories would also use the basis of friend / enemy distinction between a king or tyrant & justify killing their king; though I think that the subjects shouldn't be taught to distinguish their Sovereign as any such enemy–their relation like children & the sovereign monarch their father–if they are taught anyone is an enemy, it is the opponents of their Sovereign & never the Sovereign himself, b/c esp. the monarchy-haters are too apt to abuse this). >And in teaching these lessons he had also to train the boys to practise them upon one another, just as also in wrestling, the Greeks, they say, teach deception and train the boys to be able to practise it upon one another. When, therefore, some had in this way become expert both in deceiving successfully and in taking unfair advantage and perhaps also not inexpert in avarice, the did not refrain from trying to take an unfair advantage even of their friends. >In consequence of that, therefore, an ordnance was passed which obtains even unto this day, simply to teach out boys, just as we teach our servants in their relations towards us, to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage; and if they should act contrary to this law, the law requires their punishment, in order that, inured to such habits, they may become more refined members of society. (All States today do this: they teach their citizens at birth to uphold the values of their State & only a friendly image, & reserves the bad teachings for any enemies, like is said – that they may become more refined members of society) >But when they came to be as old as you are now, then it seemed to be safe to teach them that also which is lawful towards enemies; for it does not seem likely that you would break away and fun into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect. In the same way we do not discuss sexual matters in the presence of very young boys, lest in case lax discipline should give a free rein to their passions the young might indulge them to excess.
The importance of obedience >What city could be at rest, lawful, and orderly? What household could be safe? What ship sail home to her haven? And we, to what do we owe our triumph, if not to our obedience? We obeyed; we were ready to follow the call by night and day; we marched behind our leader, ranks that nothing could resist; we left nothing half-done of all we were told to do. If obedience is the one path to win the highest good, remember it is also the one way to preserve it. >Let us listen to the words of Cyrus. Let us gather round the public buildings and train ourselves, so that we may keep our hold on all we care for, and offer ourselves to Cyrus for his noble ends. Of one thing we may be sure: Cyrus will never put us to any service which can make for his own good and not for ours. Our needs are the same as his [Cyrus], and our foes the same. >Drovers may certainly be called the rulers of their cattle and horse-breeders the rulers of their studs—all herdsmen, in short, may reasonably be considered the governors of the animals they guard. If, then, we were to believe the evidence of our senses, was it not obvious that flocks and herds were more ready to obey their keepers than men their rulers? Watch the cattle wending their way wherever their herdsmen guide them, see them grazing in the pastures where they are sent and abstaining from forbidden grounds, the fruit of their own bodies they yield to their master to use as he thinks best; nor have we ever seen one flock among them all combining against their guardian, either to disobey him or to refuse him the absolute control of their produce. On the contrary, they are more apt to show hostility against other animals than against the owner who derives advantage from them. <But with man the rule is converse; men unite against none so readily as against those whom they see attempting to rule over them. (3) As long, therefore, as we followed these reflexions, we could not but conclude that man is by nature fitted to govern all creatures, except his fellow-man. >But when we came to realise the character of Cyrus the Persian, we were led to a change of mind: here is a man, we said, who won for himself obedience from thousands of his fellows, from cities and tribes innumerable: we must ask ourselves whether the government of men is after all an impossible or even a difficult task, provided one set about it in the right way. Cyrus, we know, found the readiest obedience in his subjects, though some of them dwelt at a distance which it would take days and months to traverse, and among them were men who had never set eyes on him, and for the matter of that could never hope to do so, and yet they were willing to obey him. Cyrus did indeed eclipse all other monarchs, before or since, and I include not only those who have inherited their power, but those who have won empire by their own exertions. >It is obvious that among this congeries of nations few, if any, could have spoken the same language as himself, or understood one another, but none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: not one of them dared lift hand against him. And yet he was able, at the same time, to inspire them all with so deep a desire to please him and win his favour that all they asked was to be guided by his judgment and his alone.
Xenophon / A good ruler differs not from a good father >Gentlemen, this is not the first time I have had occasion to observe that a good ruler differs in no respect from a good father. Even as a father takes thought that blessings may never fail his children, so Cyrus would commend to us the ways by which we can preserve our happiness. A ruler's charm >But we seem to learn also that Cyrus thought it necessary for the ruler not only to surpass his subjects by his own native worth, but also to charm them through deception and artifice. >At any rate he adopted the Median dress, and persuaded his comrades to do likewise; he thought it concealed any bodily defect, enhancing the beauty and stature of the wearer. The shoe, for instance, was so devised that a sole could be added without notice, and the man would seem taller than he really was. So also Cyrus encouraged the use of ointments to make the eyes more brilliant and pigments to make the skin look fairer. And he trained his courtiers never to spit or blow the nose in public or turn aside to stare at anything; they were to keep the stately air of persons whom nothing can surprise. These were all means to one end; to make it impossible for the subjects to despise their rulers.
Taming of men >Thus he moulded the men he considered worthy of command by his own example, by the training he gave them, and by the dignity of his own leadership. But the treatment of those he prepared for slavery was widely different. Not one of them would he incite to any noble toil, he would not even let them carry arms, and he was careful that they should never lack food or drink in any manly sort. >When the beaters drove the wild creatures into the plain he would allow food to be brought for the servants, but not for the free men; on a march he would lead the slaves to the water-springs as he led the beasts of burden. Or when it was the hour of breakfast he would wait himself till they had taken a snatch of food and stayed their wolfish hunger; and the end of it was they called him their father even as the nobles did, because he cared for them, but the object of his care was to keep them slaves for ever. >Thus he secured the safety of the Persian empire. He himself, he felt sure, ran no danger from the massages of the conquered people; he saw they had no courage, no unity, and no discipline, and, moreover, not one of them could ever come near him, day or night. >But there were others whom he knew to be true warriors, who carried arms, and who held by one another, commanders of horse and foot, many of them men of spirit, confident, as he could plainly see, of their own power to rule, men who were in close touch with his own guards, and many of them in constant intercourse with himself; as indeed was essential if he was to make any use of them at all. It was from them that danger was to be feared; and that in a thousand ways. How was he to guard against it? <He rejected the idea of disarming them; he thought this unjust, and that it would lead to the dissolution of the empire. To refuse them admission into his presence, to show them his distrust, would be, he considered, a declaration of war. >But there was one method, he felt, worth all the rest, an honourable method and one that would secure his safety absolutely; to win their friendship if he could, and make them more devoted to himself than to each other. I will now endeavour to set forth the methods, so far as I conceive them, by which he gained their love. >In the first place he never lost an opportunity of showing kindliness wherever he could, convinced that just as it is not easy to love those who hate us, so it is scarcely possible to feel enmity for those who love us and wish us well. >So long as he had lacked the power to confer benefits by wealth, all he could do then was to show his personal care for his comrades and his soldiers, to labour in their behalf, manifest his joy in their good fortune and his sympathy in their sorrows, and try to win them in that way. But when the time came for the gifts of wealth, he realised that of all the kindnesses between man and man none come with a more natural grace than the gifts of meat and drink. (This is somewhat notable for a few reasons: 1. The Christian mass also has formally bread & wine. 2. States have state dinners to also show kindness. 3. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar remarks, Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous. – Mark Antony responds, Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous, He is a noble Roman, and well given. – Julius Caesar finally says, Would he were fatter! But I fear him not.)
>Accordingly he arranged that his table should be spread every day for many guests in exactly the same way as for himself; and all that was set before him, after he and his guests had dined, he would send out to his absent friends, in token of affection and remembrance. He would include those who had won his approval by their work on guard, or in attendance on himself, or in any other service, letting them see that no desire to please him could ever escape his eyes. >He would show the same honour to any servant he wished to praise; and he had all the food for them placed at his own board, believing this would win their fidelity, as it would a dog's. >Or, if he wished some friend of his to be courted by the people, he would single him out for such gifts; even to this day the world will pay court to those who have dishes sent them from the Great King's table, thinking they must be in high favour at the palace and can get things done for others. But no doubt there was another reason for the pleasure in such gifts, and that was the sheer delicious taste of the royal meats. <Nor should that surprise us; for if we remember to what a pitch of perfection the other crafts are brought in great communities, we ought to expect the royal dishes to be wonders of finished art. Royal excellence in great servants >Necessarily the man who spends all his time and trouble on the smallest task will do that task the best. >But when there is work enough for one man to boil the pot, and another to roast the meat, and a third to stew the fish, and a fourth to fry it, while some one else must bake the bread, and not all of it either, for the loaves must be of different kinds, and it will be quite enough if the baker can serve up one kind to perfection—it is obvious, I think, that in this way a far higher standard of excellence will be attained in every branch of the work. Royal gifts >Thus it is easy to see how Cyrus could outdo all competitors in the grace of hospitality, and I will now explain how he came to triumph in all other services. >Far as he excelled mankind in the scale of his revenues, he excelled them even more in the grandeur of his gifts. It was Cyrus who set the fashion; and we are familiar to this day with the open-handedness of Oriental kings. >There is no one, indeed, in all the world whose friends are seen to be as wealthy as the friends of the Persian monarch: no one adorns his followers in such splendour of rich attire, no gifts are so well known as his, the bracelets, and the necklaces, and the chargers with the golden bridles. For in that country no one can have such treasures unless the king has given them. (Do you know how it's said dictators use gifts? The same is said here) >And of whom but the Great King could it be said that through the splendour of his presents he could steal the hearts of men and turn them to himself, away from brothers, fathers, sons?
The King's Eyes & The King's Ears >Indeed, we are led to think that the offices called "the king's eyes" and "the king's ears" came into being through this system of gifts and honours. >Cyrus' munificence toward all who told him what it was well for him to know set countless people listening with all their ears and watching with all their eyes for news that might be of service to him. Thus there sprang up a host of "king's eyes" and "king's ears," as they were called, known and reputed to be such. >But it is a mistake to suppose that the king has one chosen "eye." It is little that one man can see or one man hear, and to hand over the office to one single person would be to bid all others go to sleep. Moreover, his subjects would feel they must be on their guard before the man they knew was "the king's eye." The contrary is the case; the king will listen to any man who asserts that he has heard or seen anything that needs attention. (This was a practice: Tsar Paul I would also have a box for any subject to give tell him about any anything or any injustice – Jean Bodin remarked that this system of boxes in other states was abused & not a good practice, I forgot the details how or what grievances Bodin had). <The King has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears >Hence the saying that the king has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears; and hence the fear of uttering anything against his interest since "he is sure to hear," or doing anything that might injure him "since he may be there to see." So far, therefore, from venturing to breathe a syllable against Cyrus, every man felt that he was under the eye and within the hearing of a king who was always present. For this universal feeling towards him I can give no other reason than his resolve to be a benefactor on a most mighty scale.
Royal Shepherd >Indeed, a saying of his is handed down comparing a good king to a good shepherd—the shepherd must manage his flock by giving them all they need, and the king must satisfy the needs of his cities and his subjects if he is to manage them. We need not wonder, then, that with such opinions his ambition was to excel mankind in courtesy and care. Royal Physician >Moreover, he observed that the majority of mankind, if they live in good health for long, will only lay by such stores and requisites as may be used by a healthy man, and hardly care at all to have appliances at hand in case of sickness. But Cyrus was at the pains to provide these; he encouraged the ablest physicians of the day by his liberal payments, and if ever they recommended an instrument or a drug or a special kind of food or drink, he never failed to procure it and have it stored in the palace. >And whenever any one fell sick among those who had peculiar claims on his attentions, he would visit them and bring them all they needed, and he showed especial gratitude to the doctors if they cured their patients by the help of his own stores. >These measures, and others like them, he adopted to win the first place in the hearts of those whose friendship he desired. (It is useful to add that he supplied these doctors & made sure their care came with his blessing – so that the benefices of the doctors would by extension be benefices of the king – as the quote here says, what men would give to be cured adds to the friendship and trust in the king) Rewards & Badges >The day before it he summoned the officers of state, the Persians and the others, and gave them all the splendid Median dress. This was the first time the Persians wore it, and as they received the robes he said that he wished to drive in his chariot to the sacred precincts and offer sacrifice with them. >With that Cyrus gave the most splendid robes to his chief notables, and then he brought out others, for he had stores of Median garments, purple and scarlet and crimson and glowing red, and gave a share to each of his generals and said to them, "Adorn your friends, as I have adorned you." (4) Then one of them asked him, "And you, O Cyrus, when will you adorn yourself?" But he answered, "–Is it not adornment enough for me to have adorned you? If I can but do good to my friends, I shall look glorious enough, whatever robe I wear."
The importance of love and praise >Praise, Pheraulas saw, will reap counter-praise, kindness will stir kindness in return, and goodwill goodwill; those whom men know to love them they cannot hate. Cyrus >And you, Cambyses, you know of yourself without words from me, that your kingdom is not guarded by this golden sceptre, but by faithful friends; their loyalty is your true staff, a sceptre which shall not fail. But never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the field… No, every leader must win his own followers for himself, and the way to win them is not by violence but by loving-kindness. Epilogue >Of all the powers in Asia, the kingdom of Cyrus showed itself to be the greatest and most glorious. On the east it was bounded by the Red Sea, on the north by the Euxine, on the west by Cyprus and Egypt, and on the south by Ethiopia. And yet the whole of this enormous empire was governed by the mind and will of a single man, Cyrus: his subjects he cared for and cherished as a father might care for his children, and they who came beneath his rule reverenced him like a father.
Cyrus / To the eldest born son >Sons of mine, I love you both alike, but I choose the elder-born, the one whose experience of life is the greater, to be the leader in council and the guide in action.
(1.02 MB 2185x3000 Grace 03 edit.png)

(561.34 KB 1354x1491 4647.jpg)

Jean Bodin / The native people of America retained royal power, shaped by their Leader -- Nature -- they were not trained by Aristotle >Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be. Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature. For many pretenses against absolute monarchy start with Aristotle in some ways, besides what I cherrypick from Aristotle.
Ramesses II Speech for his Father: >For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him. >My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me. Merneptah's Speech >Hear ye the command of your lord; I give–as ye shall do, saying: I am the ruler who shepherds you; I spend my time searching out–as a father who preserves alive his children Egyptian Teachings of a Man for his Son (Praise extracts): >Praise the King, may you love him, as a worker. He makes radiant by the giving of his powers. He is greater than a million men for the one he has favored. He is the shield for the one who makes him content… Praise the King, adore the King. That is the post before god. Spread his powers, rejoicing when he has decreed and devising plans for what he has desired… He is the bodily health of the nameless. He exercises his body for him. He is the right arm of the man whose arms are weak. Egyptian Loyalist Teaching >He is the sun in whose leadership people live >Whoever is under his light will be great in wealth >He gives sustenance to his followers >He feeds the man who sticks to his path >the man he favors will be a lord of offerings >the man he rejects will be a pauper >He is Khuum for every body
(19.31 MB 640x360 On Becoming King.mp4)

(15.17 MB 480x360 Robert Carlyle as James I.mp4)

(23.00 MB 640x360 King James I On Jamestown.mp4)

(4.32 MB 640x360 basilikon doron.mp4)

(1.49 MB 480x360 James speech.mp4)

(5.19 MB 640x360 James coins.mp4)

(7.56 MB 640x360 James Succession.mp4)

(8.55 MB 640x360 James Burials.mp4)

(16.47 MB 640x360 JamesI War on Witches01.mp4)

(19.41 MB 640x360 JamesI War on Witches02.mp4)

(19.63 MB 640x360 JamesI War on Witches03.mp4)

(483.55 KB 1025x971 grace 24 kitto look.png)

(15.55 MB 480x360 The_Martyr.mp4)


Thomas Hobbes / The people in general were so ignorant >Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty >or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth >King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to Thomas Hobbes aptly describes the state of apathy and ignorance people had towards monarchical pre-eminence or majesty or sovereignty: the epitome of this was the Thomas Becket affair for me. Since then the clergy was highly esteemed and not enough the King. The majesty of the King was not known nor was the King a subject of monarchical pre-eminence or sovereignty. Monarchists take for granted all the majesty and our contemporary inclinations towards a king, what made the notion so especial in particular to us. This sentiment of majesty might not be shared equally across all cultures: since like Hobbes described it would be viewed merely as a title and nothing especial or pre-eminent. The purpose of this royal colony thread is to enlighten visitors to /monarchy/ on our ideal of royal majesty.
(142.64 KB 600x557 Grace Smile crop edit.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

At least, what makes majesty so especial in my mind. since very few e-monarchists share the same values anyhow

(13.40 MB 640x360 Pepita_Marsch.mp4)

(2.72 MB 480x360 Leviathan.mp4)

(6.83 MB 640x360 Leviathan02.mp4)

(4.30 MB 640x360 Machine Leviathan reduced.mp4)

(833.81 KB 3000x3000 Grace mic OC.png)


(990.10 KB 2000x1252 header_essay-bruschetti.jpg)

(143.89 KB 760x690 Untitled.jpg)

A big rift between myself and contemporary rightwingers: I sum up w/ Julius Evola's alleged criticism of Fascism -- that it only concerned with the political or state and we should aspire for higher ideals. I frankly disagree; I feel they're not focused on the political question enough or deem it inconsequential in comparison to morality / religion. It's a question of integrity, and political is about the integrity of all society and its constituents: totalitarianism adapts to this, they don't. It's why they hover around mild Christian democratic parties or stick to parish grounds. There's this kind of apathy permeating them that lacks the same oompf that totalitarianism does. Now, I consider sovereignty as the union of many families and the bond of states (the family included).
(1.53 MB 3000x4000 8 basics Monarchy.png)

(1.68 MB 3000x4000 8 basics of Monarchy.png)

(964.91 KB 1500x1500 grace 7 kitto.png)

(366.26 KB 620x719 thomas_hobbes_pic.jpg)

Thomas Hobbes laments the prevalence of mixed monarchy / constitutionalism >Saving only that he [the Earl] was carried away with the stream, in a manner, of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament. ... >You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers by profession, or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be thought so. >Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy; all which governments they esteemed tyranny, and were in love with monarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy. >And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such, if I have not been misinformed, as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but who when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's party. ... >Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny. >This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the victory for the King in a battle, when a battle could not be avoided, yet it weakened their endeavour to procure him an absolute victory in the war. >And for this cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly resolved to take all kingly power whatsoever out of his hands, yet their counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer propositions to them of treaty and accommodation, and to make and publish declarations; which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great disadvantage to those actions by which the King was to recover his crown and preserve his life. ... >Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul... For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the Kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. >To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact. ... >And if there were a commonwealth, wherein the rights of sovereignty were divided, we must confess with Bodin, Lib. II. chap. I. De Republica, that they are not rightly to be called commonwealths, but the corruption of commonwealths. >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.
Oswald Mosley >It was not always so. In earlier times the King and his Government ruled the state and no man, however wealthy, could defy the King’s law and the ordinances of his ministers. Indeed, we now realize, despite the version of history taught us at school, that, when King Charles defied Parliament, he was, as he said at his trial, fighting for the freedom of the common people of England against the tyrannous demands of the purse-proud merchants of the City of London. Unfortunately, the national authority of Tudor England was broken on his scaffold, and ever since wealth has gained ever greater power over the people.
(63.17 KB 505x511 BF-1.JPG)

(177.99 KB 1000x1000 3.png)

(275.05 KB 600x436 graceposter cat(1).png)

>be me <monarchist circles basically consist of constitutionalists, ultra-clerical traditionalists / heavy denominationalists, & hoppean / right libertarian variants <all these groups invariably dislike your monarchical absolutism one way or another and outnumber you It's never been an easy task for me. There's no wiggle room to navigate between these parties and their faggotry. Little by little, my hard work is paying off and people in the monarchist sphere will embrace Majesty.
(525.37 KB 4096x3205 F5GVm1sWUAAOZwF.jpg)

(324.49 KB 828x1051 FqPS0h4WIAcffUL.jpg)


(14.10 MB 1280x720 KJU Mothers.mp4)

(7.76 MB 720x404 DPRK Abeoji KJU Manse.mp4)

(266.51 KB 1000x1000 6 grace.png)


<Jean Bodin / Dictators are Sufficient Proof that Monarchy is necessary for the preservation of society >And what power soever they have by virtue of their places, yet Popular and Aristocratical commonweales, finding themselves embarked in any dangerous war, either against the enemy, or among themselves, or in difficulty to proceed criminally against some mighty citizen, or to give order for the plague, or to create magistrates, or to do any other thing of great consequence, did usually create a Dictator, as a sovereign Monarch: knowing well that a Monarchy was the anchor whereunto of necessity they must have recourse. >The impunity of vices, and the contempt of magistrates in a Popular estate, does sufficiently show that Monarchs are necessary for the preservation of the society of mankind, seeing that the Romans who for the error of one Prince, had all kings in hatred, made a Dictator for the conduct of all their great affairs. >So did the Lacedemonians in their extremities create a magistrate with power like unto the Dictator, whom they called Harmoste: and the Thessaliens, him whom they called Archus: as in the like case the Mityleniens their great Aezimnere; to whom the great Providador of the Venetians may be in some sort compared: finding by experience that an absolute power united in one person, is more eminent and of greater effect.
This screencap mentions a particular criticism of the indivisibility of Sovereignty and Jean Bodin, that I felt prompt to address, and how it is related to my commotion w/ right libertarians about centralization. >But Bodin's account of sovereignty was also the source of much confusion, since he was primarily responsible for introducing the seductive but erroneous notion that sovereignty is indivisible. It is true, of course, that every legal system, by its very definition as an authoritative method of resolving conflicts, must rest upon an ultimate legal norm or rule of recognition, which is the guarantee of unity. Which the constitutionalists take issue with. >But when Bodin spoke about the unity of sovereignty, the power that he had in mind was not the constituent authority of the general community or the ultimate coordinating rule that the community had come to recognise This is exactly what Hobbes criticized, and w/ constitutionalism it rolls back to Aristotle. It's why absolute monarchists in particular make a gripe w/ Aristotle: in general, it returns to our notion that the political and economical are no different: the true image of the commonwealth is the household or family well ordered. What constitutionalism denies in the indivisibility of sovereignty is the unilateral authority of a household: for what reason, Aristotle says, that a monarchy is proper for an economical unit or household rule, but not for constitutional rule of freemen and equals (democracy or oligarchy) -- which he ascribed to the political state. >He advanced, in other words, a theory of ruler sovereignty. His celebrated principle that sovereignty is indivisible thus meant that the high powers of government could not be shared by separate agents or distributed among them, but that all of them had to be entirely concentrated in a single individual or group. Yet we hold unity, not the mutual concord of freemen, to be the basis for the constitution. Sovereignty is the foundation. Thomas Hobbes aptly states. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth >The error concerning mixed government 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. It might be said, that to defend this doctrine in the year 2023 is unpalatable: yet it has a feature in some constitutions and Rousseau also seemed to concede it. Quote by Rousseau. >Whenever Sovereignty seems to be divided, there is an illusion: the rights of which are taken as being part of Sovereignty are really all subordinate, and always imply supreme wills of which they only sanction the execution.
(147.07 KB 550x616 Grace cropped.png)

