/monarchy/ - monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8000

Files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

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

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.



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

(216.23 KB 1439x1393 5f198760cbfb2.jpeg)

/monarchy/ general 2.0 Peasant 11/24/2020 (Tue) 19:56:53 No. 2288
For general discussion again.
>>2288 nuWojak posting is cancer.
Can someone link the archives? I remember somebody posted the archival links to where What a good ruler is(monarchy was there too) and others too.
>>2288 Why is democracy "materialistic", and what's wrong with that?
>>2304 people argue because arguing gets attention and nothing ever gets done
(1.37 MB 1001x999 1ediqk2jrh9511.png)

>>2421 >The word clerk is derived from the Latin clericus meaning "cleric" or "clergyman"
(522.83 KB 500x339 Pope and Charlemagne.png)

(1.01 MB 534x654 SHUT THE FUCK UP.png)

>>2421 secular governments are gay, you heretic
>>2424 Sucking the toes of clergymen is also kinda gay.
>>2425 this is not an (((atheist))) board, fuck right off.
>>2426 >this is not an (((atheist))) board, fuck right off. This isn't /christian/ either. They kept begging /pol/ to let them back in after the wignats went neopagan. /monarchy/ doesn't owe it to /christian/ to play Thomas Becket or simp for any Pastor Anderson.
Sup guys, I'm just a new lurker wondering if there has been any update on the Mad Monarchists? Do you guys think he'll ever come back? I hope he's alright. Also, anything like that? I don't have alot of Monarchy supporting media to consume. (Other then the reading lists)
>>2430 No, he probably won't. But that's okay, still plenty enough. >I don't have alot of Monarchy supporting media to consume This is true--the board itself is a fairly niche subject matter. You could always read, I guess.
I-is this board dead? I was hoping to find more Monarchists...
>>2432 Yea, I hoped for that too but this is sadly just a souvenir shop You'll need to go to an active board and forge a place for Monarchy there yourself Its good to check on this place ever so often to see if its woken from its slumber, but generally, if you want a place in the world, you either create it or pray I guess..? I'm forcing this in the distant land of 4place but you do you
Hey Cossack, if you're still around: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-proud-boys-terrorists-1.5899186 How does it feel being designated a terrorist by the Canadian government?
>>2434 Well, it seems to be creeping along, at least. But yes, if you want discussion, you have to make it.
Why isn’t Arrow’s theorem a “Knock it out of the park” argument against Democracy and for Monarchism?
>>2482 Honestly, "Give Us Barabbas" is far simpler and easy to understand. Though that one passage about the war with the Philistines needs to be properly understood in turn: demanding a king at that time was not the correct thing to do.
>>2483 >Honestly, "Give Us Barabbas" is far simpler and easy to understand. I don't know that reference. >Though that one passage about the war with the Philistines needs to be properly understood in turn ???
>>2491 Yes you do. It's the prime example in Western culture and history of why democracy is a bad idea.
>>2492 >Yes you do. I don't though. Google tells me it's a weird biblical reference, but I've no idea what it has to do with monarchy or democracy. I can't read your mind.
(31.37 KB 400x462 disdain_for_plebs.jpg)

>>2491 >>2499 >the story of Jesus Christ's death >one of the most well-known parables in the Gopsel >"weird" Biblical reference Even if you're some cringe fedora-tipper you really should take it upon yourself to know Christian stories if you live in a Christian nation. I'll give you a hint. Pontius Pilate gave the Pharisees, the precursors to rabbinical Judaism, one last opportunity to save Christ from imprisonment--per Roman tradition for the area one prisoner every passover was freed and pardoned. The Pharisees had a vote, and they voted to sentence God to death, and instead free a murderer and revolutionary.
(2.36 MB 640x444 HqMLfUAdBC-Vp7cO.mp4)

THE GREAT FOUNDER ARCHTYPE As explained by Aristotle in Politics Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the Whole. But He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature. & yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors! 🌞 But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … but accords with the principle already laid down. 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 a 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!
(3.92 MB 3400x3082 grace-reprimands.png)

(2.47 MB 2000x2000 Monarchy vs Anarchy.png)


Anarchy? That word evokes a headless body. Monarchy, one head on the body-politic! Not 'A for Anarchy', but 'A for Autocracy'. Spoke Grace, muse of monarchy. "Let there be one Lord, one King!" said Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (Caligula), reportedly by Suetonius.

(555.38 KB 2362x1500 Grace Monarchic Lorddom.png)

(21.31 KB 981x122 Cyropedia Wisdom 01.png)

(12.96 KB 965x96 Cyropedia Wisdom 02.png)

The Monarch should ideally be seen as a provider, & then also the throne a source of wisdom. Any belief or disbelief in Monarchy pertains to these two things.