(591.45 KB 1536x966 00dLIvdUE.jpg_large.jpg)

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 critical, esp. b/c Aristotle diverges the household as a model from the state. Jean Bodin: >And the ancients (to assure Popular estates) did strive to equal all citizens in goods, honours, power, and rewards: and if any one were more virtuous, more just, or more wise, than the rest, he was banished, as I have showed before, seeking to make an equality, if it were possible: and even Plato did wish, That wives and children should be common to all, to the end that no many might say, This is mine, or, That is thine: for those words of Meum, and Tuum (said he) were the breeders of disc0rd, and the ruin of states. >By the which there will grow many absurdities: for in so doing, a city shall be ruined, and become a household (as Aristotle said) although that a household or family (which is the true image of a Commonweal) has but one head. Bodin notes here, that Aristotle sees the ruin of the State to be ordered like a Monarchy or Household: albeit some constitutionalists will try to think otherwise, this is fundamentally why I believe right libertarians are at odds with absolute monarchy as an ideal. They hold fast to Aristotle's notion. And that's why they say centralization and say all these things about us absolute monarchists. Jean Bodin somewhat criticizes Plato and Aristotle both. >And for this cause, an ancient lawmaker, being importuned by some one, to make his country a Popular estate: Make it (says he) in thine own house. And if they say, That it is a goodly thing so to unite citizens and a city, as to make one household of it, they must then take away the plurality of heads and commanders, which are in a Popular estate, to make a Monarch, as the true fathers of a family; and to cut off this equality of goods, power, honour, and commandment, which they seek to make in a Popular estate; for that it is incompatible in a family. It is a little confusing how this is unraveled, but here the case is indeed the State made like a household becomes a monarchy.
Robert Filmer aptly sums this up this doctrine. Robert Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different >Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found. >Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular. How does this doctrine make sense? that the political state or city is like a household? Anons, consider this. A household has a vast array of servants and rooms. There are many rooms for many purposes. As a city has many services and buildings. And buildings for different purposes. Household / Economic: A room for the master's children to be educated with teachers A kitchen for the cooks to provide food A room for laundry A room for books. The City / Political: It has schools / universities for people to be educated It has a restaurant for people to eat and be served by food workers. It has laundromats for people to clean their clothes It has libraries for their public books. Public services where the people can be masters with public servants
Jean Bodin also calls out those who would prefer an oligarchy to democracy or monarchy, on account of its moderation between the two. >Yet those who have come from his school approve more highly the rule of the optimates, which lies halfway between a democracy and a monarchy. They err, however, in this respect, that they seem to place virtue in the average thing or number, not in the mean proportional. Indeed, if this is true no prince will ever be good, nor will any oligarchy be quarrelsome, because between one and many they place the mean of a few, like the mean of virtue. Yet if there is any excellence in numbers, I suppose that unity is most to be praised of all, as Plato himself most divinely wrote, in the book about entity and unity.
(129.44 KB 792x446 Grace stonks.jpg)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

Cesare Cuttica (from History of Absolutism): >Moresoever, the king was considered as 'lex animata' -- the breath which regulated the legislative life of the kingdom, and without whose intervention the body politic could not survive. Thus, potestas absoluta corresponded to various functions the monarch possessed: suspending, pardoning, mitigating, and facing unforeseen circumstances. It was a form of 'discretionary power' which shaped the concept of royal prerogative... Although it is often claimed that the degree of absoluteness of a king's power expended on the extent to which the law of nature was thought to legislate, this does not mean that he was held to be limited. In fact, absolutists of that kind described here, regarded monarchs as capable of restricting the domain of political life that the law of nature could regulate. Consequently, not only the laws, but also customs were were the outcome of the supreme decision of the lex loquens king, who was depicted as the creator of the nation's ethos... Another historical trait of absolutism was the tension between the personalization of kingship -- whereby the sovereign was depicted as the individual who was superior because of his qualities and, therefore, one who had to be obeyed and adored; and the process of abstraction of kingship where he was associated with the purity of and public presence of the State. (Keohane, 1980) Thomas Hobbes: Civil Sovereign is the Head, Source, Root, & Sun >The Civil Sovereign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, and the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civil Sovereign. Thomas Hobbes: Sovereign Power, Generalissimo >For the power by which the people are to be defended consists in their armies, and the strength of an army in the union of their strength under one command; which command the sovereign instituted, therefore has, because the command of the militia, without other institution, makes him that has it sovereign. And therefore, whosoever is made general of an army, he that has the sovereign power is always generalissimo.
(266.62 KB 1280x1520 Grace painted color - copy.jpg)

(623.42 KB 1689x962 Catherine 3 sovereign.jpg)

Jean Bodin: >Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. >I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State >That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority. >The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: <In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power Of The Representative Is Limited >In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects. ᴉuᴉlossnW: >For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.
(277.21 KB 1000x1050 10.png)

(191.77 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

The e-monarchist community to me is like a gordian knot. I have come so far, yet still have so much more to learn. … Thomas Hobbes has well convinced me that Aristotle is ground zero >To conclude there is nothing so absurd, that the old Philosophers (as Cicero saith, who was one of them) have not some of them maintained. And I beleeve that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said in naturall Philosophy, than that which now is called Aristotles Metaphysiques, nor more repugnant to Government, than much of that hee hath said in his Politiques; nor more ignorantly, than a great part of his Ethiques. My conversations, esp. w/ right libertarians and in particular constitutional monarchists, has convinced me Hobbes singling out Aristotle was justified and valid. & not only Hobbes, but many other absolute monarchists. Not Polybius, but Aristotle, Hobbes also convinced me, is for the most part at the root for our problems w/ constitutional monarchy and mixed states. Now that I'm aware of this, it almost seems too easy to point out the problem w/ constitutional monarchists… but I'm still cautious for all that and think there's still more to deal with. … That Aristotle says monarchy is proper for an economic estate, but not the political estate: that alone seems enough to explain the problem w/ constitutionalism… but I'm not sure how I'd put my finger on, there's still more to unravel there.
This view of a sovereign monarchy and majesty isn't diminished because there are assemblies or parliaments – Jean Bodin: >Wherefore we conclude the majesty of a prince to be in nothing altered or diminished by the calling together or presence of the states: but to the contrary his majesty thereby to be much the greater, & the more honorable, seeing all his people to acknowledge him for their sovereign; albeit that in such assemblies, princes not willing to reject their subjects, grant, and pass many things, whereunto they would not otherwise yield their consent, if they were not overcome by the requests, prayers, and just grievances of the people, afflicted and vexed oftentimes without the knowledge of the prince, who yields many things unto them all, which he would deny unto them in particular; or at leastwise not so easily grant them: either for that the voices of every one in particular, are less heard, than of all together: or for that the prince at other times commonly uses to see but by other mens eyes and to hear but by other mens ears and reports: whereas in parliament he sees and hears his people himself, and so enforced with shame, and fear of religion, or his own good disposition, admits their just requests. >And in that the greatness and majesty of a true sovereign prince, is to be known; when the estates of all the people assembled together, in all humility present their requests and supplications to their prince, without having any power in any thing to command or determine, or to give voice, but that that which it pleases the King to like or dislike of, to command or forbid, is held for law, for an edict and ordinance. Wherein they which have written of the duty of magistrates, & others such like books, have deceived themselves, in maintaining that the power of the people is greater than the prince; a thing which oft times causes the true subjects to revolt from the obedience which they owe unto their sovereign prince, & ministers matter of great troubles in Commonwealths. >And yet for all that the just Monarchy, hath not any more assured foundation or stay, than the Estates of the people, Communities, Corporations, and Colleges: For if need be for the king to levy money, to raise forces, to maintain the Estate against the enemy, it cannot be better done, than by the estates of the people, and of every Province, Town, and Community. For where can things for the curing of the diseases of sick Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just reforming of the Estate, be better debated and handled, than before the Prince in his Senate before the people? There they confer of the affairs concerning the whole body of the Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just complaints and grievances of the poor subjects, which never otherwise come unto the prince's ears; there are discovered and laid open the robberies and extortions committed in the Prince's name; whereof he knoweth nothing, there the requests of all degrees of men are heard. Besides that, it is almost a thing incredible to say, how much the subjects are eased, and how well they are also pleased, to see their king to sit as chief in the assembly of the estates, and to hear him discouring; how every man desirabeth to be seen of him, and if it please him to hear their complaints, and to receive their requests, albeit that they be often times denied the same; yet O how it pleaseth them to have had access unto their Prince…[Although] Our Kings do not so often call together the assemblies of their estates, as do the kings of England. Yet we also don't subscribe to the mixed constitution and Aristotle and constitutionalism for all this. As absolute monarchists, we reject this and maintain the pre-eminence of monarchy.
So even most absolute monarchists had a place for parliament / senate / assembly in monarchy: contrary to popular belief, that absolute monarchy is a business of lordly monarchy vs parliamentary monarchy only -- only that the monarch should have majesty. We do resist Aristotle's notion of constitutionalism: that puts monarchy as inappropriate to rule the political estate, and sets monarchy aside at best as one among equals. As well as the mixed constitution. On behalf of our notions of monarchical pre-eminence, majesty, and sovereignty, this view is rejected. Thomas Hobbes approved of it and had a place for parliaments / assemblies / council like Jean Bodin: >A Court of Counsellors is rather to be compared with the head, or one Counsellor, whose only Counsell (if of any one alone) the chief Ruler makes use of in matters of greatest moment: for the office of the head is to counsell, as the soules is to command. >It is therefore necessary to the defense of the City, First, that there be some who may as near as may be, search into, and discover the counsels and motions of all those who may prejudice it. For discoverers to Ministers of State, are like the beams of the Sun to the humane soul, and we may more truly say in vision political, than natural, that the sensible, and intelligible Species of outward things, not well considered by others, are by the air transported to the soul, (that is to say to them who have the Supreme Authority) and therefore are they no less necessary to the preservation of the State, than the rays of the light are to the conservation of man; or if they be compared to Spiders webs, which extended on all sides by the finest threads, do warn them, keeping in their small holds, of all outward motions; They who bear Rule can no more know what is necessary to be commanded for the defense of their Subjects without Spies, than those Spiders can when they shall go forth, and whether they shall repair, without the motion of those threads. 1st quote, Hobbes compares a council and court (which could also be parliament) to a head -- to give counsel and be a web of information for all the estates in a commonwealth. 2nd quote, Hobbes approves of council and intelligence agencies and there is much more to support any institutions of parliament and assemblies under a sovereign monarchy, again, contrary to popular belief and opinions -- absolute monarchy does not deny it or suggest monarchy be without this institution. But rather, it is all a case for the pre-eminence of monarchy as supreme and sovereign person in politics.
And yet absolute monarchists do reject certain constitutionalist doctrines. <Jean Bodin: The Analogy of Three Cities with Different Forms of Commonwealth (or State) Mixing together: The Three Forms of State are of Contrary Natures: >"So as if the mixture of things of diverse and contrary natures, arises a third all together differing form the things so together mixed. But that State which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales differs in deed nothing from a mean popular State (democracy); For if three cites, whereof one of them is governed by a King, and so a Monarchy (One); the second by an Optimacy, and so an Oligarchy (Few); the third by the People, and so a Democracy (Many); should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale (State), and so the chief power and Sovereignty communicated unto all; who is there that can doubt but that that State shall be altogether a State popular (Democracy)? except the Sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the King, then to the Nobility, and afterwards to the People; As in the vacancy of the Roman Kingdom, the King being dead, the Senators ruled by turns: yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonwealth, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all." <Jean Bodin: Mixed Constitutonalism. An Opinion Not Only Absurd... but Treasonable >"There are those who say, and have published in writing, that the constituton of France is a mixture of the three pure types, the Parlement representing Oligarchy (few), the Estates-General representing Democracy (many), and the King representing Monarchy (one). But this is an opinion not only absurd but treasonable. It is treasonable to exalt the subjects to be the equals and colleagues of their Sovereign Monarch." >For otherwise if the King should be subject unto the assemblies and decrees of the People, he should neither be King nor Sovereign; and the Commonwealth not a Monarchical State, but a mere Oligarchy of many Lords in power equal, where the greater part commands the less in general, and every one in particular: and wherein the edicts and laws are not to be published in the name of him that rules, but in the name and authority of the states, as in an Aristocratical Seignorie, where he that is chief has no power, but owes obedience unto the commandments of the seignorie: unto whom they all and every one of them feign themselves to owe their faith and obedience: which are all things so absurd, as hard it is to say which is furthest from reason. SO when Charles the Eight, the French king, [being but so young], held a parliament at Tours, although the power of the parliament was never before so great as in those times, yet Relli, then speaker for the people, turning himself unto the King, thus begins his oration, which is yet in print. Most high, most mighty, and most Christian King, our natural and onely Lord, we your humble and obedient subjects, &c. Which are come hither by your command, in all HUMILITY, REVERENCE, and SUBJECTION present ourselves before you, &c. And have given me in charge from all this noble assembly, to declare unto you the good will and hartie desire they have with a most firm resolution and purpose to SERVE, OBEY, and AID you in all your affairs, commandments, and pleasures. In brief, all that his oration and speech is nothing else but a declaration of all their good wills towards the King, and of their humble obedience and loyalty.
<Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy >"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines... And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty." Jean Bodin: >Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. >I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State >That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority. >The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: <In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power Of The Representative Is Limited >In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects. Mussolini: >For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative. So the estates-general is limited, the state and sovereign power indivisible and a united being, contrary to Aristotle -- the State is modeled after a household, the true image of the commonwealth, united under one head: to which Fascism also opposed constitutionalism and Aristotle, in opposing multi-party democracy to have a one-party state, again bringing us back to the model of a household under one head (which Aristotle deemed inappropriate for political rule, but rather economic -- putting monarchy to the sideline -- in returning to Plato's doctrine, that the household and state function no differently, political & economical, and appropriating it to further our notion of monarchical pre-eminence and majesty an sovereignty.
(814.83 KB 3000x3000 Grace wink OC.png)

(13.50 KB 339x319 illiad zeus king rage.png)


(846.82 KB 6000x5105 Grace hesiod text reduce.jpg)

This right here are all the top-tier monarchist reads. Homer's monarchist maxim, brief but also highly important.
(951.68 KB 1500x1500 grace 25 kitto.png)



(707.52 KB 1500x1500 grace 24 kitto.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

Absolute monarchists speak in terms of the Herodotus Debate. Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy. 3 simple forms of State. Bodin traces it back to Herodotus. >All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point… As you can see, Jean Bodin isn't taking the traditional point of view: for the longest time preceding him, many believed in the mixed constitution… it had the dignity of antiquity and the Aristotelian influence (whom I believe Hobbes and myself credit with the idea of the mixed constitution most). We're a bit heterodox in this regard. Traditionalists are not only partial to mixed constitutionalism due to this, but also tend to not stress three forms of State. They tend to stress Aristocracy vs Tyranny. Good government and bad government. Not so much whether it is a monarchy or oligarchy or democracy – but to Bodin these are accidental qualities and for his part Bodin doesn't define the state by virtue – a tyrannical monarch has a monarchy nonetheless – but he does make room for a royal monarchy, a lordly monarchy, and a tyrannical monarchy… the difference is the stress is moreso on monarchy itself. That's a big difference you'll easily find between myself and traditionalists: they tend to be more vague and identify with aristocracy (not as oligarchy or rule of the few, but as rule of the best). Whereas we in particular are very insistent upon there being one ruler… they want any number of kings really. I'm convinced the whole "monarchism" thing as a political ideology is mostly thanks to absolute monarchists – we brought back and stressed monarchy in terms of Herodotus and being a simple form of state where one rules with majesty – otherwise it's aristocracy or mixed constitutionalism being stressed more than monarchy itself imo.
Jean Bodin explains himself here: >There can be no fourth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ocholocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice). And again in Six Books of a Commonwealth: >Thereby to judge what the estate is – as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy; but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [or Oligarchy]. >Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governors good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths, we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite. >Now it is most certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and inextricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion an infinite number of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths; >A thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths; namely, a Monarchy, an Aristocracy, and a Democracy. So we stress as Bodin calls it, the essential and formal differences.
Whether the father is of good or bad quality – yet the father remains a father and ought to be respected by virtue of that. And for majesty or pre-eminence, it's not how many pushups or meritocracy, but the most superlatively power nobody can help to compare to – it's what Aristotle called being like a god among men or a lion to hares – much greater than simply the best man imo, but something extraordinarily grand – for that reason Hobbes makes Leviathan to be the grand total of all the People united in One Person, so that monarch has pre-eminence extraordinary and without comparison in power which is the true mark of majesty or pre-eminence in monarchy, not meritocracy so much imo since no matter how many pushups you do it would never match that great power in potential, which is on par with the power of the people – that's why Louis XIV uses the motto Nec Pluribus Impar, not unequal to many – but let's get back to the topic– Jean Bodin: >Whereas No cause (as saith Cicero) can be thought just or sufficient for vs to take up arms against our country… 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. Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors >But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected.
I dislike how rightwingers these days consider the state or political to be dirty or pee-pee poo-poo. They paint an ignoble picture. The ancaps / hoppeans and ultramontanists I've talked with take the idea that State is like the individual and how a good man and good citizen aren't always the same – they've taken it and run with it, but they also forget other passages. The ancaps in particular I think use that mentality to support their view of the Natural Order (ancap elites) without a state. Yet Aristotle and Cicero paint a different picture: Aristotle / The State or Political Community Aims at the Highest Good >But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. "So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero "For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero "Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero "But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero "Plato himself is for a Divine Power assisting in Human Politics… 'tis a remarkable passage that of his in his Meno. "We may as properly call Governors, or States-men, Divine, as we call those who give out the Oracles, or Prophets or Poets by that name; and we may affirm, that they have a Divine Illumination, and are possessed by the Deity, when they consult for the good of the commonwealth" –William Nichols
(388.14 KB 785x793 Grace watermelon crop.png)

(85.18 KB 560x315 snarling-dog.png)

I'm aware Evola also made the reverse critique from Guenon, too. Yet I also find Evola disagreeable and Evola likewise criticized us (so I feel justified). I've never liked the NRx / traditionalist crowd hovering around Spengler, Guenon, and Evola – they have a certain air to them and apathy I find disagreeable when it comes to monarchy and my own ideals. I put my foot down too b/c I certainly don't agree w/ Guenon that we should return to the Thomas Becket era where the kings lacked majesty or pre-eminence and where the political estate was overlooked in the doctrine of the two swords…I def for sure don't want that same apathy toward the majesty of monarchy. I'd rather agree w/ Hobbes that back then there was the same apathy when the political order meant so much more, – that I cannot help agree with the Fascists on this one. As all the philosophers too found the political order noteworthy whether it was Plato's Republic or Statesman or Aristotle's Politics. All in all there's a reason why I'm a monarchist and not a theocrat alone – part of it is I highly value the political as an ideal and unity -- the other is I feel a stronger bond with monarchy would lead to integrity and inspire virtue, as the political forms of state do come with certain virtues like Aristotle himself confesses. I've had traditionalists come up to me and say it doesn't fundamentally whether it's a monarchy or not, but the system of values – which I disagree with again. The way contemporary rightwingers talk about morality independent of the policy and structure of society is asinine to me – different structures reflect different values, what makes a good monarchy is different from a good democracy and so on, the same way we don't talk about moral order irrespective as if it didn't matter whether parents or their children had the integrity of the family. Again, the apathy of traditionalists toward policy I find to be part of their own downfall if I had to criticize them. It's their own neglect of making this dichotomy of the secular and spiritual and deeming the political order not an ideal worthy of pursuit that pushed them off the rest of society and made the radical shift toward secularism inevitable – because the political order accounts for everything in society, the priest caste and warrior caste, the maintenance of justice and order overall. And it's the monarch's part, not as a warrior or priest, but as the head of a household (that's the idea of monarchy in my mind)… monarchy appeals to me precisely because it's unique, not because it's part of a clique (which I say to the caste mentality) – the monarch is an individual power who gives us an indivisible sovereign power and has majesty, not only that it's a hierarchy (rule by priests) or a stratocracy (military government) – the ideal of monarchy and majesty is a strength insurmountable and not one clique against the other clique – this misunderstands majesty.
(147.07 KB 550x616 Grace cropped.png)

(839.16 KB 995x826 leviathan.png)


(990.06 KB 2000x1252 header_essay-bruschetti.jpg)

Evola dismisses absolute monarchy and in particular Thomas Hobbes to be atheist and uninspired. Albeit without consideration of Jean Bodin and others. Between Evola and Guenon – there are typically those stressing warrior caste or priest caste. Say what you will about Hobbes and how Leviathan is Enlightenment-tier – I'm convinced Hobbes had the right idea about Sword and Crosier – direct and indirect power – Hobbes understood the problem and redressed it by uniting them both under one person, a very monarchist conviction. There's a reason why totalitarian / authoritarian societies (whatever you call it) lead by political minds seem more successful overall in impacting a change than the pockets of traditionalists and churches in Western democracies. –They've never been able to overcome that chasm set by their distinction of the secular and spiritual and realized in the Enlightenment. Whereas the totalitarian and authoritarian and politicized regimes are very successful in impacting – they not only change the values, but deal with society at large, something the traditionalists have never fully committed to doing because they deemed it merely a secularism. They've revitalized the political and re-organized society accordingly, they've been successfully instilling order in the modern world and realized social integrity in ways traditionalists frankly cannot (albeit they would slander these regimes). The basic conservative redpill with morality is sorta half-realized because of this. They see society and social disunity and come to this, but they haven't come to appreciate the craft of social unity in politics which takes into consideration all of it from the family and overall state under which warriors and priests are brought up. You find this problem with Catholicism – that you have clashes with the Vatican, because the priesthood is raised under the state – inevitably it creeps into the Church because the priests themselves are born and reared this way – you find it with low church and Protestants that they clash with the World or society (which to them is like a big public school) that even their children will be influenced no matter how much they try to shelter them. It's all because the political dominion matters a hecka lot and the structure of society inspires virtues for people to follow. If we don't focus on the political as a high pursuit, so much is abandoned and fall shorts no matter how much they put consideration in morality and the religion – you need heroes and a structural integrity the political encompasses. This is why I personally think Evola was in the wrong in criticizing Fascism – and why ᴉuᴉlossnW and Giovanni Gentile had the right idea. Giovanni Gentile: >A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit Mussolini: >The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. >Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values. That's why I don't call myself a traditionalist (apart from being associated with other doctrines). Being an absolute monarchist is a little heterodox and we tend to be black sheepish at times – to assert one person as supreme it's almost a necessity. Otherwise we would settle for the mixed state and all the other ideas that were considered traditional and the norm, but this order lacked certain notions of monarchy we sought to establish.
(787.31 KB 1500x1500 grace 8 kitto.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat(1).jpg)

In a way, I kinda lament the ascendance of traditionalists and esotericism in rightwing circles (particularly Fascism) b/c they replace and take the spotlight over such valid opinions concerning politics. I feel the same way for Monarchy. It's taken for granted that what denomination you are will inevitably lead to what politics you hold in e-monarchist circles a lot. And while Hobbes acknowledged this in the Presbyterians trying to establish a democracy in England with the Puritans – I'd also note there are some inconsistencies that it's not always a solid deal. It might make sense for England when they were united, but sometimes it's also an inconvenience when they're separated and yet mirror each other – it evolves into a Cain and Abel or Romulus and Remus scenario. Many right libertarians, for example, also tend to be Catholic and yet Cromwell also established a dictatorship and was close to having his own dynasty. I'm not of the opinion that if we shill Catholicism then a monarchical state will inevitably follow – we might get a traditional monarchical state with all the regalia, but I don't take it for granted as there are many Catholic countries that also aren't monarchies. But that's my criticism of e-monarchist business: way too much focus on what denomination rather than simply the political idea of Monarchy: it wasn't like that in the Herodotus Debate, for example. It's also crucial to me to stress Monarchy as a political form of state just as much, but many e-monarchists dawdle around it. A big difference between us is they consider the Middle Ages as the quintessential time of monarchy and no improvements could've been made… but I clearly think otherwise given what I said about the Thomas Becket era. I tend to think of the crown and regalia more like the paint that comes with monarchy and the culture, but not necessarily the paint makes monarchy: for instance, some monarchies don't wear crowns or the ones that do only wear the crown very briefly and for the rest you're left with their person. As far as I'm concerned, a secular dictatorship even could potentially become a monarchy and that's why I tend to pay attention to a lot of unusual regimes for a monarchist to pay attention to. The only thing about such dictatorships is they typically keep the pretense of democracy and this might be that ah-hah moment for traditionalists to slam dunk me – but even those cases could still potentially be a monarchy like the Pahlavi dynasty. I guess a big difference is I'm of the opinion monarchy can happen in the modern world, just that it would simply look different and have another coat of paint. – this is mostly true even for traditional royalty as we all know they now wear suits and ties like the rest of the statesmen. For myself I don't really go into the dichotomy of the traditional vs the modern or the middle ages vs the modern era – monarchy for me is a universal form of state applied to all times and ages, so long as there are states there is a potential for monarchy in my mind to adopt the state. I overlook a lot of the dichotomies set before our eyes.
(99.22 KB 452x291 Grace looks at you.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

For them, they tend to bawl their eyes and bite their lips at Philip the Fair persecuting the Templars and Henry VIII's dissolution of monasteries. While I on the other hand, bawl my eyes the Road to Canossa and Thomas Becket affair (particularly for the King) and the Constantine Donation or Childeric III being deposed and tonsured or disdain for other kings being desposed and sent to nunneries. With Guénon and Evola, I'm not typically invested in returning to an Aryan Indian caste system or a class of cliques between warrior and priestly caste. Like I said, my idea of monarchy isn't warrior or priest per say, but the structure of a household which lays the foundation for the structure of policy: I like the king as the supreme head and father of the people and the idea of the household places emphasis on governance and ruling – the reason why BAP (who focuses on the warrior caste or general kings) or the priestly caste is partially to do with that idea. The head of a household could include a multitude of professions all under one. Their idea of Aryan Indian caste skips over the other Western canon called politics (which, like a household, could include both professions). I've been called Caesaropapist before, but it's also true the Caesars and Augustus also had the religious office of Pontifex maximus and Bodin acknowledged the power of priests and the clergy and how monarchs adapted it to make their power greater… and I recall other Roman statesmen too sometimes joined between religious offices. Guénon seems to pin it all on Philip the Fair allegedly. When Bodin lists all the offices constituting a commonwealth and ranking them, he well ranks the clergy high – but it wasn't so much that they weren't also involved in the commonwealth or without political consideration. Bodin lists the monarch first and then follows the clergy in terms of the offices of a commonwealth and rank – I'm of the opinion this is a good tihng. Like I've said numerous times before… I'm not into monarchy because I like cliques – if I did, I would be an oligarchist. The purpose of there being a monarch imo is not to establish a clique priestly or warrior, but to have an individual person establish harmony between the cliques. As Bodin appeals to harmony as the virtue of a monarchical state. The stress isn't that we need a warrior king or a priest king, but one king – we need one, let there be one ruler.
(277.21 KB 1000x1050 10.png)

(990.10 KB 2000x1252 header_essay-bruschetti.jpg)

Indeed, the household is the model and unit of all values: under its composition, we have all the variety of professions. The political or city has the constitution of all houses itself: for this reason I believe Mussolini says Fascism is totalitarian, apart from its immanentism and its concept of life, the Fascist ideal is the State realized. People are "made aware of their moral unity" in this ideal of Fascism and the Fascist State. In that sense, the Fascist State makes the people.
These two videos btw Illustrate the problem I mean >>6817 here W/ the Christian Right and Traditionalists rambling about secular affairs and secularism. They consider politics pee-pee poo poo like RedeemedZoomer says. And also disregard the political order, which accounts for the moral integrity of society and our well being as people. When they complain about the secular, they really aren't offering us much in return or any solutions: in order to redress our social order, it will require a look into political affairs -- yet for all that, they refuse to. The secular in original terms originating with the rest of society and all the mundane professions as they called it (even the cream of the top leaders who we all read about as legends and heroes and men of virtue, indeed, are mundane and merely a secularism in this view) with exception of the clergy. Which cannot be done, seeing how the secular order runs pretty much everything and consists of the entire laity. That we cannot have a society of clergymen and churches only as buildings (although traditionalists would like to pretend to build entire towns of only churches for A e s t h e t i c s).
(308.17 KB 1072x1100 17.png)

(42.12 KB 640x540 minecraft dog 1.png)

They call me a monarcho-nihilist, though, for allowing such strident personal loyalty to a person of hereditary birth, I suspect, and not overthrowing them on the pretense of meritocracy or finding someone of virtue... but again, I have to agree with Jean Bodin that we can find men of numerous virtues and would overthrow people constantly. Hereditary royal birth is a structure I believe inspires virtue and thereby integrity: following the model of a family and transfer of blood and father-to-son government. Then because I stress a kind of cult of personality or heroism or avatarism of the Monarch: I suppose, I have to answer for being a monarchist and not a strict theocrat: for stressing worldly kings and not deities strictly instead, and building a social order around this monarchy. Yet I believe a cult of personality and heroism and avatars will inspire people nonetheless. It might be, like fascists are to integralists, the fascists stress the primacy of the state, and the integralists the church. They say that the state and politics is materialistic. As though as I mentioned before, it wasn't something worthy of pursuit or as Cicero says, a very noble deed to aspire to serve your country. I guess I live in my own world and mythology, that nobody understands what calling I find here. When they say, to abandon the political and aspire for higher ideals: I say, that this is an ideal worthy of pursuit for all I've said.
Aristotle went on to say. >Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares. >For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. >Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law). Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable. >Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed But even though Aristotle said this, Aristotle in a way initiated this trend to monarchical pre-eminence, that others would safeguard in response to him (& that's why I think Hobbes made sure to call his Leviathan a mortal god under the immortal god, to safeguard against Aristotle and secure monarchical pre-eminence). Bodin went on to say. >Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with himself, since He is infinite and two infinities cannot co-exist, so the Sovereign Prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction The republican John Milton complained about it in his work The Readie & Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth. <Whereas a king must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughty court about him, of vast expence and luxury, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female In the song Publions en tous lieux: >Barely can we suffice >With all our voices Louis XIV the Sun King had the motto: Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many). As there is a maxim that the king is worth a thousand men in power.
Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: >This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence. >Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; >Where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. “There is nothing,” saith he, “on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride.” But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey; >There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24 Jean Bodin / The citizens in particular & the people in general >It is one thing to bind all together, and to bind every one in particular: for so all the citizens particularly swore to the observation of the laws, but not all together for that every one of them in particular was bound unto the power of them all in general. But an oath could not be given by them all: for why, the people in general is a certain universal body, in power and nature divided from every man in particular. Then again to say truly, an oath cannot be made but by a lesser to the greater, but in a popular estate nothing can be greater than the whole body of the people themselves. >But in a monarchy it is otherwise, where every one in particular, and all the people in general, and (as it were) in one body, must swear to the observation of the laws, and their faithful allegiance to one sovereign monarch; who next unto God (of whom he holds his scepter & power) is bound to no man. For an oath carries always with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour.
>For an oath carries always with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour. Indeed, the Monarch in Sovereign Monarchy is hailed as a superior. Superior to thousands, superior to myriads people. If not on par with their power (Leviathan). The Monarch is a superior and given the style of Majesty.
(741.39 KB 2000x2000 Grace laptop transparent.png)

(1.90 MB 872x837 bossuet-min-e1550254900982.png)

Bossuet in Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture adds. >God, moreover, has put something divine into kings. "I have said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the most High." It is God himself whom David makes speak in this way. >Even if the king should be an infidel [does this hold true], from the respect one should have for the ordination of God. "By health of the pharaoh, you shall not depart hence." >Hence one must listen to the first Christians, and to Tertullian, who speaks as follows in the name of all of them: "We shall swear, not by the genius of the Caesars, but by their health, which is the most august of all geniuses. Do you not know that geniuses are demons? But we, who see in the emperors the choice and judgment of God, who gave them command over all peoples, respect in them what God has placed there, and we uphold that through a great oath." >Thus it is the spirit of Christianity to make kings respected in a kind of religious way–which Tertullian (again) calls very well "the religion of the second majesty". >This second majesty simply flows out of the first, that is to say the divine, which, for the good of human affairs, has sent some of its brilliance to kings. >Kings must tremble, then, in using the power that God gives them, and consider how horrible is the sacrilege of using for evil a power that comes from God. >Let them respect their power, then, because it is not their power, but the power of God, which must be used in a holy and religious way. St. Gregory of Nazianze spoke thus to the emperors: "Respect the purple; recognize the great mystery of God in yours persons: He governs by himself the celestial things. He divides those of the earth with you. Be gods, then, to your subjects." That is to say, govern them as God governs, in a way that is noble, disinterested, beneficent–in a word divine. Bossuet later adds. >An undefinable element of divinity is possessed by the prince, and inspires fear in his subjects. The king himself would do well to remember this. "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." I have said: you are gods; this signifies that you possess in your authority, you bear on your forehead, the stamp of the divine. You are the children of the most HIgh; it is he who has established your power for the good of the human race. But, O gods of flesh and blood, of mud and dust, you will die like other men, you will fall like the greatest. Greatness divides men for a little while; a common fall levels them all in the end… O kings, be bold therefore in the exercise of your power: for it is divine and beneficial to the human race; but wield it with humility. It is conferred on you from without. In the end it leaves you weak. It leaves you mortal, it leaves you still sinners; and it lays upon you a heavier charge to render to God.
Giovanni Gentile: >So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses. Giovanni Gentile: <That Leader advances, secure, surrounded in an aura of myth, almost a person chosen by the Deity, tireless and infallible, an instrument employed by Providence to create a new civilization. Mussolini in A Diary of the Will (1927): >Yes. The State is that unitary expression, absolute will, of the power and of the consciousness of the Nation >This executive power–is the sovereign power of the Nation. The supreme head is the King Then Mussolini on his leadership doctrine for Fascist party members: >Because in the subordination of all to the will of a Leader, which is not a capricious will, but a seriously meditative will, & proven by deeds, Fascism has found its strength. >There should be no limits. We must obey even if the Leader asks too much.
(1022.12 KB 1500x1500 grace caligula kitto.png)


(208.49 KB 2048x1182 Caligula quote.jpg)

(678.41 KB 2048x1856 F1eRomCCC.jpg)

Cult of Personality / Avatarism / Heroism / Leader archtype is monarchist-approved. & I cannot understand monarchists who condemn it: Fascists and North Koreans have a monarchist inclination rather than royalists themselves.
(5.72 MB 3135x3764 Louis XV.jpg)

(39.14 KB 444x363 Louis XV speech.png)

(28.47 KB 719x324 Louis XV speech majesty.png)

>>6488 Louis XV speech >It is only in my person where the sovereign power resides, whose proper character is the spirit of advice, justice and reason; it is to me that my courtiers owe their existence and their authority; the fullness of their authority, which they exercise only in my name, always resides in me and can never be turned against me; To me alone belongs the legislative power without dependency and without division; it is by my authority that the officers of my Court proceed not to the formation, but to the registration, publication and execution of the law […]; public order emanates from me, and the rights and interests of the Nation, of which a separate body from the Monarch is usually made, are necessarily united to mine and rest only in my hands.
(249.53 KB 1669x1626 xWHDeVrz.jpg)

(554.08 KB 1540x2048 IzQPqwfY.jpg)

(409.19 KB 1669x1792 EWLr52tb.jpg)

(499.87 KB 1669x1225 bq1EYNKM.jpg)

A friend made these.
(305.71 KB 1920x1117 jwZOqIc8.jpg)

(393.56 KB 1669x1049 UxoQXEkB.jpg)

(515.02 KB 1462x2048 82Lwd_tz.jpg)

(293.96 KB 1669x1310 fF7uiibd.jpg)

(289.34 KB 2048x1184 zBmfTX6y.jpg)

(388.64 KB 1669x1155 kjLx9IYa.jpg)

(378.68 KB 1669x1155 fo3EXyJc.jpg)

(712.54 KB 1558x2048 oz8mQ1UA.jpg)

(505.29 KB 1669x1110 yjicOp_h.jpg)

(453.42 KB 1352x2048 Z48hEnjL.jpg)

About every major e-monarchist faction spurns, rejects, and hates Absolutism. Watching constitutionalists and the ancap-gone-monarchist libertarians mingle, with the traditionalists pretending to hate constitutionalism (but taking their side on almost every critical issue) – can be so frustrating for me. It is the opposite compared to /leftypol/ where the Anarchists complain about being in the fringe minority: with monarchists it's upside down, where the pro-democracy constitutionalists rule e-monarchist circles without any real opposition and dominate social media, the disc0rds, and r/monarchism. (Apart from traditionalists grumbling about their more progressive and secularist elements, but they still fundamentally agree with them pretty much and so long as they change their tone on religion and prefer their denominational affiliation).
Adolf Hitler concerning Austria's political situation: >Among the institutions which most clearly manifested unmistakable signs of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all the institutions of State, ought to have been the most firmly founded--I mean the Parliament, or the Reichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria. >The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed in England, the land of classic democracy. The whole of that excellent organization was bodily transferred to Austria with as little alteration as possible. >There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace in which the new body of popular representatives was to be housed he had to turn to the ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of 'Western Democracy' was adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol of irony, the horses of the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling apart from one another towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no better symbol for the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same building >The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of Austrian history in the decoration of this building, insisting that such would constitute an offence to them and a provocation. Much the same happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built by Wallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the cannons were thundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by an inscription. >I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered the Palace on the Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first experience aroused in me a profound feeling of repugnance. >I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government. >A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling of admiration almost without my being conscious of the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Press reported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any nobler form of government than self government by the people. >But these considerations furnished the very motives of my hostility to the Austrian Parliament. The form in which parliamentary government was here represented seemed unworthy of its great prototype. The following considerations also influenced my attitude:
>The fate of the German element in the Austrian State depended on its position in Parliament. Up to the time that universal suffrage by secret ballot was introduced the German representatives had a majority in the Parliament, though that majority was not a very substantial one. This situation gave cause for anxiety because the Social-Democratic fraction of the German element could not be relied upon when national questions were at stake. In matters that were of critical concern for the German element, the Social-Democrats always took up an anti-German stand because they were afraid of losing their followers among the other national groups. Already at that time--before the introduction of universal suffrage--the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be considered as a German Party. The introduction of universal suffrage put an end even to the purely numerical predominance of the German element. The way was now clear for the further 'de-Germanization' of the Austrian State. >The national instinct of self-preservation made it impossible for me to welcome a representative system in which the German element was not really represented as such, but always betrayed by the Social-Democratic fraction. Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist. >But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say. >That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards. >The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings. >I could not refrain from laughing
>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw. >A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form. >A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function. >Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence. >Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the filth of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
>I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to my notice when I was still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany at that time I might easily have found only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered what an illogical thing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easily have gone to the other extreme and believed--as many people believed, and apparently not without good reason--that the salvation of the people and the Empire could be secured only by restrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those who had this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and were blind to the aspirations of the people. >In Austria one could not be so easily misled. There it was impossible to fall from one error into another. If the Parliament were worthless, the Habsburgs were worse; or at least not in the slightest degree better. The problem was not solved by rejecting the parliamentary system. Immediately the question arose: What then? To repudiate and abolish the Vienna Parliament would have resulted in leaving all power in the hands of the Habsburgs. For me, especially, that idea was impossible. >Since this problem was specially difficult in regard to Austria, I was forced while still quite young to go into the essentials of the whole question more thoroughly than I otherwise should have done.
(178.56 KB 1000x1000 27.png)

(42.12 KB 640x540 minecraft dog 1.png)

Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism: >The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body. >The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person? >Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent? >Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice? >Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered. >Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success? >In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass? >What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration? >Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power? >In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty? >Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour? >Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber? >And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds? >Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership? >Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence? >But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?
(173.64 KB 1000x1000 28.png)

(66.61 KB 360x329 minecraft dog angry.png)

The Fuhrer asks the most fundamental question: >Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality? Hitler asks the right question here. Which I see as another jab at Aristotle and constitutionalism.
As Aristotle, who deems the whole composite: but renounces that the State should have a unitary being, that the Fascists set up an devised. Aristotle, who deemed that the political estate and houses altogether, cannot be like rooms in a household, and arranged this way. That had always been foundational for the constitutionalist pretenses, whether it was your more conservative republican or constitutional monarchist -- they both bleed the same, and have that foundation in Aristotle, along with many of the libertarians and their accusations of centralization -- again, like Hitler asks us here, is the composite brain of the free market, or the individual person of the State? the constitutionalism that separates the political from economical order, that Jean Bodin said, was like pulling limbs from a body--that pretends shelves stack themselves, but I say, not without ordination or a scheme, and someone who lays out the foundation: Sovereignty, that was our answer, and the foundation for the political estate, and its indivisible unity, that was not composite, but simple; a sovereignty that arranged and held together the State, touched upon every thing we take for granted, and origin of many corporations and institutions, and of the various emblems of the State (like money), from which proceeds the public order, for the economy and its general interests to be realized, and the laws: it all persists, and originates, in the sovereignty. As the economy itself is a political body in a general sense, they were inseparable: much to the contrary of free marketeers, the economy has the interests of the State, and wants the State, and wants the public laws, and wants all these things that reconcile and allow one end of the city to meet the needs of the other end: which cannot be accomplished without this sovereign power.
Hitler continues. >The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand. >The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly. >The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority--which means the dunder headed multitude--hate nothing so much as a superior brain. >For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is on a level with their own. Thus each one may have the opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers and, above all, each one feels that he may one day rise to the top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paul tomorrow? >This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.
>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude >The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants. The result of all this is that, in such a State, the succession of sudden changes in public positions and public offices has a very disquieting effect in general, which may easily lead to disaster when an adverse crisis arises. It is not only the ignorant and the incompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions, for the genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so, whenever Fate has chanced to place a capable man in the position of leader. Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the result will be that a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want to have only their own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in their ranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp in this particular. >The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of 'leaders'. >Though the Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by the King-Emperor, this act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the will of the parliament. The huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to every ministerial position showed all the typical marks of Western Democracy. The results that followed were in keeping with the principles applied. The intervals between the replacement of one person by another gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With each change the quality of the 'statesman' in question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type of political huckster remained. In such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.
>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising. >There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively. >It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has to- day, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole. >The parliamentary regime became one of the causes why the strength of the Habsburg State steadily declined during the last years of its existence. The more the predominance of the German element was whittled away through parliamentary procedure, the more prominent became the system of playing off one of the various constituent nationalities against the other. In the Imperial Parliament it was always the German element that suffered through the system, which meant that the results were detrimental to the Empire as a whole; for at the close of the century even the most simple-minded people could recognize that the cohesive forces within the Dual Monarchy no longer sufficed to counterbalance the separatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities. On the contrary!
(234.04 KB 1048x1220 25w.png)