(21.07 KB 678x180 King is Kin.png)

(3.85 MB 7645x4329 grace patriarcha.jpg)

King is Kin The ideal royal state is a political household under one head. The royal state becomes a great family, where all the people share a royal bond together. The Monarch becomes the Father of his People, & they act as if they share a blood relation with the Royal Monarch. "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']" -Aristotle, Politics
"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 "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
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 09/11/2021 (Sat) 16:25:03.
"Our father is Marshal Kim Jong Un, Our Home is the Party's embrace" "With the Respected Marshal who loves people most and regards his trouble for the people as his joy as our father in the harmonious great family we are assisting each other in the warm cherished house, our socialist homeland"
(488.04 KB 1200x1824 Grace image transparent.png)

Anarcho-Monarchy is an oxymoron.
Men are uncreated equal
>>2491 >he doesn't know who Barabbas is Sad!
>>2679 Not necessarily. Putting your undying faith in someone's leadership could be considered such. Not some bureaucratic abstraction but simply mob rule with a leader around whom people rally. Government would imply a collection of largely static rules with a set hierarchial structure, whereas mob rule would just be what people feel like doing. If they feel like tearing you limb to limb, that is what the mob will do. If they feel like tearing the leader apart in that exact same way because they got bored, that is also what they will do.
What is /monarchy/ thoughts on corporal punishment?
>>2756 I like the idea of stocks and pillories but they rely on humiliation to work. I don't see how they could work on degenerate moderns who shame and humiliate themselves daily worse than any pre-modern shame punishment. I'm not really a fan of public flogging though, seems barbaric. If the crime is bad enough why not just jail the perp under a harsh regime of discipline and labour or execution? Whichever is suitable. What do you think?
(2.05 MB 2092x1617 2412312.jpg)

>>2288 If you have a problem with electing a retard, then what you're probably looking for is a Dictator.
>>2734 True. Imagine ~8B ppl in atomic, centralized hierarchies. Somewhere between 800 to 80k neocameralist states, populations ranging from 10M to 100k. This is more decentralized and anarchic than fake democracy spook empires. >>2758 Aidan Maclear had a good post on this but I don't remember the post name. https://web.archive.org/web/*/aidanmaclear.wordpress.com Prison raises criminal status, public whipping till river tears flow flattens it.
(927.31 KB 1200x1824 Grace amorous.png)

>>2734 Anarchy is the rule of no man. The anarchist symbol means order without rulers. Monarchy is the rule of one man. Hence, MON (meaning mono, one) & (arch). That settles as a form of government. That you are governed by someone, not whatsoever rules this person should create, but that you're under this ruler's wing. >Putting your undying faith in someone's leadership could be considered such. People make this comparison between autocracy and anarchy, but it doesn't really make sense here. What you say could apply to any regime. >mob rule would just be what people feel like doing Democracy. Do you see the difference? It isn't for no reason, that they call Anarchy a negative view of democracy. Anarchist views have their faith solely in the People or ultimately the wide autonomy of the masses whether that's expressed through the workers or through economics.
(395.56 KB 768x1024 Grace vomits.png)

Monarchy & Anarchy is a night and day difference. That is why I say it is an oxymoron. On one hand, you have the Monarchy, one ruler, & then the other is Anarchy, no rulers. Anarkiddie royalists are some other autism. They basically want royalism without the monarchy, imo.
(125.65 KB 529x640 king david shepherd.jpg)

The royal rule being like a flock of sheep & their shepherd is a good comparison, for example. He is basically their leader, and the sheep follow the leader. This royal rule of the shepherd is vilified constantly today, by what many call a dictatorship, with a leader who speaks out to his people. Monarchy, where the father rules his children, or the master rules his servants, both combined in the relationship of a household ruler, would demonstrate how one ruler over a household operates. The fatherly rule of a household isn't necessarily a static rule -- it is dynamic, ready and able, under the leadership of the household ruler. Sad, but true, is that the classic image of a one-man ruler is vilified all the same. They cry out, "That's AUTOCRACY!" As if auto, meaning "self" and the overall meaning "self-rule" simply meant for the sake of the self only, but even an autocracy could be for the sake of their welfare rather than his own. That is why, Jean Bodin says, that his praise of Monarchy & many others praise of that form of government, wasn't flattery, but necessarily for the political good that government was in one sovereign's hand, to help direct and govern this flock. People like -auto, meaning self, in words like autonomy or automobile, but autocracy meaning someone's self doesn't really mean for partiality like certain anons would desperately try to imply, & would be synonymous with Monarchy, seeing as one person is also conjoined with one's self also. Self-rule is another ball park from "rule for self". Some constitutionalists like to single this out on Monarchy b/c they want to show how feeble Monarchy itself is from their pov, or that it must be partiality in spite of the mixture of government for the sake of the whole... but forgetting the pre-eminence of Monarchy, where the Monarch becomes like the whole in relation to the part and becomes the political good. That's why, they say, that you shouldn't separate the weal of the kingdom from the king, seeing as how Monarchy is a government where the public and private interest are conjoined and manifest through one person.
>>2771 Thanks, I'll try and find the post. >>2774 How to rehabilitate royal rule in the minds of the people, especially the lower classes? In my country the lower classes were much more staunchly royalist in the past. The lower classes could lead a populist revolt in favour of the Monarch and overturn this whole rotten system but mention the idea that the Monarch should rule now and they recoil in horror. They spend their days raging about the elites on social media and slavishly idolising foreign populist leaders like Trump but have no other political ideas or alternatives to the current system, apart from maybe some vague idea of sovereign citizenship or something. If they think anything of the Royal family it's that they're some kind of blood sucking, pedo lizard, illuminati family.
>>2775 >I want for the little guy to comprehend complicated ideas yea, thats not how "lower classes" work which is also why this system doesn't work enlightened citizen caste is a meme you either trick them or force them there is no other way
(7.79 MB 7000x3850 Part 7 fixed.jpg)

(7.70 MB 7000x3850 part 8 fixed.jpg)



Part 7 & 8 explained in context to Plato & Aristotle. "The true image of the Commonwealth is a well ordered household/family." -Jean Bodin
(313.93 KB 990x1018 59b5b87033856731ff05ed51.png)

(2.97 MB 640x360 LouisXIV Bossuet.mp4)


(29.