(42.12 KB 640x540 minecraft dog 1.png)

I was satisfied in reading Hitler's criticisms of constitutionalism there. Ngl, they also inspired me
(237.61 KB 1048x1220 25.png)

(65.98 KB 360x348 minecraft dog 2.png)

Reading Bodin and Hobbes criticism of Aristotle, and having dabbled a fair bit in Aristotle's Politics myself, I think I understand why these absolute monarchists are harsh on Aristotle (at least, as far as monarchy is concerned). ... I have greater political understanding, but there are still quite a few obstacles in my way, and insecurities I have in gaining a foothold for my absolutist agenda. --Lately I know what I'm looking to criticize, but how I justify the alternative and find a backing for it is still at odds. I've clung to the notion of an indivisible sovereignty and stressed how this justifies Monarchy on a political scale as opposed to Aristotle, and that it gives the state a unitary being: but I also relied heavily on all these authors purported agreement with Plato to disagree with Aristotle... but I'm not so sure about Plato himself and whether there is material in his works such as the Republic, Statesmen, or Laws to adequately support what I'm looking for. I want to find something that does support this sovereignty and simple state, but can I really say it's no less composite with regard to Plato's tripartite soul? maybe. --I should look into Plato and see if there is anything that suits this... but I'm pessimistic also, and can't say for sure it works altogether and I know that from certain parts I've read. ... I gained a lot from reading other works and found a surprising amount of ammunition in Fascist works and even from Hitler in his criticism of the Austrian parliament. >Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality? This stuck out to me, because it reminded me of Aristotle's food argument against the wise man. And again, our problem with constitutionalism with regard to Aristotle's composite political state as opposed to a monarchical form of state. ... I have considerable gains from all this, but still have so much to look into and re-think a bit. I always get far, but have many miles ahead of me.
(227.37 KB 1000x1000 22.png)

(65.98 KB 360x348 minecraft dog 2.png)

What prompts me is Hobbes' quote, paired with his criticism of Aristotle, and my conviction paired with these that Aristotle is the grandfather of the mixed constitution. Because from Jean Bodin's analysis, before anyone else, it was Aristotle who came with the addition of a mixed constitution: Bodin said that Plato did not (albeit people would say he does in Laws, I think Bodin saw that more as a sovereign democracy than a truly mixed state). And albeit that Bodin testifies, that Herodotus named others who talked about a mixed constitution in his day, first named person that Bodin lists is Aristotle. Following Hobbes singling out of Aristotle, I'm privy to think part of Hobbes' criticisms must be with the mixed constitution in relation to Aristotle as well. But finding what exactly that is, it isn't too transparent or clear-cut in Hobbes apart from the following quote. 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. It can't only be the distinction between a state an association (but I think this quote is valid for that too) – but also our understanding of what is meant by body politic or state. I'm not sure it is as two-dimensional or simple between Plato and Aristotle, and we sometimes have a bit of both and neither: we have a love-hate relationship with Aristotle, and Jean Bodin's definition between state and association is also fairly akin to Aristotle's (and also, similarly, brings together various constitutions in his study of sovereignty like I hear Aristotle did), but with consideration of sovereignty. –But that is what I'm hoping is key for our understanding of what Hobbes means for understanding the word body politic and what it signifies. That what I believe differs between a multi-party state and a one-party state in ideology is also connected to this. That the former (multi-party states) have in Aristotle that convention of freemen and estates in the political, a middle class and virtue in the midst of things, and composite character of the state – and this compositeness of the state as a whole to be its virtue and justice, I believe, might lend credence to this belief. –but before I try to contrast that with Plato, I'll add some doubts, because Aristotle was also a student and carried some things over from Plato, and not only criticisms, so it's not just that they're opposites (but this mentality prompts me to look into Plato). – What I hope to find in Plato is support for the State is to support an indivisible quality like sovereignty that is simple and one rather than composite – that might support the view of the state as a unitary being like one person, as opposed to the model of a mixed state. I've had considerable success in making our notion of sovereignty more relevant and modern. I found that Fascism covertly holds a lot of the same ideas behind sovereignty in its true form and for totalitarianism in contrast to constitutionalism. That's what people like Karl Popper say for Plato's Republic: that it is too friendly to totalitarian notions of the State. But not only in Plato's Republic, but also Plato's Statesmen, that a state and household and said to be fundamentally no different, contrary to Aristotle also: which I think also adds to the unitary character (since Aristotle defines a household to have one head and makes it inappropriate for the political state) – it makes it more top-down than bottom-up, and that can also be seen in the notion of the philosopher king, as opposed to Aristotle's food argument against the idea of philosopher king (that many people can bring more food to the table).
And despite Plato's 3-part soul, I'd add that, 1st, I read that Socrates appeals to the immortality of the soul as incomposite, and, 2nd, that justice makes the state ideally one: the closer the state is to its ideal, it appeals to one and its unity. The State itself is a mirror to an individual person and his integrity – I think makes the State like a super-organism or like a person the way Hobbes makes his State into a monarch – whereas for Aristotle, the end of the state is its virtue and that I presume in relation to its composite character for the common good, and why I think Aristotle has more democratic undertones compared to Plato's philosopher king and metals. 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. Which reminds me of Hobbes in that they come to be not many men, but like one man, except with Plato, it is more like they are organs than Hobbes' Leviathan that is an avatar of them all. But the entire city as this body politic isn't a multiplicity or concord, but a unity: and I presume – justice bestows its oneness and indivisible character to not be so composite, but becomes simple – that might be a stretch. Plato Republic: >For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love. To differentiate what Hobbes says about body-politic from Aristotle, there is no other passage from Aristotle's Politics that makes this more clear than here: 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… I stop at the passages about how this is a despot or even absolutism (which are surprisingly relevant to Hobbes) – and how it is no constitution at all according to Aristotle – the point I'm aware of, is that for Aristotle, to make the State into a monarch is the furthest from his inclination, given that for him the political constitution cannot be arranged like a household under one head or like a monarch, but only for economic units – which by this corporation of the people, it is exactly at odds. 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 Plato on Leader principle: >The great principle of all is that no one of either sex should be without a commander; nor should the mind of any one be accustomed to do anything, either in jest or earnest, of his own motion, but in war and in peace he should look to and follow his leader, even in the least things being under his guidance; for example, he should stand or move, or exercise, or wash, or take his meals, or get up in the night to keep guard and deliver messages when he is bidden; and in the hour of danger he should not pursue and not retreat except by order of his superior; and in a word, not teach the soul or accustom her to know or understand how to do anything apart from others. Of all soldiers the life should be always and in all things as far as possible in common and together; there neither is nor ever will be a higher, or better, or more scientific principle than this for the attainment of salvation and victory in war. And we ought in time of peace from youth upwards to practise this habit of commanding others, and of being commanded by other.
But whether Plato fundamentally differs from Aristotle in his understanding of a body politic is uncertain to me. Apart from the quotes I plucked, but it doesn't for sure say that Plato doesn't also like Aristotle consider the state as a whole to be composite and have a common good therein: in fact, similar to Aristotle, I think Plato also goes to talk about the whole and parts in Laws. –But what Plato says about justice bringing them to oneness of mind, and his stress on unity, reminds me of how Bodin also stressed that it is their union under sovereignty that ultimately makes the State, not so much the walls and persons. I don't think I can rely on Plato or Aristotle for what I have in mind, and I know for sure that's why many people are constitutional monarchists: the notion of absolute sovereignty is fairly heterodox under scrutiny of both these names, esp. without consideration of how Bodin sees the need for absolute power and his distinction between the sovereign and the magistrate, but also Bodin considers it a necessity if the laws can be changed and rescinded that there is an absolute power, and that it is the case for human laws for sovereigns in his account by divine and natural law from what I've read for Bodin. That is without a doubt one of our most pernicious issues in appealing to the community… but if I'm right and there is a fundamental difference in how body-politic is understood between Plato and Aristotle here, – it would be useful in pushing back against the notion of the mixed constitution.
(215.94 KB 1000x1000 27.png)

(317.25 KB 530x796 clown dog.png)

This supports my endeavor here. https://habib.camden.rutgers.edu/talks/plato-and-aristotle/ >According to Plato, unity is the desired end of both individual and state constitution. >Plato’s overarching disposition towards unity asserts itself most pervasively and at every level, from the point of origin of a city to its formally articulated bureaucratic structure. What needs to be observed here is how unity — even more than the alleged goals of justice or the Good — is the ultimate teleological principle informing the interrelation of elements comprising the city’s overall constitution. >Where the circularity of the concept of unity encompasses for Plato the origin and purpose of a state, Aristotle’s procedure in the Politics is strikingly different. To evince the overall contrast of both method and content between the two thinkers, it may be useful to consider firstly Aristotle’s metaphysical presuppositions, secondly his observations on the state in general, and finally his assessment of democracy as informed by these. >To begin with, Aristotle’s self-proclaimed analytic and somewhat empirical method (I, i) is far less prone to the strategy of hypostatization which governs much of Plato’s thinking in the Republic. Aristotle’s method is to begin with the notion of a composite whole which is broken down into its smallest parts. Hence, where Plato sees democracy and the other forms of government as having a fairly determinate essence or set of defining characteristics, Aristotle is adamant that there are different types of democracy, oligarchy and aristocracy. In fact, his delineation of what he considers the best constitution, which he calls “polity,” is dependent on precisely this definitional malleability of each constitution and its ability to be mixed with other constitutional forms. More importantly, this analytic mentality underlies Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s view that the state should comprise a unity. Aristotle holds that a state is a composite whole made up of parts; he also defines the state as an aggregate of citizens large enough to secure a self-sufficient life; a further definition suggests that the state is an association of citizens in a constitution (III, i-iii). Aristotle’s entire text stresses the plurality of parts in any state and the need to reconcile these (IV, iii). Given these assumptions, Aristotle maintains, as against Plato, that the state cannot be a unity; unity, in fact, would destroy the state’s self-sufficiency given that the state harbours not only a plurality of numbers but different kinds of men existing in relations of reciprocal equivalence and mutually supporting diversity of function. The state’s plurality, and lack of natural unity, is further evident in the rotation of office whereby citizens take turns to rule and be ruled; Aristotle goes so far as to say that such rotation entails the same citizens becoming different persons at different times (II, ii), a view which contrasts sharply with Plato’s advocacy of a strict specialisation of function. Aristotle does not, of course, suggest that a state exists in a condition of unconstrained plurality; whatever unity a state achieves is given in its harmonisation of various interests and is also a function of education in the “spirit” of a given constitution, an education which entails training of both habits and the intellect (II, v).
(294.79 KB 1048x1220 25 mic.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

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. >These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue. ^This right here is exactly what I'm looking for. … With all the information I've gathered beforehand, and with reference to Hobbes quote from where I started, it does support that mixed constitutionalists do support rather a concord than a union – and although Aristotle is clear to distinguish his State from an Alliance, the nature of his State is still a plurality rather than such a sovereign union: and if it's said that they are composite nonetheless, the stress for our part is still on the unity that sovereignty bestows. … This helps to justify all I've said and why I've come to agree with Thomas Hobbes on this issue.
(445.68 KB 1100x600 Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

(1.37 MB 1001x999 1622175977379-0.png)

(742.96 KB 1564x2048 n3D2ZH7w.jpg)

(712.52 KB 1558x2048 oz8mQ1UA.jpg)

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. >Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the bond of unity? >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.
(17.99 KB 607x212 Isocrates 01.png)

(14.76 KB 610x205 Isocrates 02.png)

(10.53 KB 609x174 Isocrates 03.png)

(13.88 KB 605x170 Isocrates 04.png)

Isocrates on monarchy
(18.16 KB 599x223 Isocrates 05.png)

(15.25 KB 614x203 Isocrates 06.png)

(16.96 KB 602x181 Isocrates 07.png)

(17.96 KB 606x186 Isocrates 08.png)

(10.75 KB 604x119 isocrates 09.png)

Isocrates on Monarchy: >Thus it is clear that monarchy is the most efficient form of government. It is said even the gods are under the kingship of Zeus; even if this were untrue, yet the fact that we imagine that the gods are under a monarchy is an admission that we consider it the best form of government. >In oligarchies and democracies, the rulers have private interests, further they only meet occasionally and opportunities for action are missed; monarchs are continually occupied in the public interest. Again, the former are jealous and wish to exalt themselves at the expense of their predecessors and successors, the latter seek the goo will of all. But the greatest difference is that monarchs treat public affairs as their own concern, other rulers transact them as if they were other people's business, and they choose their advisors accordingly. >Those who hold office for one year only have to retire before they have mastered their duties; a monarch has the advantage of continuous experience. Again, he knows that he has to superintend everything; the oligarchic and democratic ruler has colleagues, and much remains undone because each thinks the other is doing it.
(101.18 KB 768x828 5c685d12c9e77c0001476341.jpg)

>Obey the laws which have been laid down by kings, but consider their manner of life your highest law. For just as one who is a citizen in a democracy must pay court to the multitude, so also one who lives under a monarchy should revere the king.
(523.84 KB 1552x2048 nB98q8vv.jpg)

(606.87 KB 1216x1573 LmuQ2vNS.jpg)

(601.68 KB 1669x2036 LE-Ep6Ch.jpg)

(4.70 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 1.png)

(4.64 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 2.png)

(4.35 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 3.png)

(4.31 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 4.png)

(4.45 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 5.png)

(4.74 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 6.png)

(311.98 KB 1072x1100 17.png)

(65.98 KB 360x348 minecraft dog 2.png)

At the root of Constitutional Monarchists & Right Libertarians fuss, De Tocqueville's, De Jouvenel's, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's, Hoppe's disapproval of absolute monarchy an for the centralization/decentralization meme,--is Aristotle (the granddaddy of constitutionalism), & 3 points of Aristotle against it: 1.That the political & economical do differ: his pretense of freemen and the constitutionalism of freemen & equals is for the political estate, monarchy under one head is proper for the economic; 2. An assembly or composite brain can always bring more food to the table than a wise man (food argument); 3. The State or Political is not a unity, but a plurality; and the State should not be organized to be a Monarch or like a household under one head (which is inappropriate for political rule, but economic).
(4.73 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 7.png)

(4.78 MB 1417x2000 Bodin Majesty series pg 8.png)

(5.89 MB 426x240 Kim Jong-il's funeral(1).mp4)

(75.89 KB 906x444 Hobbes worship 01(1).png)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan on Worship >But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an earthly Soveraign. >To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the Soule of the Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to the Stool, it were Divine Worship, and Idolatry. >To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we acknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray unto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe for us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King compell a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall punishment, it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign commandeth to bee done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not a sign that he that obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but that he is desirous to save himselfe from death, or from a miserable life; and that which is not a sign of internall honor, is no Worship; and therefore no Idolatry. Neither can it bee said, that hee that does it, scandalizeth, or layeth any stumbling block before his Brother; because how wise, or learned soever he be that worshippeth in that manner, another man cannot from thence argue, that he approveth it; but that he doth it for fear; and that it is not his act, but the act of the Soveraign. <Honour And Worship What >Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the Power, and Goodnesse of another: and therefore to Honour God, is to think as Highly of his Power and Goodnesse, as is possible. And of that opinion, the externall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestowes on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it. Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and the profit they yeeld, followeth the labour we bestow upon them, as a naturall effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour, according to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their mindes. In the second sense, where mens wills are to be wrought to our purpose, not by Force, but by Compleasance, it signifieth as much as Courting, that is, a winning of favour by good offices; as by praises, by acknowledging their Power, and by whatsoever is pleasing to them from whom we look for any benefit. And this is properly Worship: in which sense Publicola, is understood for a Worshipper of the People, and Cultus Dei, for the Worship of God.
<Several Signs of Honour >From internal Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power and Goodness, arise three Passions; Love, which hath reference to Goodness; and Hope, and Fear, that relate to Power: And three parts of external worship; Praise, Magnifying, and Blessing: The subject of Praise, being Goodness; the subject of Magnifying, and Blessing, being Power, and the effect thereof Felicity. Praise, and Magnifying are significant both by Words, and Actions: By Words, when we say a man is Good, or Great: By Actions, when we thank him for his Bounty, and obey his Power. The opinion of the Happiness of another, can only be expressed by words. <Worship Natural and Arbitrary >There be some signs of Honour, (both in Attributes and Actions,) that be Naturally so; as among Attributes, Good, Just, Liberal, and the like; and among Actions, Prayers, Thanks, and Obedience. Others are so by Institution, or Custom of men; and in some times and places are Honourable; in others Dishonourable; in others Indifferent: such as are the Gestures in Salutation, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, in different times and places, differently used. The former is Natural; the later Arbitrary Worship. <Worship Commanded and Free >And of Arbitrary Worship, there be two differences: For sometimes it is a Commanded, sometimes Voluntary Worship: Commanded, when it is such as he requireth, who is Worshipped: Free, when it is such as the Worshipper thinks fit. When it is Commanded, not the words, or gestures, but the obedience is the Worship. But when Free, the Worship consists in the opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by which we intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely; they are not Worship; because a sign is not a sign to him that giveth it, but to him to whom it is made; that is, to the spectator. <Worship Public and Private >Again, there is a Public, and a Private Worship. Public, is the Worship that a Commonwealth performs, as one Person. Private, is that which a Private person exhibits. Public, in respect of the whole Commonwealth, is Free; but in respect of Particular men it is not so Private, is in secret Free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is never without some Restraint either from the Laws, or from the Opinion of men; which is contrary to the nature of Liberty. <The End of Worship >The End of Worship among men, is Power. For where a man sees another worshipped supposes him powerful, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do him, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to capacity, by those rules of Honour, that Reason dictates to be done by the weak to the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of damage, or in thankfulness for good already received from them.
(231.48 KB 1000x1000 27.png)

(102.32 KB 512x512 Minecraft dog 4.png)

>>6901 >>6902 After reading Plato's Republic, I return to this political commentary with renewed understanding. ... Like where Hobbes is concerned with outward motions and expressive gestures to signify worship and honor as the inward conscious thoughts. >And of that opinion, the external signs appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latins understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifies properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestows on any thing, with the purpose to make benefit by it. >In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their minds. Hobbes continues with the distinction of civil worship (the external praises and magnifying, actions and expressions to give a sense of honor to the State, such as the use of its emblems in currency and pilgrimages to its sites like Mt. Rushmore): >To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and is not Idolatry. >To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we acknowledge no other power in him, but humane Hobbes makes the distinction between civil and divine worship: the former any person makes in a way everyday, private and public, for ordinary things, and directed toward civil persons it is with the end of power; the latter is the worship of God, which does not proceed from want of power, but from our natural duty. Thomas Hobbes Publique Worship Consisteth In Uniformity >And this is Publique Worship; the property whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship. And therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from the different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any Publique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all. This all this from Hobbes reminds me of Plato's Republic. Among the chief reason Plato wanted to abolish private property was to accomplish a unity of feeling. Where the State should be unified, and people should be united in feeling, in pleasure and pain, private property fractures the State: where others rejoice at their gain, others feel sorrow and loss, pitted against each other, and to the destruction of State. Plato Republic >And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow? >No doubt. >Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganizedwhen you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens? >Certainly. In a way, North Korea does capture what Plato was talking about, and I somewhat relate Hobbes to it also: both advocate uniformity of these expressions and emotions... while Fascist critics (and in particular Carl Schmitt criticized Hobbes for leaving private feelings) -- I do Hobbes also accomplished that ideal in his work Leviathan, and advocated uniformity the same. As I noted earlier, in a North Korea video about the Revolutionary Arms supporting only Kim Jong Un, they stressed that his aversions were their aversions, and his love their love: which I also thought was Leviathanesique and how Hobbes talked about appetites and aversions. (Much of his philosophy translates to his civil politics, no doubt). I think it gives me a new depth in understanding politics.
Jean Bodin - Aristotle & hereditary kings "Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes."
(236.48 KB 1016x1100 35.png)

(257.98 KB 498x494 1677947246770911.png)

These days I can't stand talking w/ most other monarchists. It's as if I don't see eye-to-eye with them at all. I am very worn and lethargic to the whole conservation.
This journalist seething at the royalist yellowshirt rally.
(372.63 KB 1000x1500 31color2_.png)

(403.24 KB 1000x1500 31color2_s.png)

(495.64 KB 1000x1500 31color2_hs.png)

(465.03 KB 1000x1500 31color2_h.png)

(368.46 KB 1000x1500 31color1_.png)

(399.00 KB 1000x1500 31color1_s.png)

(486.29 KB 1000x1500 31color1_hs.png)

(455.71 KB 1000x1500 31color1_h.png)

Incitatus, Incitatus, where is it you roam? 🐎 Grazing among the fields, never far from home. Incitatus, Incitatus, can you hear this song? 🐴 Singing from in my heart, all along.
(287.42 KB 1668x1142 jhe5p3zY.jpg)

(259.94 KB 1668x893 Bg1aLHtE.jpg)

(568.80 KB 1386x2048 6iXdV4J6.jpg)

(236.97 KB 1668x1109 k-rTSYWD.jpg)

The most controversial point of absolute monarchists besides denial of a mixed constitution or mixed state – is the absolutism itself. Without understanding the pre-eminent notions of monarchy (which the absolutist ideal of sovereignty or majesty captures), it would have little to stand upon otherwise. Jean Bodin - Quotes on absolutism >If this is true [what Plato and Aristotle say], it seems to apply, not to princes, or to those who have the highest power in the state, but to the magistrates. For those who decree law ought to be above it, that they may repeal it, take from it, invalidate it, or add to it, or even if circumstances demand, allow it to become obsolete. These things cannot be done if the man who makes legislation if held by it. >Indeed, it is a fine sentiment that the man who decrees law ought to be above the laws, for the reasons we have given; but once the measure has been passed and approved by the common assent of everyone, why should not the prince be held by the law which he has made? >If it is just that a man shall be held by whatever he decrees for another, how much more just is it that the prince or the people shall be held by their own laws? >Nay, not even the Roman pontiffs were willing to be held by any laws, and to use their own words, they were never tied their own hands. >Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongs an absolute power, not subject to any law. >It behoves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish others: which he cannot do that is himself subject to laws or others. >The attributes of sovereignty are therefore peculiar to the sovereign prince, for if communicable to the subject, they cannot be called attributes of sovereignty… Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with Himself, since He is infinite and two infinites cannot co-exist, so the sovereign prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction.
>Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (As Fetus says) is so called of mightiness. >And to manifest this point, we must presuppose that this word Law, without any other addition, signifies The right command of him or them, which have sovereign power above others, without exception of person: be it that such commandment concern the subjects in general, or in particular: except him or them which have given the law. Howbeit to speak more properly, A law is the command of a Sovereign concerning all his subjects in general: or else concerning general things, as says Festus Pompelus. >And as the Pope can never bind his own hands (as the Canonists say;) so neither can a sovereign prince bind his own hands, albeit that he would. We see also in the end of all edits and laws, these words, -Quia sic nobis placuit, Because it has so pleased us; - to give us to understand, that the laws of the sovereign prince, although they be grounded upon good and lively reason, depend nevertheless upon nothing but his mere and frank good will. But as for the laws of God and nature, all princes and people of the world are unto them subject: neither is it in their power to impugne them, if will not be guilty of high treason to the divine majesty, making war against God; under the greatness of whom all monarchs of the world ought to bear the yoke, and to bow their heads in fear and reverence. Wherefore in that we say the sovereign power in a Commonwealth be free from all laws, concerns nothing the laws of God and nature.
>For right certain it is, the first Commonwealths were by sovereign power governed without law, the prince's work, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman commonwealth to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the histriographer, in his second against Appian, desirous to show the most honorable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever write laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written never used this word. >But it behoveth him that is a sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: which thing Tiberius wisely meaning in these words, reasoned in the Senate concerning the right of sovereignty, saying that – "The reason of his doings were no otherwise to be manifested, than in that it was to be given to none" -; whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, and in their stead to establish others: which he cannot do that is himself subject unto laws, or to others which have command over him. And that is it for which the laws says, That the prince is acquitted from the power of the laws; and this word the Law, in Latin imports the commandment of him which has the sovereignty. We also see that unto all edicts and decrees there is annexed this clause, "-Notwithstanding all edicts and ordinances whereunto we have derogated, and do derogate by these presents:" -a clause which has always been joined unto the ancient laws, were the law published by the present prince, or by his predecessors."
Jean Bodin elaborates on this point. >Of the first kind are the kings who once upon a time without any laws governed empires most justly by prerogative. Such the kings of ancient Greeks are said to have been before Lycurgus and Draco, that is, before any laws had been made binding. Such, also, the ancients remember the rule of the kings in Italy. At that time no laws were promulgated by kings or by private citizens, but the whole state and the rights of citizens depended upon the will of the prince. The Latins were governed by the royal power, as Pomponius wrote, without any definite system of laws. Josephus inferred that Moses was the most ancient legislator, because Homer, in his long work, never used the word "law." Although afterwards statutes were introduced, yet they were bought forward by private citizens, not by kings; until somewhat late the princes were not willing to be bound by these regulations. Indeed, not even when the kings were driven from the city did the consuls allow their own authority and power to be limited legally. >For right certain it is, the first Commonwealths were by sovereign power governed without law, the prince's work, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman commonwealth to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the histriographer, in his second against Appian, desirous to show the most honorable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever write laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written never used this word. >So Ulysses, whose kingdom was contained within the rock of Ithaca, is of Homer as well called a King, as Agamemnon: for a great kingdom (as says Cassidorus) is no other thing than a great Commonwealth or Republic or State, under the government of one chief sovereign: wherefore if of three families, one of the chief of the families has sovereign power over the other two, or two of them together over the third, or all three jointly and at once exercise power and authority over the people of the three families; it shall as well be called a Commonwealth or Republic or State, as if it in itself comprehended an infinite multitude of citizens.
Jean Bodin on fundamental law >But touching the laws which concern the state of the realm, and the establishing thereof; foreasmuch as they are annexed and united to the crown, the prince cannot derogate from them, such as is the law Salic: & albeit that he so do, the successor may always disanull that which has been one unto the prejudice of the laws royal; upon which the sovereign majesty is stayed & grounded. It is more complex how this issue is handled. For those who would appeal to antiquity and the Greeks, like Plato, it is -somewhat- consistent but also understandably heterodox: 1. Plato's appeal to the rule of law is really an appeal to theocracy first and foremost. >Which we're somewhat consistent with, stating the sovereign monarch is subject to the laws of God and Nature, which is also consistent with the fundamental laws preserving the monarchical form and sovereign majesty. The ideal of sovereignty or majesty in monarchy molds the State and has its virtues. 2. There is a story in light of how herds of sheep aren't guided by other sheep, but a superior force or herder, in like manner in a distant age – mankind was ruled by demigods like men over their herds of sheep. Which Plato calls the true government and the reason for following the rule of law – to capture that superior distribution of mind in laws – which is what the pre-eminent view of monarchy pertains to with majesty or sovereignty, formalized and enshrined as an ideal of monarchy on behalf of the State. Albeit Aristotle, like Plato, calls this into doubt. >Yes, Plato would readily admit such a pre-eminent monarchy like that of the demigods over mankind, but Plato calls it into doubt: 1. Plato states that mankind naturally around the world isn't like a beehive or ant colony, with a natural superior immediately recognized in body and mind to rule them. States with monarchy like this are exceptional. 2. Also this pre-eminent person would be rare and extraordinary if he were to be found and readily accepted. 3. Even if there was this pre-eminent person, people would still be in disbelief and doubt.
(231.48 KB 1000x1000 27.png)


Jean Bodin on pre-eminent monarchy, Aristotle, & laws >Wherefore Aristotle is deceived, in deeming the Commonwealth then to be happy, when it shall chance to have a prince of so great virtue and wisdom, as that he both can and will with greatest equity, govern his subjects without laws. For why, the law is not made for the prince, but for the subjects in general, and especially for the magistrates. So for absolute monarchists, yes, the sovereign monarch is considered a superior, & this should be true for all monarchies that are monarchies. It is our controversial point w/ absolute power, but… pretty much everyone unwittingly agrees. If it weren't the case, then the laws would never change at all: otherwise we'd still be stuck with the Code of Hammurabi to this day. It's obvious to everyone there is a sovereign power that can change laws. People only grumble about it when it comes to monarchy, but in every other state in the world this happens. Aristotle rebuffed– >You can change particular laws, but what about the entire lawbook? Or >This adds some element of the beast But like Hobbes suggests, so long as it has anything to do with governing people – then all political states have some element of the beast notwithstanding any perfection they could hope for. In revolutions and change of constitution / state, even the entire lawbook and fundamental constitution are done away with – if not, there would never be any change of States and revolutions, but throughout history this happens… Some monarchists want to retain the fundamental laws of dead monarchies, but when a state is dissolved – they must establish a new order and adopt new fashions in governing. Should states have laws and have ideology and preserve their forms of State? Yes, a rule-maker should be obliged to follow his own rules -- that would be proper, but I'd go as far as to say absolute power is a necessity for any functioning state as much as having laws and absolute power is of the law of nature governing states. Absolute power is part of the ideal of sovereign majesty. I'm an unapologetic absolutist, tbh, b/c everyone else really is for lack of better terms absolutist too.
(231.48 KB 1000x1000 27.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

I'm fed up with people whose only affection for monarchy is as denominational jewelry or crusader meme.
(171.96 KB 985x554 1700643689118-1.jpg)

(428.51 KB 1109x951 Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

(200.48 KB 1200x1200 1662659283191513.jpg)

<Louis XIV Quotes We must guard nothing more jealously than the pre-eminence that embellishes our post. >There is no doubt that we must guard nothing more jealously than the pre-eminence that embellishes our post. Everything that indicates it or preserves it must be infinitely precious to us. >It is a possession for which we are accountable to the public and to our successors. We cannot dispose of it as we see fit, and we can have no doubt that it is among the rights of the crown that cannot be legally alienated. >Those who imagine that claims of this kind are only questions of ceremony are sadly mistaken. There is nothing in this matter that is unimportant or inconsequential. >As important as it is for the public to be governed only by a single person, it is just as important for the one who performs this function to be raised so far above the others that no one else may be confused or compared to him.
<Each profession contributes in its own way to sustaining the monarchy, and each has its own functions which the others undoubtedly have a great deal of difficulty in doing without. The peasant by his work furnishes nourishment to this whole great body, the artisan by his craft provides everything for the convenience of the public, and the merchant by his cares assembles from a thousand different places all the useful and pleasant products of the world in order to furnish them to each individual whenever he needs them; the financier by collecting the public money helps to support the state, the judges by enforcing the law maintain security among men. And the clergy by instructing the people in religion acquire the blessings of Heaven and preserve peace in earth >This is why, far from scorning any of these conditions or raising one at the expense of others, we must take care to make them all, if possible, exactly what they should be. We must be firmly convinced that we have no interest in favoring one at the expense of the others. >So that the only way to reign in all hearts at once is to be the incorruptible judge and common father of all.
(Many achievements of Louis XIV's reign were commemorated on the ceiling of the Hall of Mirrors in these portraits. It's why the Hall of Mirrors is so famous. This portrait in particular displays his help in the relief if a famine.) <Louis XIV describes rescuing his subjects from a famine >There arose soon thereafter an occasion, unpleasant in itself, yet useful in its outcome, that gave my people a clear indication of how capable I was of this same attention to details in regard to their own interests and their own advantages. The great dearth of 1661 did not actually make itself felt until the beginning of the year 1662, when most of the wheat of the previous ones had been consumed, but then it afflicted the entire kingdom in the midst of these first successes, as if God, who is careful to temper His blessings, had wanted to balance the great and joyful hopes for the future with a present misfortune. Those who in such a case are accustomed to profit from public calamity did not fail to close their stores, expecting higher prices and greater profits. >One may imagine, however, my son, what effect markets empty of all sorts of grain, peasants compelled to abandon the cultivation of the soil in order to go elsewhere in desperate search for their sustenance produced in the kingdom, even causing apprehension that the misfortune of that year would continue into the following ones; artisans who raised the prices of their products in proportion to the cost of living, the poor making their complaints and their murmurs heard everywhere, middling families who held back their usual charities from fear of an impending need, the most wealthy burdened with their servants and unable to do everything – all the orders in the State, finally, threatened with the grave diseases that accompany a poor diet, and which, beginning with the people, subsequently spread to the persons of the highest quality; all this caused indescribable dismay throughout France. >It would have been infinitely greater, my son, if I had merely agonize uselessly over it or if I had relied on the remedies at hand, on the ordinary magistrates, who are all too often weak and incompetent, lacking in zeal, or even corrupt. I became intimately acquainted with the needs of the people and with conditions. I obliged the more affluent provinces to aid the others, private individuals to open their stores and to put up their commodities at a fair price. I hastily sent orders everywhere to bring in as much wheat as I possibly could by sea from Danzig and from other foreign countries. I had my treasury purchase it. I distributed most of it free to the lower classes of the biggest cities, such as Paris, Rouen, Tours, and others. I had the rest sold at a very modest price to those who could afford it, and any profit from this was immediately employed for the relief of the poor, who derived, by this means, voluntary, natural, and imperceptible aid from the more wealthy. In the countryside, where distribution of wheat could not be effected so promptly, I dispatched money with which each one subsequently tried to relieve his need. I appeared, finally to all my subjects, as a true father of a family, who provides for his household and equitably distributes nourishment to his children and to his servants.
>I have never found any expense more useful than this one. For our subjects, my son, are our true riches and the only ones that we conserve purely for themselves, all the others being good for nothing unless we know the art of using them, that is, of spending them wisely. And if God gives me the grace to execute everything that I have in mind, I shall try to bring the prosperity of my reign to such a point, that in truth there should be no more rich or poor, for fortune, industry, and intelligence will always retain this distinction among men, but at least there should be no more indigence or begging throughout the kingdom; I mean no one, however impoverished he may be, who is not assured of his sustenance either through his work or through normal and regulated aid. >But without looking forward, I was abundantly and immediately rewarded for my cares by the upsurge of affection that they produced for me in the hearts of the people. And this is how, my son, we may sometimes fortunately turn into blessings the greatest troubles of the State. For if anything can tighten the sacred knot that attaches subjects to their sovereign and awaken in their hearts their natural sentiments of respect, of gratitude, and of love for him, it is undoubtedly the aid that they receive from him in time of some unexpected public misfortune. We hardly note the admirable order of the world and the regular and useful course of the Sun until some disturbance in the seasons or some apparent disorder in the machine makes us give it a little more reflection. As long as everything in a State is prosperous, it is easy to forget the infinite blessings that royalty provides and merely envy those that it possesses. Man, naturally ambitious and proud, can never understand why another should command him until he feels the need for it. But habit makes him insensitive to this very need, as soon as it constantly and regularly satisfied. It is extraordinary incidents that make him consider what he ordinarily gains from this; and that, without authority, he would himself fall prey to the strongest, finding in the world neither justice, nor reason, nor security for his possessions, nor recourse against his losses; and this is how he comes to love obedience as much as he loves his own life and his own tranquility.
(422.88 KB 450x500 King-James-1.png)

(30.79 KB 759x299 GL8yFZCXkAAypWh(1).png)

>King Lear / Pre-eminence, Majesty Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower: For, by the sacred radiance of the sun, The mysteries of Hecate, and the night; By all the operation of the orbs From whom we do exist, and cease to be; Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood, … I do invest you jointly with my power, [and] Pre-eminence, and all the large effects That troop with Majesty. Ourself, by monthly course, With reservation of an hundred knights, By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain The name, and all the additions to a king; The sway, revenue, execution of the rest, Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm, This coronet part betwixt you. … King Lear & King James VI & I Shakespeare's King Lear is believed to have been first performed before King James VI & I in 1606; 1606, the same date Richard Knolles' translation of Bodin's Six Books of a Commonwealth was made into English (K. James VI & I owned a copy). When Shakespeare in King Lear mentions "pre-eminence" and "all the large effects that troop with Majesty" – it is evidence Shakespeare himself was learned on the idea of Sovereignty I expound in royal colony. We'll talk further on this.
Historians will regale you with how Absolutism & Sovereignty or Majesty was unprecedented and formed Modernity with humanism, nationalism, & liberalism, the Peace of Westphalia; how beforehand denominational / Church allegiance came before political ideas & allegiance, etc. Before Majesty or Sovereignty, there was the name of monarchical pre-eminence; the pre-eminent notion of Monarchy is very old, but was informal and profound. Majesty or Sovereignty was simply the re-emergence and formalization thereof… of monarchical pre-eminence as an ideal. It goes back to antiquity; Aristotle also briefly covered the pre-eminent ideals of Monarchy, but later he denied it and said it was more synonymous with the Indian kings with their grandiose claims… so all will acknowledge the notions of monarchical pre-eminence found in absolutism are much older than their formality in the late 1500s. … Aristotle went on to say. >Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares. >For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. >Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law). Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the Indian kings of the East. – >Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed
(445.68 KB 1100x600 Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

(1.76 MB 2123x3000 GL87xVqXkAATgNa.jpg)

Historians will show you a map like this and spout so-and-so about decentralization. They conceptualize >Aristotle's City< on a map. Except instead of the City & its laws as a concord of the plurality of Estates & their heads constituting bound in virtue – it is regions Like Alfred Rocco recounts, the Middle Ages were the age of Aristotle. So remember, when they appeal to decentralization, it's an appeal to >Aristotle's City<, when they point to these maps, it is the same idea; what with regions instead of houses or estates of The City. Though many people don't know the politics 101 and nature of states. They are confused. Have a weak conception of it and its origins with civics. So when they see maps like these, they think Anarchy or no correspondence at all; unable to see the forest for the trees. Absolutists see it a different way; we interpret politics differently. We see the forest for the trees.
The German-centric view of these Historians & neofeudalists (& sometimes ancaps) dates back to Alexis de Tocqueville. >"The old European constitution was better preserved in Germany than France" –The old European constitution = >Aristotle's City<. Alexis de Tocqueville's Medevialism in rebuffing Absolutism was very German-centric as opposed to another Frenchman, Jean Bodin, who was more of a French chauvinist. >"Whenever I discovered in the old legislation of Germany" recounts Alexis de Tocqueville. That whole stigma Historians typically peddle towards Absolutism was originally in Alexis de Tocqueville's account: >"Royalty had nothing in common with medieval royalty" Again, what royalty? it's like John Cook hissed after the execution of Charles I: "Aristotle's King".
I say, Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle; frankly, that is the chair Alexis de Tocqueville is really standing upon w/ his appeals to decentralization: Aristotle There's a reason absolutists like Bodin & Hobbes were a bit course with Aristotle: (we have a love-hate relationship) >"And I believe that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said… more repugnant to Government, than much of that he hath said in his Politics" says Hobbes Jean Bodin also remarks against Aristotle's influence: >"Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be." That's why Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature. >"What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king" Of course, Aristotle has said a number of good things about Monarchy, like of its fatherly and kindred nature with blood; but his view of Monarchy as incompatible with the State is what we're most combative against. The State & Laws of Aristotle's City is the convention of the Estates or Houses; it isn't indicative of the Family, but the Families that altogether form the City (as the city / democracy was considered superior to the Family). Hence why the Nobility favors so much for Aristotle's constitutionalism of freemen & equals. They are heads and masters of their estates, together by their consent and virtue; That view extends to regionalism, based on the view of the estates / houses and their heads in a city. Yet where our understanding of politics differs is moreso rather than the assent of these estates, there is a bonding agent and unity called Sovereignty; a unity that transfixes and gives an identity to the entire body, like a soul or cult of personality imposed. A civil soul that encompasses the entire body-politic, indivisible & simple, breathes life into it and gives them a common language, so that the estates can have any assent to begin with together: a majesty or sovereignty holding it all together than simply the coherence of them. This is the nature of the general power and how our view of civics fundamentally differs.
(836.49 KB 995x826 leviathan(1).png)

(272.67 KB 1200x627 41294519702570951290752.jpg)

(28.91 KB 640x480 51527152709512790.jpg)

Hobbes says >"The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth." Hobbes says again >"The error concerning mixed government 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." ... This is where we turn to Modernity & the nation-state. The centralization ascribed to it – is really a revival of Plato's Republic, in light of the view of the State as a unity, as opposed to what Aristotle deems a plurality. One Person above, the City below: Unity. The same charge we hear about atomization and individualism is also what Aristotle said to Plato, btw, on account of seeking too much unity. I partially believe the individualism found in Hobbes has everything to do w/ the outcome in Monarchy: The case for pre-eminence is all about the individual & putting him on par with the State. Rather than Individualism vs Collectivism, we should think how to unite these. Make no mistake: Hobbes turned the State into a Monarch. Don't be fooled it's formally called "The People": That is the corporation of One Person. We begin with the individual & end with the individual; we make the State an indivisible entity through sovereignty and monarchy. With the individualism out of the way, we tackle humanism (which is always paired with liberalism): Man is made in the image of God; The Monarch is the highest art of man in the civic body. That is how the emphasis on humanity became an offspring with individualism. What followed was an intense focus on the individual through Monarchy and stress on his individuality and personality, creative potential and perfection. This was in pursuit of the ideal of Monarchy.
(744.67 KB 1584x1556 54182157089512709125(1).jpg)

(101.64 KB 550x590 5729517901279025109.jpg)

(745.35 KB 2048x1551 7773245124214.jpg)

The climax of all this are these cults of personality. The State and the Church. Rather than being at odds, both accomplish the same ideal: to give people life and an identity via a person. As Christ is King, so also a King is King. This comes with a brush of their humanity. Critics of totalitarianism perceive perceive a pagan State-worship; and like Evola says, rather they'd seek higher ideals. Rather than being mundane, however, what they forget is that perfection of State has always been a high idea, among the highest ideals there is. Christian traditionalists who look back to a church-based order and relent this politics-based order of nationalism should remember this: There is also Greco-Roman influence on Christianity and absorbed many political ideals for the Church itself. The Church simply inherited the political ideal for perfection of State and applied it unto the Church itself. As opposed to being an Anti-State as some might see it, what they contrive is rather an Anti-State State. We know the influence of Hellenization via Alexander the Great and the philosophers and the Roman Empire on Christianity. The Church adopted this and became the ideal polis. Also for Church hierarchy. So the Church has a bit of Statism.
(505.27 KB 1669x1110 yjicOp_h.jpg)

(453.40 KB 1352x2048 Z48hEnjL.jpg)

This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly– >Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course. -Bertrand De Jouvenel <The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: Giovanni Gentile >Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning. >For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual. Aristotle: >Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part. Giovanni Gentile: >For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.
This is my response to the narrative of historians, but also the negative stigma surrounding absolute monarchy from other monarchists in our circles like the neofeud ancap people and other rightwingers.
(236.48 KB 1016x1100 35.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

I get so sick of hearing about decentralization from other monarchists. cough, cough, constitutional monarchists and neofeud trads and ancaps Also most regionalists imo aren't really anti-nationalists – but micro-nationalists.
today is my birthday.
>>6974 Happy birthday!
W. P. Esq. -- HIGH TREASON >High Treason can be committed against none, but the King's Sacred Person, neither is any thing High Treason, but what is declared so to be by the Statute. 25. Ed. 3. c. 21. to levy War against the King, to compass or imagine his Death, or the Death of his Queen, or of his Eldest Son, to Counterfeit his Money, or his Great Seal, to Imprison the King until he agrees to certain Demands, to Levy War, to alter Religion, or the Law, to remove Counsellors by Arms, or the King from his Counsellors, be they evil or good, by Arms to seize the King's forts, Magazine of War, to Depose the King, or to adhere to any State within or without the Kingdom, but the King's Majesty, is High Treason, for which the Offenders have Judgment: >First, To be drawn to the Gallows. >Secondly, There to be hang'd by the Neck, and cut down alive. >Thirdly, His Entrails to be taken out of his Belly, and he being alive to be burnt before him. >Fourthly, That his Head should be cut off. >Fifthly, That his Body should be cut in four parts. >Sixthly, That his Head and his Quarters should be put where the King our Sovereign Lord pleases.
This is the official up-to-date design for Grace atm. Now Grace wears black pants.
>>7050 >Now Grace wears black pants. And pull-ups
(780.77 KB 985x1447 filmer quote.jpg)

(36.59 KB 537x174 absolutist OG line.jpg)

(742.97 KB 1564x2048 n3D2ZH7w.jpg)

On Simple & Absolute Monarchy Jean Bodin explains why absolutism here. The sovereign is absolute, as Bodin explains the nature of Majesty in parallel to the infinite power of God. It needs to be absolute to have sovereignty over the vast expanse of the State or The City (Political). Sovereignty is indivisible and simple: so absolute. Jean Bodin said, that while the Sovereign Monarch is absolute in the State, this does not account for the laws of God and Nature. All corporations & entities under the sovereignty proceed from his unity as a monarchy. All their power ceases in the presence of their monarchy. There's also the simplicity of the State in its unity and corresponds to how we derive an absolute power: the simplicity of form lends itself to it and the constituents depend upon it. The simplicity coincides with the absolute nature of sovereignty. The form, simple & absolute, defines & thereby limits what proceeds. The Monarchy is the final public authority: the estates are limited, the monarchy is absolute; we maintain the simplicity of the State (hence absolute), only while his method of governing may be mixed. Sovereignty is the simple unity of State, so it is unlimited, but the corporations proceeding are limited / defined / depend on it. We support fundamental laws for Monarchy. Yet absolute monarchists support for fundamental laws in accordance to the law of nature & what is fundamental for monarchy & sovereignty. Absolute power is warranted for states in their simplicity & unity via the Law of God & the Law of Nature as Jean Bodin sees it: Bodin denies the Monarch is absolute over the law of God & Nature itself: yet the law of God & Nature gives States an absolute power, families in original. We see the Monarch absolute w/ respect to his -own- laws. Yet we are obliged to say a monarch should nevertheless rule by example and follow his own laws: if need be, yes, his own laws can be changed. Not the fundamental laws, no, but not every law is fundamental. We absolute monarchists also maintain the original power of the Pater Familias retained in the State and that Political & Economical don't differ: for the former of the Pater Familias, it's important to understand its basis in justification of royal monarchy: as the city becomes a colony from the estate of the family or household, the power of the Pater Familias in the original was preserved and unfurled into the Stately Majesty -- to repeat, the natural bond of the parent in original which is Majesty in the State -- as the sons and daughters and servants left the estate of their father and master in search of more rooms, instead of rooms we had buildings, and eventually a colony of The City (Political). That original power of the Pater Familias was preserved in States and even over adults as it developed into the image of the City or State which became Royal Monarchies in political form (as a form of State). Then the case that the Economical and Political don't differ is a basis for knowledge of the Monarch to govern and works well with Monarchy: because when a Monarch knows how to govern himself and his own estate, that Monarch is well on the way to governing the State itself.
So that debunks the idea that we have no notion of fundamental laws — the chief is sovereignty and for the monarch to preserve his monarchy itself.
(2.03 MB 7645x4329 grace patriarcha reduced.jpg)


(121.41 KB 635x359 New_Science.jpg)

All this information related.
Against Mixed Constitutionalism & so-called Constitutional Monarchy: We (absolute monarchists) are also stridently opposed to Mixed Constitutionalism. Mixed constitutionalism as opposed to simple & absolute monarchy tries to view the Monarch like a president: as someone who presides among the other estates & takes his turn in being governed. Mixed Constitutionalism stresses locality and the plurality of laws by mutual concord b/c like Aristotle's City, the stress is more on plurality than unity: this is inherently at odds w/ Monarchy ruling the State. For Mixed Constitutionalism the laws are outcome of their mingling & common benefit as opposed to being the offspring of sovereignty and its formal unity giving them a common ground. It is inherently incompatible with Royal Monarchy as a form of State: because like Aristotle asserts, the political and economical do differ: what is proper for Monarchy is to stay to its own private estate as opposed to to governing the state itself, and proper for a political constitution to be a concord of freemen and equals mingling to form the laws and inspire virtue. With this view in consideration, monarchy is forbidden to become a form of State and it destroys the groundwork to have a monarchical State. It follows from this notion that right libertarians inherently abide with Aristotle's constitutionalism and complain of centralization everytime a State comes under monarchical governance and under one rule / one person and strongly within his bond. This complaint stems from the same sentiment with Aristotle. So absolute monarchists are opposed to Mixed Constitutionalism and Right Libertarianism for these reasons, as they are opposed to the pre-eminent ideal of monarchy like Louis XIV stated Nec Pluribus Impar (Not Unequal to Many) and the Monarchy having the whole power of the State aligned with his person as the State itself: the Monarch -is- the State.
(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

To be a sincere monarchist is to be so hated by both liberals & conservatives, progressives & traditionalists, for true Monarchy breaks the spirit of party politics & factionalism w/ our Unity of One Person & monarchists are natural enemies of the political parties / disunity.
Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch: >Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States >It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person >[We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed >He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part >He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience >Is like a demigod among men Of course, Aristotle denied this. Nevertheless, we have cared about this since the dawn of time concerning monarchy. Achieving monarchical pre-eminence is important to absolute monarchists and this is basically where we begin with our ideal of monarchy (well, not only from Aristotle, but Aristotle's description here is sufficient and is OLD). This is important to use more than anachronistic or Medieval appeals -- (*ahem* Ernst H. Kanotorowicz' King's Two Bodies) -- monarchical pre-eminence is what we strived for with Bodinian Sovereignty / Majesty. It must be indivisible. It ought to be united in one body with the Sovereign and aligned with him alone. It must be in respect of power entire and not like a part: so not like two bodies, but but united like one body, an indivisible power and binding agent, making the Monarch on par with the Whole. This high bar Aristotle set here, for instance, absolute monarchists have responded to appropriately. This is older than Medieval, so no pretense of traditionalists there. It's why Hobbes called his Leviathan a mortal god, why Louis XIV says Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many), why Bodin has established Majesty, why many other monarchies have made their own case for being pre-eminent with this ideal in mind. To make one person on par with the whole, to make it indivisible like one body, to make that person pre-eminent is a calling we absolute monarchists answer.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 05/22/2024 (Wed) 17:52:29.
Touching on the King's Two Bodies doctrine. First the whole issue that "the natural body is inferior to the political body" -- is not what we're about, because the case for monarchical pre-eminence is that we've made the natural person on par with the well being of the political body. So maintaining the natural person of the king is not so inferior -- because then it's just back to square one with the issue of monarchical pre-eminence: then he is an inferior to the State and not pre-eminent, so when we say that these are united, that doesn't necessarily make the king inferior to the body-politic, but rather on at least par with it: he embodies it, as opposed to him having a share and being inferior to it (which we want to avoid). Second, while there does seem that my reference to Plowden is recognized here, that it is indivisible, yet there is this comparison to the head -- I agree rather with Hobbes, that it is not the head, but the relationship of the soul to the body -- it is more all encompassing, because the head still has a relationship as a part of the body as opposed to the whole (which the pre-eminent monarch is), in personifying it.
(964.91 KB 1500x1500 grace 7 kitto.png)

(257.98 KB 498x494 depressed dog.png)

Criticism of Kantorowvicz' King's Two Bodies from these excerpts Let me say on this issue critical of Kantorowicz that the emphasis isn't so much on how it's made lesser, but rather made greater with or on par with the Body-Politic when these are united: Too much stress on the inferiority of the natural person of the King runs counter-productive to the notion of monarchical pre-eminence to begin with. As that's besides the point: when the King is made sovereign, his natural person indeed is very well associated with the State itself, it is no longer simply inferior. The other cases in point relating to the King like a part or member of the whole that Kantorowicz such as the head is exactly why Hobbes counter-argued that the Civil Sovereign is not like the head to the body, but like the soul. Because this cuts any ambiguity that the Sovereign is in the relation of a part, that Kantorowicz seems to suggest in other passages (albeit he also acknowledges that soul, but again with the body-politic). This I feel is what Kantorowicz does misunderstand about monarchical pre-eminence as described here in his appeal to more organicism: is that the natural King is not like any other part, in this union his natural body -is- associated with the body-politic, I should add. So I should add that while Kantorowicz places a lot of stress on the inferiority and two bodies, I feel there isn't adequate stress on the union thereof made indivisible and the equilibrium made. And if this is contrary to Plowden, yet still Aristotle's qualities of a pre-eminent monarch deem him at the very least on par with the whole body-politic and not like a part (so not like a head or any other limb) and like a demigod among men. So I apprehend Kantorowicz's rhetoric tries to unfurl us back out of that union to remind us of the inferiority: albeit that desired purpose of the union (if we know the case for monarchical pre-eminence) is the opposite: to furl into the natural body of the king a supreme quality incomparble to others. As Aristotle intended that such a person in natural capacity was supposed to be like a Hercules truly, so the emphasis where this dilemma beings with Aristotle most certainly is not to stress the inferiority of the natural body since as a consequence then there is no pre-eminent monarch. But when Kantorowicz appeals to the head, I feel more inclined to repeat Hobbes and appeal to the soul: because it feels more appropriate and all encompassing and singular where one person has relationship of the whole to the part as Aristotle's maxim on a pre-eminent monarch goes – which cannot be said for the head which is technically a part of that body. The head is still in the relationship as a part of the body, but simply the most salient part. >As a member of the body politic of France he, like every other Frenchman, was obliged to defend this very body, the patria. If Kantorowicz here means by -he- to be the King in this context, his understanding of him as a mere member in relation to the body-politic is the prime example of what I mean with respect to monarchical pre-eminence: -he- is no longer regarded as merely such.
Then later Kantorowicz seems to reinforce the notion of the pre-eminent monarch more like an appendage or limb even with reference to the head – so that runs against the grain of the notion of monarchical pre-eminence too. & that seems to be alluded to with his example of self-sacrifice with Christ, where he says not -only- as members, but >also< as heads – which again it's not that they are held as simply the relation of the members also thereof. That isn't what the intended end of monarchical pre-eminence is – it is -not- to also be a member, but primarily to be like the entire State itself even aligned through his natural capacity. The last part I presume is aimed at Hobbes with the "fictitious person" remark – which imo misunderstands Hobbes and corporatism. This corporatism is well distinguished in Hobbes' political philosophy as well in his artificial person of Commonwealth. Kantorowicz here I feel tries to invalidate it by appealing to more organicism. The friction here is that the unity of the body-politic is not as composite, but simple. This is my criticism of what I read in Kantorowicz & excerpts from his book. Because when we go to the original description of this issue and also look at Aristotle's description of monarchical pre-eminence, what Aristotle meant was truly that the natural capacity of the prince was like that of a demigod and that he was such an extroardinary natural superior like Hercules that people became subordinate like hares to a lion – natural examples – and his relationship was not also a member, but strictly as the whole in relation to the part – he was himself the state and it was on par with his person… From this context we have seen various cases for monarchical pre-eminence and the intended end is indeed that the Monarch is viewed in relation of the entire State itself, not like any member, but the State itself. It was intended, yes, that in natural capacity even he shouldn't be seen like any other member, so stress on the inferiority here and how the king should die for the commonwealth like any other member is a little counter-productive to that whole idea of monarchical pre-eminence. So I think in some ways Kantorowicz is indeed right that there was this distinction, but I don't altogether agree with where he places the stress here. The stress shouldn't be on the how inferior the prince is in relation to the body-politic, but rather how on par or superior. As for self-sacrifice or self-preservation (which I see as another jab at Hobbes), I just feel that it's irrelevant. What I'm responding to are passages here: https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/resources/kantorowicz-the-kings-two-bodies/
So imo Hobbes does have two valid passages on this doctrine. >They who compare a City and its Citizens, with a man and his members, almost all say, that he who hath the supreme power in the City, is the relation to the whole City, such as the head is to the whole man. But it appears by what has been already said, that he who is endued with such a power (whether it be a man, or a Court) has a relation to the City, not as that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill. This passage matters because I feel Hobbes is right to say that the head is not a right comparison. I agree because a head is still in the relationship of a part or member: whereas this notion of a soul seems to encompass the entire form of the body itself. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth >The error concerning mixed government 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. These other two quotes are adequate from Hobbes imo for Kantorowicz' appeal to organicism. As Hobbes says, >It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth. This is a better foundation for recognizing the pre-eminence of the monarch since it does view him in respect -not- as also a member, but more like the soul and having that superior relationship. That union of the natural body with the political body was a union intended to give the monarch the pre-eminence and not stress his inferiority as merely another member, but rather to literally put him in relation to the State itself. And this is something I don't think Kantorowicz stresses enough because these later passages I read here seem to detract from that in certain ways. So while there is a stress on two bodies, there should also be further stress on the union thereof b/c that is what is more important here for monarchical pre-eminence.
(7.26 MB 474x360 TSP Petersburg.mp4)

(591.45 KB 1536x966 00dLIvdUE.jpg_large.jpg)

Where does the Monarch have knowledge to govern the State? There is Aristotle's food argument that discredits the idea of a wise man or philosopher king to rule the State. Stating that albeit one wise man could outwit particular members of an assembly, the assembly altogether brings more food to the table. So the City needs democracy for all the estates to bring food to civil policy. This is the reason why Monarchists like Bodin & Hobbes & Filmer side with Plato, that there is no difference between the economical estate and political estate: if you know how to govern yourself and your own household, then you're well on your way to knowing how to govern all the estates altogether. This is better to justify Monarchy. Hitler writes in Mein Kampf in his criticism of parliamentarianism: >Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality? Jean Bodin wrote related to this topic: >But Plato had another argument for an Aristocratical estate, saying, That it was very hard to find any one man so wise and virtuous, as was requisite for the government of an an estate, and by that means a Monarchy were not sure. But this argument is captious, and may be used against himself: for if it be hard to find any one prince so wise as he desires, how shall they find out so great a number as is needful in a Seigneurie? And for Aristotle's water argument Bodin talks about salt (virtuous men) tossed and dissolved in water. >for as well in all Aristocratical and Popular estates, as in all corporations and colleges, the greatest part does still over-rule the sounder and the better: and the more men there be, the less effects are there of virtue and wisdom (even as a little salt cast into a great lake, loses his force:) so as the good men shall be always vanquished in number by the vicious and ambitious: and for one tyrant there shall be a hundred which will cross the resolution of the lesser but of the sounder part
Hitler in Mein Kampf also describes his own disillusionment with parliamentary democracy. Many other people have been raised with a profound belief in the wisdom of statesmen: they are the experts: >Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist. >But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say. >That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards. >The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings. >I could not refrain from laughing. >Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw. >A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form. >A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.
Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism: >The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body. >The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person? >Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent? >Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice? >Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered. >Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success? >In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass? >What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration? >Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power? >In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty? >Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour? >Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber? >And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds? >Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership? >Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence? >But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?
Hitler continues. >The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand. >The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly. >The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority–which means the dunder headed multitude–hate nothing so much as a superior brain.
>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority. >One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude >The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants. >The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising. >There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively. >It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has today, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
Thomas Hobbes in De Cive: >But perhaps for this very reason some will say, That a Popular State is much to be preferr'd before a Monarchicall; because that, where all men have a hand in publique businesses, there all have an opportunity to shew their wisedome, knowledge, and eloquence, in deliberating matters of the greatest difficulty and moment; which by reason of that desire of praise which is bred in humane nature, is to them who excell in such like faculties, and seeme to themselves to exceed others, the most delightfull of all things. >Besides, there are many reasons why deliberations are lesse successefull in great Assemblies, than in lesser Councells; whereof one is, that to advise rightly of all things conducing to the preservation of a Commonwealth, we must not only understand matters at home, but Forraign Affaires too: at Home, by what goods the Country is nourished, and defended, and whence they are fetched; what places are fit to make Garrisons of; by what means Souldiers are best to be raised, and maintained; what manner of affections the Subjects bear toward their Prince, or Governours of their Country, and many the like: Abroad, what the power of each neighbouring Country is, and wherein it consists; what advantage, or disadvantage we may receive from them; what their dispositions are both to us−ward, and how affected to each other among themselves, and what Counsell daily passeth among them. Now, because very few in a great Assembly of men understand these things, being for the most part unskilfull (that I say not incapable) of them, what can that same number of advisers with their impertinent Opinions contribute to good Counsells, other than meer letts and impediments? >Another reason why a great Assembly is not so fit for consultation is, because every one who delivers his opinion holds it necessary to make a long continued Speech, and to gain the more esteem from his Auditours, he polishes, and adornes it with the best, and smoothest language. Now the nature of Eloquence is to make Good and Evill, Profitable and Unprofitable, Honest and Dishonest, appear to be more or lesse than indeed they are, and to make that seem just, which is unjust, according as it shall best suit with his end that speaketh. For this is to perswade; and though they reason, yet take they not their rise from true Principles, but from vulgar received opinions, which, for the most part, are erroneous; neither endeavour they so much to fit their speech to the nature of the things they speak of, as to the Passions of their mindes to whom they speak; whence it happens that opinions are delivered not by right reason, but by a certain violence of mind. Nor is this fault in the Man, but in the nature it selfe of Eloquence, whose end (as all the Masters of Rhetorick teach us) is not truth (except by chance) but victory, and whose property is not to inform, but to allure.
>The third reason why men advise lesse successfully in a great convent is, because that thence arise Factions in a commonweal, and out of Factions, Seditions, and Civill War; for when equall Oratours doe combat with contrary Opinions, and Speeches, the conquered hates the Conquerour, and all those that were of his side, as holding his Counsell, and wisedome in scorne: and studyes all meanes to make the advise of his adversaries prejudiciall to the State, for thus he hopes to see the glory taken from him, and restored unto himself. Farthermore, where the Votes are not so unequall, but that the conquered have hopes by the accession of some few of their own opinion at another sitting to make the stronger Party, the chief heads do call the rest together; they advise apart how they may abrogate the former judgment given; they appoint to be the first and earliest at the next convent; they determine what, and in what order each man shall speak, that the same businesse may again be brought to agitation, that so what was confirmed before by the number of their then present adversaries, the same may now in some measure become of no effect to them, being negligently absent. And this same kind of industry and diligence which they use to make a people, is commonly called a faction. But when a faction is inferiour in votes, and superiour, or not much inferiour in power, than what they cannot obtain by craft, and language, they attempt by force of armes, and so it comes to a civill warre. But some will say, these things doe not necessarily, nor often happen; he may as well say, that the chief Parties are not necessarily desirous of vain glory, and that the greatest of them seldom disagree in great matters. >We cannot on better condition be subject to any, than one whose interest depends upon our safety, and welfare; and this then comes to passe when we are the inheritance of the Ruler; for every man of his own accord endeavours the preservation of his inheritance. But the Lands, and Monies of the Subjects are not only the Princes Treasure, but their bodies, and active minds.
(7.26 MB 474x360 TSP Petersburg.mp4)

(46.54 KB 468x446 E_Hy0YuWQAQ2gnl.jpg)

(841.51 KB 1178x1024 MLP Leviathan.jpg)

Thomas Hobbes - Introduction of Leviathan: Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self <Concerning the first, there is a saying much usurped of late, That Wisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men. >But there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that is, Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters; >But to teach us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, &c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. I say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all men, Desire, Feare, Hope, &c; not the similitude or The Objects of the Passions, which are the things Desired, Feared, Hoped, &c >He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this, or that particular man; but Man-kind; which though it be hard to do, harder than to learn any Language, or Science. That is how Monarchy is justified like vid related to govern the whole State & not only his own private estate (like Aristotle & constitutionalists want) – but to be like Tsar Paul I overlooking the City.
(235.09 KB 937x939 32 grace newspaper.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

When I criticize Mixed Constitutionalism / Constitutional Monarchy, to be precise, I mean the notion of a mixed State (or mixed Monarchy) & Aristotle's constitutionalism (w/ ample stress on democracy or constitutional rule of freemen & equals). Not a Monarchy w/ fundamental laws. I feel those notions of constitutionalism which I criticize inherently conflict with the groundwork of monarchical pre-eminence, and also what I see as resistance to the pre-eminent notion of sovereign or majestic monarchy (which I am an apologist for w/ absolute monarchy). Also that a sovereign should be ranked as a constituent or part thereof in relation to the whole -- is another reason against mixed constitutionalism & inherent to it. Now, it could be said that constitutional monarchy means with the form of monarchy setup (which is agreeable). It really depends on what people mean by constitutional monarchy, but generally the aforementioned things I associate with the term are opposed. If we mean by constitutional monarchy, a formal Monarchical State supported by fundamental laws, then I have no opposition. You might ask, then why absolute? Previously I explained how the absolutism coincides w/ the nature of sovereignty and monarchical pre-eminence & simplicity of form. We see an absolute power in a way fundamental to the function of States w/ Sovereignty. Others say constitutional monarchy is a parliamentary monarchy -- this is not incompatible w/ absolute monarchy as we envision it, what is incompatible depends upon the relationship thereof. Only the Monarch is Sovereign in this relationship, that is all that is maintained. The biggest point of contention is we maintain a pure and simple, absolute monarchy on ground as a political form of State: this is denied in Aristotle, who maintained that a simple Monarchy is only compatible w/ an economic unit. We say no difference of political / economical. As the State is imagined to be a constitution of the houses / estates as a composite whole, we maintain rather a simplicity of State whereupon the unity proceeds to create & is depended upon to have this, thereby preserving the simplicity & purity of Monarchy: Sovereignty
(38.09 KB 1230x463 GOV-oN2WcAA0DXg.png)

(45.62 KB 1213x252 GOV-tP4WYAAja-l.png)

In order to further justify this, we (absolute monarchists) bring back the Herodotus Debate -- the original 3 simple forms of State: Monarchy (One), Oligarchy (Few), Democracy (Many). People might dismiss Absolute Monarchists b/c they deem Majesty or Sovereignty to be mere terms & fixations of the 1500s onward & not Medieval enough. Rather, I say, our Majesty or Sovereignty is our formal re-assertion of monarchical pre-eminence (which dates back to antiquity). This is what separates sheeps from goats. Absolute Monarchists are partisans & advocates for monarchical pre-eminence, the majestic vision of monarchy, the supremacy and sovereignty of one person in forming the State. The controversy is that we believe a Sovereign Monarchy is absolute and unlimited in relation to the estates themselves: the unity and form of Monarchy is sovereign over them, limits them, & they are defined and depend upon the sovereign like a lifeforce & gives them an identity.

(439.25 KB 1109x951 Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

Our detractors belligerently rail at us about centralization / decentralization & why they can't tolerate absolute monarchy. The crux of this complaint of decentralization goes back to Aristotle's constitutionalism, meaning: a monarchy is inappropriate for the State / Political. Any sincere monarchist, who wants the Monarch to rule the State or Monarchy as a form of State & not only his own estate in the City, should re-consider this complaint of decentralization as it goes back to Aristotle & his assertion that political & economical do differ. The complaint of decentralization against Absolute Monarchy is the same reason why they don't want -one- party system or -one- person like a dictator ruling the State: it is essentially against having a Monarchical State in general, but for one among equals or a president. Aristotle deems the State can't be like a house under one head or one person dictator or one party system: Aristotle denied too much unity for the State & rather plurality for the State. Said it's inappropriate for political rule & the State shouldn't be a Monarch like Leviathan. Now other monarchists might try to rehabilitate this position of political & economical differing: we deny it, b/c it denies knowledge for Monarchy to govern & conceptually stacks against Monarchy too much & makes Monarchy inferiour. People might call this into doubt about decentralization & absolute monarchy, but I honestly profess this is what it really is about & where it dates back to. If you read & understand everything here, I'm hoping you'll re-consider that charge against Absolute Monarchy? I hope so. Our detractors might rebuke us on Aristotle's grounds, rather it is absolute monarchists who break the nature of Monarchy by aligning it as a form of State & not economic unit. I reply Bodin's maxim, The true image of the Commonwealth is the Household or Family well ordered. If you're not a monarchist, then sure, disagree with me. Understandable. But if you're a monarchist, everything here should strongly concern you & I believe these are compelling reasons why you should discard that pretense against Absolute Monarchy about muh decentralization.
(183.23 KB 452x800 F5YySuQX0AALNqN.jpg)

(213.06 KB 1280x720 Hobbes Leviathan picture.jpg)

(371.61 KB 1060x1344 jean bodin engraving.jpg)

About half 50% the clout against Absolute Monarchy is really people disliking Louis XIV or Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan & muh decentralization. I've tried to address this over and over. IMO, an incomplete picture of absolutism. There's also Jean Bodin & Filmer & others to consider. Rather-- If people read Jean Bodin's Six Books of a Commonwealth & Easy Method for the Comprehension of History, they'd probably come out w/ a much more balanced outlook of monarchical absolutism than what contemporary Historians & theorists say lambasting Louis XIV and Hobbes' Leviathan.
(445.68 KB 1100x600 Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

(678.53 KB 2048x1856 caligula let there be one lord.jpg)

(70.74 KB 911x258 bodin praises nobility.jpg)

About decentralization & centralization, while we have unitary views on the State, I'd say we're not -that- bad anyways. There is even still ground for regional authority and local laws and even autonomy under monarchical absolutism. It is kinda a problem of worldview as well: Words like "decentralization" & "centralization" don't hold a candle to what absolutists really mean w/ Sovereignty. They hurl at us muh HRE as the perfect decentralized anarchy, but even absolutists considered that a sovereign State. People will come at us about intermediaries or why we tend to focus on One Person alone. This is about monarchical pre-eminence really. We want a Monarchy (rule of one), not an Oligarchy (rule of few) as the latter is stressing the medium or rule of the few between one & many. They who charge us with this need to understand the stress is on Monarchy (the rule of one) first and foremost, not Oligarchy (the rule of the few). We prioritize that first. When Caligula quoted Homer to many kings >Let there be one lord, one king! This is what Caligula meant in the spirit of Homer's monarchist maxim. This tends to be annoying w/ people who drag theology into this & make it out like it is between Catholicism & Protestantism: making the King to be like Christ and the Nobility like the Clergy. But really it's simply the Herodotus Debate w/ us: We want Monarchy, not Oligarchy. There are people who stress intermediaries over monarchy come dangerously close to simply being outright oligarchy apologists than monarchists. Or actually really are oligarchists & believe in the rule of a few over that of one person like a monarchy. Or mixed constitutionalism. Personally, I believe this is the case w/ Alexis de Tocqueville (whom I spurn lately ngl) w/ his Oligarchist tendenacies. Yet we're not as bad as the Tocquevillists make us out to be w/ respect to the Nobility. Like w/ Bodin being pro-estates, Bodin was also pro-Nobility. Again, with the Nobility & stress on decentralization, the frank truth is w/ absolute monarchists is that we're -not- looking to re-create Aristotle's City or mixed constitutionalism: w/ the mutual concord of the estates heads, but that of one ruler over the state itself. If we so stress the Nobility, it becomes an Oligarchy or rule of a few exceptional notables. It is truly the case w/ absolute monarchists that one person alone rules and is sovereign. & b/c a master has servants doesn't discount this; doesn't mean he alone isn't the master.
(619.54 KB 1000x1000 33corgi.png)


The Sovereign has the relationship of the State itself in simplicity; his method of government (or his style of governing) may be mixed aristocratically and democratically w/ the estates. This we will concede to our detractors. Yet a simple & absolute monarchy is maintained. He alone holds the scepter and orb to measure and weigh the State and all the land. His person has become pre-eminent and well esteemed, majestic and sovereign: he is a monarch. If only you knew how bad things really are. ... So much bad press from traditionalists, right libertarians (Hoppe & Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn included), constitutional monarchists, I find it necessary to try and push back against this storm against simple & absolute monarchy. ... It's all so tiresome. This is my response to the detractors of absolute monarchy (& let's be honest, most people by default are our detractors & citing their Tocqueville, De Jouvenel, Kantorowicz, Fortescue, among others). I've seen it all.
On Humanism: Others dub Absolutism as a stepping stone to le Humanism meme, because the pre-eminence of a monarch over other humans in the State: it is not because it is any human person, but the pre-eminence of >one< person. Yes, we stress the commandments of the ruler in making his laws & God also his commandments in divine law. That's for Absolutism in general, not = Hobbes. I'm very keenly aware of Plato's Laws & his story about demigods ruling over Mankind like Mankind does cattle: that is what the humanism meme centers around. We have made the case w/ Sovereignty / Majesty for the pre-eminence of one person. What about any semblamce of human authority in absolutism? This is Biblically supported. Indeed, God gave Adam the authority to name the animals: this transpired into authority for all kinds of human laws and governance, like parents over children in naming them. Even traditionalists might cede to liberals, yes, there is some basic human dignity & some human laws. But are absolutists altogether guilty for this in seeing one person raised to Majesty? Not anymore than God in the human flesh incarnate in Christ arguably.
(153.27 KB 706x1096 King Tangun.jpg)

(17.95 MB 480x360 Mausoleum of King Tangun(1).mp4)

(86.06 KB 1462x1342 FzgSv5bWwAMRKYO.png)

One Father - One Blood - One Race! Korean War pamphlet w/ King Tangun. "Therefore it is apparent that Monarchy is the first Ordinance of all governments; a family being nothing else but a small Kingdom [...] and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family." - Gryffith Williams, 1644
Archibald Kennedy >There is, in every Family, a Sort of Government without any fixed Rules; and indeed it is impossible, even in a little Family, to form Rules for every Circumstance; and therefore it is better conceived than expressed; but perfectly understood by every Individual belonging to the Family. The Study of the Father or Master, is for the Good of the Whole; all Appeals are to him; he has a Power, from the Reason and Nature of Things, to check the Insolent, or Indolent, and to encourage the Industrious: In short, the whole Affairs of the Family are immediately under the Care or Direction of the Father or Master; and this is a natural Prerogative, known and acknowledged by every Man living, who has ever had a Family, or been any Ways concerned in a Family, in all Ages and in all Places. His Majesty, as he is our political Father, his political Prerogative, from the like Circumstances and Reasons, is equally necessary. And this political Authority has been allowed the supreme Director, in all States, in all Ages, and in all Places; and without it, there would be a Failure of Justice. Robert Filmer / Directive Power >The first Father had not only simply power, but power monarchical, as he was a Father, immediately from God. For by the appointment of God, as soon as Adam was created he was monarch of the world, though he had no subjects; for though there could not be actual government until there were subjects, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity: though not in act, yet at least in habit. Adam was a King from his creation: and in the state of innocency he had been governor of his children; for the integrity or excellency of the subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the governor. >but as for directive power, the condition of human nature requires it, since civil society cannot be imagined without power of government: for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done; yet things indifferent, that depended merely on their free will, might be directed by the power of Adam's command.
Xenophon: >Cambyses, a king of the Persians, and one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race Perseus, the founder of the Persian race. Dante: >That the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king >He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and her empire.
(4.63 MB 640x360 We Need a Despot.mp4)

From Robert Filmer citing Edward Coke: <The first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands >That the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demean [or Domain / Dominion]. 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..."
Francis Theobald on Absolute Power with Cambden & Bracton >We have, I say, absolute Monarchy, and herein we differ from the Lacedemonian Kings, who were subject to their Ephori, which had a power above them: No, ours agrees with the Persian-Government; for, their King had plenary power in all things, not subject to be called to account by any person whatsoever: and so ours, if you will believe Cambden, a famous Antiquary; who saith, That the King of England, supremam potestatem, & merum imperium habet, He hath supreme power and absolute Command in his Dominions–; and so, Bracton, a sage profound Lawyer, in ancient time, speaks to the same purpose, Omni quidem sub Bege, & ipse sub nullo, sed tantum sub Deo: So that it is an unquestionable truth, that the King is subject to no over-ruling power of man, and that he is free from all humane Coercion and Restraint, I do rather insist upon this.
<Archaic Royal Prerogatives Guardianship/wardship of infants| >''As parens patriae, the monarch is ex officio guardian of “infants, idiots and lunatics”. This jurisdiction was: <not a jurisdiction to determine rights as between a parent and a stranger, or as between a parent and a child. It was a paternal jurisdiction, a judicially administrative jurisdiction, in virtue of which the Chancery Court was put to act on behalf of the Crown, as being the guardian of all infants, in the place of a parent, and as if it were the parent of the child, thus superseding the natural guardianship of the parent >The parens patriae prerogative is reserved by section 100 of the Children Act 1989. The “inherent jurisdiction” of the High Court also includes wardship powers “to ensure that a child who is the subject of proceedings is protected and properly taken care of”. Right to bona vacantia >In cases where there is no legal owner, property may become bona vacantia (“ownerless property”) and revert to the Crown. Bona vacantia may include the estate of a person who dies intestate, assets that were beneficially owned by a company that has been dissolved and, in certain circumstances, assets that were the subject of a failed trust (for example, on the dissolution of a club). This is now largely statutory in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. >Depending on where they are located, bona vacantia pass to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall. The Bona Vacantia Division of the Government Legal Department is responsible for this function in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bona vacantia in the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are dealt with by Farrer & Co Solicitors. >Bona vacantia also exists in Scots law although the first category above is known as ultimus haeres, which refers to an estate where a person has died without a will and with no known or traced relatives. In the other two categories of bona vacantia, the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer pays the value of the assets into the Scottish Consolidated Fund (the main bank account of the Scottish Government). Right to sturgeon, swans and whales >The Prerogativa Regis of 1322 (an act of the English Parliament) declares that the: <King shall have […] throughout the Realm, Whales and [great Sturgeons] taken in the Sea or elsewhere within the Realm, except in certain Places privileged by the King. >The Wild Creature and Forest Laws Act 1971 abolished “any prerogative right of Her Majesty to wild creatures (except for royal fish and swans)”. “Royal fish” historically referred to sturgeon and porpoise. >The Crown can still claim the right to claim ownership of all mute swans in the UK that are unmarked and swimming in open waters. This applies to dead as well as live birds and to any parts thereof. Right to waifs and strays >Under the prerogative, the Crown has a right to “waifs” – things stolen and thrown away by a thief in flight – and “[e]strays”, valuable animals of a tame or reclaimable nature found wandering and whose owner is unknown.
Right to mint coinage >The Royal Mint owes its origins to the prerogative. The Royal Mint Design Advisory Committee was also established under the prerogative in 1922.412 The Coinage Act 1971 grants the King the power to regulate coinage by Proclamation while preserving “any matter relating to coinage which was, before the passing of the Coinage Act 1870, within the prerogative of the Crown and is not provided for by this Act nor was provided for by that Act”. >New coin designs are “personally approved” by the King. Royal Mines >“Mines Royal” is the historic name for naturally occurring gold and silver, virtually all of which deposited in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is owned by the Crown Estate.
(347.10 KB 1344x896 Leviathan art.jpg)

For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) which is but an Artificial Man... and in which, the Sovereignty is an Artificial Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body. -Thomas Hobbes in his introduction to Leviathan
(71.43 KB 425x639 7182684462_52a62f945c_z.jpg)

(132.75 KB 592x428 Hobbes_Honor_3.jpg)

<Thomas Hobbes on Petty Namecalling >There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other Forms of Government, but of the same Forms misliked. For that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, call it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under Democracy, call it Anarchy (which signifies want of Government;) and yet I think no man believes, that want of Government, is any new kind of Government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the Governours. >From Aristotle's Civil Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner of Commonwealths but the Popular, (such as was at the time the state of Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants… A Tyrant originally signified no more simply, but a Monarch: But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that kind of government was abolished, the name began to signify, not only the thing it did before, but with it, the hatred which the Popular States bear towards it: As also the name of King became odious after the deposing of the Kings in Rome, as being a thing natural to all men, to conceive some great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is given in despight, and to a great Enemy. And when the same men shall be displeased with those that have the administration of the Democracy, or Aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their anger in; but call readily the one Anarchy, and the other Oligarchy. >From the reading, I say, of such books, men have undertaken to kill their kings, because the Greek and Latin writers in their books and discourses of policy make it lawful and laudable for any man so to do, provided before he do it he call him tyrant. For they say not regicide, that is, killing of a king, but tyrannicide, that is, killing of a tyrant, is lawful. From the same books they that live under a monarch conceive the opinion that the subjects in a popular Commonwealth enjoy liberty, but that in a monarchy they are all slaves. I say, they that live under a monarchy conceive such an opinion; not that they live under a popular government: for they find no such matter. In sum, I cannot imagine how anything can be more prejudicial to a monarchy than the allowing of such books to be publicly read, without present applying such correctives of discreet masters as are fit to take away their venom: which venom I will no doubt to compare to a mad, rabid dog, which is a disease [rabies] that physicians call hydrophobia, or fear of water. For as he that is so bitten has the continual torment of thirst, and yet abhorreth water; and is in such ane state as if the poison endeavoured to convert him into a dog; so when a monarchy is once bitten to the quick by those democratical writers that continually snarl at that estate, it wanteth nothing more than a strong monarch, which nevertheless out of a certain tyrannophobia, or fear of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhor. >And because the name of Tyranny, signifies nothing more, nor less, than the name of Sovereignty, be it in one, or many men. saving that they that use the former word, are understood to be angry with them they call Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a toleration of hatred of Commonwealth in general, and another evil seed, not differing much from the former.
(222.17 KB 2048x1486 Grace fireballs Tocqueville.jpg)

(417.28 KB 1963x1963 Grace fireballs De Jouvenel.jpg)

(236.48 KB 1016x1100 35.png)

(158.63 KB 640x898 Dog_in_top_hat.jpg)

<The School of De Tocqueville & Right Libertarians in the Monarchist sphere is Oligarchist The school of Tocquevillism (Alexis de Tocqueville & De Jouvenel) is a kind of Oligarchism. They hate Absolute Monarchy b/c they prefer Oligarchy. They are Oligarchists. They prefer the rule of a few like Oligarchy over one like Monarchy. All their appeals to Liberty and Decentralization are rest upon Aristotle's Constitutionalism and their lenient Oligarchism. This is why they praise the Nobility and spurn Democracy and Monarchy: they are Oligarchists. They place the sole benefactors of freedom and liberty and decentralization in the Nobility and the rule of the few, in the constitutionalism of estates to -not- be ruled under one head like Aristotle warned about for plurality's sake and to not be like a household under one head w/ regard to the State. It is time people call it what it really is. It is the most blatant Oligarchism around. I personally regard them as Oligarchists, and I will be calling them Oligarchists henceforth. I think they rather speak for Megabyzus as opposed to Darius in context of Herodotus Debate. They. Are. Oligarchyfags. Enough said.
There is a fine line between having a Monarchy with a Nobility and having an Aristocracy or Oligarchy with a petty king involved. <Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy >"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines... And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty." Every movement away from Nobility / Aristocracy, Tocqueville calls centralization; every movement towards Nobility / Aristocracy, -- decentralization. (The latter is where is stress is -- so the Nobility is stressed above Monarchy and Democracy to achieve this aim, but not stressed on Monarchy itself which he dubs centralization). ... De Jouvenel also stressed, following the lead of De Tocqueville, "Liberty's Aristocratic Roots" & against Caesarism (Monarchy) which he linked with Monarchy itself. Following Tocqueville's lead, De Jouvenel placed all liberty and appeals to the Nobility and rule of a few.
<De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial >According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considere to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense. >Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle. On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will.<De Jouvenel / Securitarian vs Libertarian >The conclusion is that there never was a time in any society whatsoever when some individuals did not feel themselves to be insufficiently protected, and others did not feel themselves to be insufficiently free. The former I call "securitarians" and the latter "libertarians".
(52.43 KB 489x163 de jouvenel on plato unity.jpg)

(69.02 KB 579x196 de jouvenel plato 02.jpg)

De Jouvenel also tackled the issues I pointed out earlier about Plato (& where the more unitary vs pluralistic views of State come into being -- Aristotle, for his part, is more senatorial and many of the like appeals De Jouvenel makes are found in Aristotle's City, which is the senatorial kind of assemblage of heads of estates and of families -- the political constitution stresses the estates of the city rather than the unity of the city itself under one head like a family -- I touched on this issue with the doctrine that political and economical don't differ). In my sincere opinion, De Jouvenel obviously appeals to the "old republic" and those senatorial ideals -- it doesn't matter if it be a landed, hereditary nobility with their estates OR a bunch of senators in one room -- we are simply adjusting the scale from Aristotle's City projected onto nobles and their estates spread apart like in Aristotle's City the various estates of the city converging. --So this is why I look at Tocquevillism with immense annoyance when so many monarchists, be it constitutional monarchists and right libertarians and ancaps, spurn absolute monarchy in order to achieve "decentralization" and "liberty" as ascribed here, because it bears that stamp of the heads of the estates which are always few and resemble an oligarchical form. Why is this like rocket science to explain to other monarchists? I don't think, but I believe it is because they don't take Monarchy seriously or believe what Darius says in the Herodotus Debate or Homer's monarchist maxim in the Iliad. They've been collectively taught to embrace the Nobility as opposed to Absolute Monarchy on these grounds of decentralization and libertarian ideals... this sentiment permeates the monarchist community so thoroughly and is everywhere and is unanimous for these monarchists whether constitutionalist or libertarian, but it's very popular with traditionalists. >De Jouvenel covering Plato's politics >...Hegel turned it to good account: recalling that Plato in his Republic had rigorously stressed the importance of the citizens remaining undifferentiated and had seen in that the essential condition of social unity, Hegel asserted that the characteristic of the modern state was, contrarywise, to allow a process of differentiation, by which an ever growing diversity could be rangedd within an ever richer unity. >But there would be grave dangers in so avowedly normative an approach as this. It would in the first place build an ivory tower which was so remote from reality that advice issuing from it would be unable to influence the citizens of the real world: so it was with Plato's Republic, which was built on just these foundations. Worse still, the attraction exercised by pretty pictures of this kind lures men into importing them into reality and leads them on to tyrannical actions to achieve their ideals: there is a tyranny in the womb of every Utopia. >(Footnotes): For a denunciation of the oppressive character of the institutions conceived by Plato, see my Power, Book III, ch. VII. Almost simultaneously there appeared in London a work of vast erudition and great intellectual vigour by Professor Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies. The ideas developed in the present chapter often join hands with those of Professor Popper's fine book.
While it's true that we are critical of Plato ourselves, we do have this view of the State as a unitary being (which Plato calls in his organicism of all members of society acting like one man) and that political and economical don't differ. You've seen how De Jouvenel is opposed to these unitary views. And when it comes to Monarchy itself, the stress on the chiefs and senatorial view is akin to Aristotle's City and notion of Politics. You could say, however, that I am misrepresenting De Jouvenel and I'd be fine if anyone would say so, but the overall sentiment I feel from the Tocquevillists (De Jouvenel & Alexis de Tocqueville) is this stress on the Nobility and for all the aforementioned reasons I disapprove of it and wish monarchists would stop with their Tocquevillism and with the influx of right libertarians and constitutional monarchists in agreement with those right libertarians and all this flirtation with the traditionalists about the clerical estate, have turned themselves into a hate train against absolute monarchy. I deal with their snubbing way too often and can't stand the majority of the monarchist community because they're drunk with it. The same with NeoAbsolutists who formed a cult around De Jouvenel with their blogs (but thankfully died down when Von Hallerism took over). I swear the monarchist community is so stupid.
De Jouvenel - Republic of Old >The republic of old had no state apparatus. It needed no machinery for imposing the public will on all the citizens, who would have had none of such a thing. The citizens, with their own wills and their own resources -- these latter small at first but continuously growing -- decide by adjusting their wills and execute by pooling their resources. >We do not find anywhere in the ancient republic a directing will so armed with its own weapons that it can use force. There were the consults, I may be told. But to start with there were two of them, and it was an essential feature of the office that they could block one another's activities. >Only those decisions were possible on which there was general agreement, and, in the absence of any state apparatus, their execution depended solely on the cooperation of the public. The army was but the people in arms, and the revenues were but the sums gifted by the citizens, which could not have been raised except by voluntary subscriptions. There was not, to come down to the essential point, an administrative corps. >In the city of old, no public office is found filled by a member of a permanent staff who holds his place from Power; the method of appointment is election for a short period, usually a year, and often by the drawing of lots, which was called by Aristotle the true democratic method. >It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one piece. On the contrary, the magistrates, great and small, discharge their duties in a way which verges on independence. >How was a regime of this kind able to function at all? Only be great moral cohesion and the inter-availability of private citizens for public office. And that last point is also Aristotle's point: about moral cohesion and inter-availability like a rule by turns. (Albeit the former point is not too unlike Plato who said Justice was the bond of the State, like Aristotle calls virtue).
Like Aristotle, along with rejecting the rule of a wise man like Plato's philosopher kings, also counterpoised a strong middle class and that an oligarchy would invite the poor into assembly to help preserve the oligarchy and pass any conflicts, but keeping the main advantage. Tocqueville thought the same with a middle class. Aristotle also acknowledged the advent of the middle class as the decline of monarchies and that is where that meme comes from... like in that interview with the Shah of Iran asking him about whether there are other hereditary monarchies in the world and how he expects to rule when people get wealthier. <De Jouvenel on Middle Class <How can men whose authority rests on Power's guarantee oppose to it the proud independence which honourably distinguished the ancient aristocracy? Lacking now all strength of their own, they no longer uphold Power; no longer upholding Power, they have become incapable of limiting it. The notions of aristocracy and liberty have parted company. >The heirs of their libertarian aspirations are the middle class. We will define the middle class, if we must, as composed of those who have enough social strength to stand in no need of any special protection and to desire the largest measure of liberty, but have on the other hand not enough strength to make their liberties oppressive to others. De Jouvenel on chiefs of clans >However it may be with these conjectures, it is a certain point of historical development we meet with the ambitious king who aims at extending his own prerogative at the expense of the chiefs of clans --"the absolute monarchs of their families," as Vico calls them--and is jealous of their independence. Rather, Aristotle paints the other picture around -- of a usurping middle class and oligarchy not standing the pre-eminence of one person like an absolute monarch. Aristotle -- No longer bearing the pre-eminence of one >The first governments were kingships, probably for this reason, because of old, when cities were small, men of eminent virtue were few. Further, they were made kings because they were benefactors, and benefits can only be bestowed by good men. >But when many persons equal in merit arose, no longer enduring the pre-eminence of one, they desired to have a commonwealth, and set up a constitution. And this Aristotle reins in as the inevitable decline of monarchy with chiefs of equal merit wanting a constitution and aristocracy.
Now remember De Jouvenel is famous for his HLvM (Monarchy + Democracy vs Aristocracy) where Power advances by this conflict of the High meeting with the Low to screw over the Middle. This is the paradigm that many in the right libertarian circles see: and De Jouvenel himself goes along with the narrative that Marx has that absolute monarchy merged with the bourgeois to institute itself. So be mindful of that. This is something we see in the advent of NRx terms like BioLeninism: where those in power usurp the superiors with the degenerates for their slave loyalty.
(46.51 KB 521x147 jouvenel 20.jpg)

(33.43 KB 531x115 jouvenel 21.jpg)

<De Jouvenel - Absolutist work of Monarchy vs libertarian work of Aristocracy >Will historians, in their passion for libertarian and anti-absolutist institutions, admire the resistance of aristocracy to the formation of absolutism? Sismondi, for instance, states that in the Middle Ages "all the real advances made in independence of character, in the safeguarding of rights, and in the limitations forced by discussion on the caprices and vices of absolute Power, were due to the hereditary aristocracy." <De Jouvenel -- The only thing Caesarism fears, right libertarians >In this way is removed the only obstacle that Caesarism has to fear--a movement of libertarian resistance, emanating from a people with subjective rights to defend and under the natural leadership of eminent men whom their credit qualifies and whom the insolence of wealth does not disqualify.
De Jouvenel - Monarchy First Instituted Power >We see then that the monarchical period established in the body of society a distinct organ: this was Power, which has its own life, its own interests, its own characteristics, its own ends. It needs studying under this aspect. (I believe this was after De Jouvenel's talk of the old republic).
(273.01 KB 1000x1050 26 vomit.png)

(79.23 KB 1267x213 Feudal faggot.jpg)

(132.76 KB 561x501 Feudalist trad.jpg)


All the above is why I regard them Tocquevillism, which De Jouvenel & many right libertarian thinkers in the monarchist sphere abide with, – to be a kind of Oligarchism – in its juxtaposition of the Nobility as the Middle & stress on them, combined with their vicious treatment of Absolute Monarchy and Democracy. … What are the fruits of Tocquevillism in the monarchist community? It might be creepy that I have my own cringe compilation of them, but I keep a folder.
(19.56 KB 1304x174 feudboy rant.png)

(15.23 KB 1309x128 feudfag 01.png)

(14.14 KB 1079x180 feudfag 02.png)


It is so self-evident to me, that these people are not monarchists, but a gaggle of oligarchists in the literal sense of the word.
(6.69 KB 1200x79 feudal fag.png)

(9.52 KB 1262x106 feudfag on leftypol.png)

(14.76 KB 1220x152 feudlarper.png)

These people are not really monarchists in the sense of the Herodotus Debate... but oligarchists.
(236.48 KB 1016x1100 35.png)

(75.37 KB 653x506 hoppean anarcho-feudalist2.jpg)

(67.50 KB 599x428 Neo-feudalist ancap 2.jpg)

This is my cringe compilation of so-called feudal monarchists (aka oligarchists). Eventually, like the Hoppeans, they find they don't like Monarchy itself and simply become feudalists and eventually the people who come here by libertarian-to-monarchist pipeline Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe read Hoppe's other works that condemn Monarchy: slowly, it shifts, that "monarchist" turns into "anarcho-monarchist" or plain "feudalist" until the whole notion of Monarchy itself is dropped: Because the problem, they realize, isn't only with "absolute monarchy" but inherent to "monarchy" itself. And that is how right libertarians who jump into the monarchist scene via the pipeline also jump off or become constitutionalists.
The Herodotus Debate Between Otanes (Democracy), Megabyzus (Oligarchy), & Darius (Monarchy) As told by the Father of /his/tory, Herodotus Among the oldest sources of Monarchist politics there is, next to Homer's monarchist maxim: Let there be One Lord, One King Jean Bodin revives the spirit of Herodotus in our political discourse in maintaining 3 forms of State only, denying a mixed State, but only a govt to be mixed. Others imitated Herodotus such as Josephus, Cassius Dio, & Philostratus, to follow the discourse between one, few, many. Otanes (Democracy) Otanes was for giving the government to the whole body of the Persian people. "I hold," he said, "that we must make an end of monarchy; there is no pleasure or advantage in it. You have seen to what lengths went the insolence of Cambyses, and you have borne your share of the insolence of the Magian. What right order is there to be found in monarchy, when the ruler can do what he will, nor be held to account for it? Give this power to the best man on earth, and his wonted mind must leave him. The advantage which he holds breeds insolence, and nature makes all men jealous. This double cause is the root of all evil in him; he will do many wicked deeds, some from the insolence which is born of satiety, some from jealousy. For whereas an absolute ruler, as having all that heart can desire, should rightly be jealous of no man, yet it is contrariwise with him in his dealing with his countrymen; he is jealous of the safety of the good, and glad of the safety of the evil; and no man is so ready to believe calumny. Nor is any so hard to please; accord him but just honour, and he is displeased that you make him not your first care; make him such, and he damns for a flatterer. But I have yet worse to say of him than that; he turns the laws of the land upside down, he rapes women, he puts high and low to death. But the virtue of a multitude's rule lies first in its excellent name, which signifies equality before the law; and secondly, in that its acts are not the acts of the monarch. All offices are assigned by lot, and the holders are accountable for what they do therein; and the general assembly arbitrates on all counsels. Therefore I declare my opinion, that we make an end of monarchy and increase the power of the multitude, seeing that all good lies in the many." Megabyzus (Oligarchy) Megabyzus' counsel was to make a ruling oligarchy. "I agree," said he, "to all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he bids you give the power to the multitude, his judgment falls short of the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; to save ourselves from the insolence of a despot by changing it for the insolence of the unbridled commonalty — that were unbearable indeed. Whatever the despot does, he does with knowledge; but the people have not even that; how can they have knowledge, who have neither learnt nor for themselves seen what is best, but ever rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in spate? Let those stand for democracy who wish ill to Persia; but let us choose a company of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be of that company; and where we have the best men, there 'tis like that we shall the best counsels. Darius (Monarchy) Darius was the third to declare his opinion. "Methinks," said he, "Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them; for each one wishing to be chief of all and to make his counsels prevail, violent enmity is the outcome, enmity brings faction and faction bloodshed; and the end of bloodshed is monarchy; whereby it is shown that this fashion of government is the best. Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; so his case also proves that monarchy is the best government. But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom — from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done."
Jean Bodin on Herodotus: >It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms >Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities. >Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written.
(157.08 KB 666x564 1702887597123.png)

(678.41 KB 2048x1856 caligula let there be one lord.jpg)

(445.66 KB 1100x600 Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

(13.50 KB 339x319 illiad zeus king rage.png)

Caligula made a good point in quoting Homer's monarchist maxim. People have forgotten that once there were many kings in one State, but our ideal is a return to one ruler as monarchists. That is why he stressed the need of one king instead of many kings: let there be one ruler. The Tocquevillists want us to reverse this: to go back to many kings on pretense of Medievalism. De Jouvenel will regale you with how Sovereignty is a modern thing and how we need to be more Medieval: but it was never for the sake of Medievalism, but Monarchy, that we uphold the Herodotus Debate, Homer's monarchist maxim, and notions of monarchical pre-eminence as opposed to this Tocquevillist ideology of petty kings that Jean Bodin described and what they want us to revert to -- to this Oligarchism, backed by the auspices of Aristotle's City. <Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy >"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines… And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty." Remember the Herodotus Debate. Do not forget the Herodotus Debate & Homer's monarchist maxim & the grounds of monarchical pre-eminence. Fuck these tocquevillists, medievalists, and right libertarians.
(173.93 KB 649x588 Grace vomits crop.png)

(138.59 KB 1184x315 faggots-02.jpg)

(17.12 KB 1182x182 faggots-03.png)

More fruits of Tocquevillism and the right libertarian fold. I rest my case why I dislike them. (If anyone was wondering why).
(231.48 KB 1000x1000 27.png)

(98.01 KB 435x425 Filmer-Poland01.jpg)

(77.55 KB 402x291 Filmer-Poland02.jpg)

Robert Filmer lamented same as I do. We had them back then. <Robert Filmer -- Slavish Royalty of the Oligarchies >We do hear a great rumour in this age, of moderated and limited Kings; Poland, Sweden, and Denmark are talked of for such; and in these kingdoms, nowhere, is such a moderated government, as our Observator means, to be found. A little inquiry would be made into the manner of the government of these kingdoms: for these northern people, as Bodin observeth, breathe after liberty. >First, for Poland, Boterus saith, that the government of it is elective altogether, and representeth rather an aristocracy than a kingdom: the nobility, who have great authority in the diets, choosing the King, and limiting his authority, making his sovereignty but a slavish royalty: these diminutions of regality began first by default of King Lewis, and Jagello, who to gain the succession in the kingdom contrary to the laws, one for his daughter, and the other for his son, departed with many of his royalties and prerogatives, to buy the voices of the nobility. The French author of the book called The Estates of the World, doth inform us that the princes' authority was more free, not being subject to any laws, and having absolute power, not only of their estates, but also of life and death.
Hans Hermann Hoppe is well known for saying he preferred Monarchy to Democracy. But so did Alexis de Tocqueville say he even preferred a Monarchy and even despotism over a democracy. (3rd pic) Did that stop him and his ilk from re-writing historical narrative against absolute monarchists? –No. In fact Hoppeans and right libertarians hate on us most of all in spite of how much they supposedly love monarchical rule. So much for thinking monarchy is the least bad – we're back square one with Aristotle like I've been saying w/ these right libertarians. Considering the right libertarian to monarchist pipeline – it's an unhappy marriage, but absolute monarchists are the minority so much that anarcho-monarchists outnumber us. I hate it. Deeply resent it.
(253.77 KB 1000x1094 34.png)

(177.10 KB 1920x1080 Old_Man_Yells_at_cloud_cover.jpg)

>>7275 >>7276 >>7277 >>7278 >>7282 I only post my cringe compilation to give context to what I'm saying and why I feel the way I do. That way I don't look like an old man yelling at clouds.
Jean Bodin's remarks on rule of Oligarchy or Optimates: >Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes. <But since many men of this age, serious and learned men, prefer the rule of optimates, and some even a democracy, we must speak briefly about the best type of government, after we have repudiated their opinion. >Yet those who have come from his school approve more highly the rule of the optimates, which lies halfway between a democracy and a monarchy. They err, however, in this respect, that they seem to place virtue in the average thing or number, not in the mean proportional. Indeed, if this is true no prince will ever be good, nor will any oligarchy be quarrelsome, because between one and many they place the mean of a few, like the mean of virtue. Yet if there is any excellence in numbers, I suppose that unity is most to be praised of all, as Plato himself most divinely wrote, in the book about entity and unity. >Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be.
(640.94 KB 1000x1000 33snow.png)

(191.70 KB 1280x720 dog chernobyl1280x720.jpg)

That is the end of my rant.
(222.17 KB 2048x1486 Grace fireballs Tocqueville.jpg)

(417.28 KB 1963x1963 Grace fireballs De Jouvenel.jpg)

(678.53 KB 2048x1856 caligula let there be one lord.jpg)

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.
(634.19 KB 282x282 full (2).gif)

(25.91 KB 500x354 FB_IMG_1694879994065.jpg)



(116.28 KB 1000x740 pngwing.com.png)

>>7292 ALL HAIL THE PONY QUEEN GRACE
(371.61 KB 1060x1344 jean bodin engraving.jpg)

(1.11 MB 3024x1983 ezgif-6-f36bfc2cae.png)

<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?
>But if the prince be an absolute Sovereign, as are the true Monarchies of France, of Spain, of England; Scotland, Turkey, Muscovy, Tartarie, Persia, Ethiopia, India, and of almost all the kingdoms of Africa, and Asia, where the kings themselves have the sovereignty without all doubt or question; not divided with their subjects: in this case it is NOT lawful for any one of the subjects in particular, or all of them in general, to attempt any thing either by way of fact, or of justice against the honour, life, or dignity of the Sovereign: albeit that he had committed all the wickedness, impiety, and cruelty that could be spoken; for as to proceed against him by way of justice, the subject has no such jurisdiction over his Sovereign prince: of whom depends all power and authority to command: and who may not only revoke all the power of his Magistrates; but even in whose presence the power of all Magistrates, Corporations, Colleges, Estates, and Communities cease, as we have said, and shall yet more fully in due place say. Now if it be not lawful for the subject by way of justice to proceed against his prince; the vassal against his lord; nor the slave against his master; and in brief, if it not be lawful, by way and course of justice to proceed against a king, how should it then be lawful to proceed against him by way of fact, or force. For question is not here, what men are able to do by strength and force, but what they ought of right to do: as not whether the subjects have power and strength, but whether they have lawful power to condemn their Sovereign prince. Now the subject is not only guilty of treason of the highest degree, who has slain his Sovereign prince, but even he also which has attempted the same; who has given counsel or consent thereunto; yea if he have concealed the same, or but so much as thought it… And albeit that the laws inflict no punishment upon the evil thoughts of men; but on those only which by word or deed break out into some enormity: yet if any man shall so much as conceit a thought for the violating of the person of his Sovereign prince, although he have attempted nothing, they have yet judged this same thought worthy of death, notwithstanding what repentance soever he have had thereof. As in proof it fell out with a gentleman of Normandy, who confessed himself unto a Franciscan Friar, to have had a purpose in himself to have slain Francis the first, the French king: of which evil purpose and intent he repenting himself, received of the frier absolution, who yet afterward told the king thereof, who sending for the gentleman, and he confessing the fact, turned him over to the parliament of Paris for his trial, where he was by the decree of that high court condemned to death, and so afterwards executed.
>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.
(2.98 MB 8152x3662 grace jean bodin.jpg)

(3.37 MB 8152x4326 grace advice for tyrants.jpg)

<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.
>Wherefore let us resolve upon that, that it is lawful for any stranger to kill a Tyrant; that is to say a man of all men infamous, and notorious for the oppression, murder, and slaughter of his subjects and people. But as for subjects to do the same, it is to be known whether the prince that bears rule be an Absolute Sovereign; or not: for if he be no Absolute Sovereign, then must the Sovereignty of necessity be either in the People, or in the Nobility: in which case there is no doubt, but that it is lawful to proceed against a Tyrant by way of justice, if so men may prevail against him: or else by way of fact, and open force, if they may not otherwise have reason. As the Senate did in the first case against Nero: and in the other against Maxi∣minus: for that the Roman Emperours were at the first nothing else but princes of the Commonweal, that is to say the chief and principal men, the sovereignty nevertheless still resting in the People and the Senate: as I have before showed, that this Commonweal was then to have been called a principality: although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his scholar says: I am the only man amongst living men, elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God on earth: I am the Arbitrator of life and death: I am able at my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man. True it is that he took upon him this Sovereign authority by force wrested from the Senate and people of Rome: but in right he had it not, the state being but a very principality, wherein the People had the Sovereignty. As is also that of the Venetians, who condemned to death their Duke Falier, and also executed many others, without form or fashion of any lawful process: forasmuch as Venice is an Aristocratical principality, wherein the Duke is but the first or chief man, sovereignty still remaining in the state of the Venetian Gentlemen. As is likewise the Germain Empire, which is also nothing else but an Aristocratical principality, wherein the the Emperour is head and chief, the power and majesty of the Empire belonging unto the States thereof: who thrust out of the government Adolphus the emperour in the year 1296: and also after him Wenceslaus in the year 1400, and that by way of justice, as having jurisdiction and power over them. So also might we say of the state of the Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the State, sometime for their faults condemned to pay their fine; as was king Agesilaus: and sometime to death also as were Agis and Pausanias. Which hath also in our time happened unto the kings of Denmark and Sweden, whereof some have been banished, and the others died in prison: for that the nobility pretends them to be nothing but princes, and not Sovereigns, as we have before showed: so also are they subjects unto those states which have the right of their election. And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes calls Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justifiable unto the Nobility, who had all the Sovereignty: causing them even to be put to death, if they had so deserved. And that is it for which Amphiorix the captain general, whom they called the king of the Liegeois said; Our commands (says he) are such, as that the people hath no less power over us, then we over the people: wherein he showed evidently that he was no sovereign prince: howbeit that it was not possible for him to have equal power with the People, as we have before showed.
<Wherefore these sorts of princes, having no Sovereignty, if they polluted with wickedness and villainy, cannot be chastised by the authority and severity of the magistrate, but shall abuse their wealth and power unto the hurt and destruction of good men; it always has and shall be lawful not for strangers only, but even for the subjects themselves also, to take them out of the way.
>And least any man should think themselves to have been the authors of these laws and decrees, so the more straightly to provide for their own safety and honour, let us see the laws and examples of holy Scripture. Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria, with fire and sword destroyed all the country of Palestine, besieged the city of Jerusalem, took it, robbed and razed it down to the ground, burnt the temple, and defiled the sanctuary of God, slew the king, with the greatest part of the people, carrying away the rest that remained into captivity into Babylon; and yet not so contented, caused the image of himself made in gold, to be set up in public place, commanding all men without exception to adore and worship the same, upon pain of being burnt alive: and caused them that refused so to do, to be cast into a burning furnace: and yet for all that the holy Prophets directing their letters unto their brethren the Jews, then in captivity at Babylon, will them to pray unto God, for the good and happy life of Nebuchadnezzar and his children, and that they might so long rule and reign over them as the heavens should endure. Yea even God himself doubted not to call Nebuchadnezzar his servant; saying, That he would make him the most mighty prince of the world. And yet was there ever a more detestable tyrant than he? who not contented to be himself worshipped, but caused his image to be also adored, and that upon pain of being burnt quick. And yet for all that we see the prophet Ezechiel, inspired with the spirit of God, angry with Sedechia king of Jerusalem, greatly to detest his perfidious dealing, disloyalty, and rebellion against king Nebuchadnezzar whose vassal all he was, and as it were rejoiced him to have been most justly slain.
>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.
(249.69 KB 1000x1050 29 02.png)

(290.82 KB 1000x1050 33.png)

(505.29 KB 1669x1110 yjicOp_h.jpg)

(453.42 KB 1352x2048 Z48hEnjL.jpg)

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).
(126.17 KB 1302x1550 stirner grace spooked.png)

(138.37 KB 1619x1355 Stirnerviathan EGO LEVIATHAN.png)

(124.72 KB 1619x1355 Stirnerviathan inverted.png)


(235.01 KB 528x361 don't forget.png)

(814.79 KB 3000x3000 Grace wink OC.png)



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*
(171.96 KB 985x554 1700643689118-1.jpg)

(85.16 KB 560x315 snarling-dog.png)

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
(546.00 KB 2133x2462 Grace qt blushing 2.png)

(8.25 MB 640x360 Publions en tous lieux.mp4)

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.
(236.43 KB 1016x1100 35.png)


(1.13 MB 1200x1645 Richest-Monarchs_Site(1).jpg)

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.
(205.44 KB 858x952 31-1.jpg)

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
(467.98 KB 1453x1920 julius-caesar.jpg)

(451.27 KB 1600x1200 Jean Bodin Dictator Sulla.jpg)

(3.59 KB 545x47 aristotle dictatorship.png)

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.
(243.67 KB 1708x2048 1643679542925-0.jpg)

(19.94 KB 528x255 Kim Il Sung Queen Bee.png)

(17.36 KB 513x243 Kim Il Sung Queen Bee 2.png)

(7.51 KB 394x211 Kim Il Sung Aphorism 07.png)

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.
(1.41 MB 1570x1587 grace alt cuckold flag3.png)

(1.01 MB 1539x1588 grace cuckold flag2.png)

(540.89 KB 945x1222 cavalier tan.png)


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.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply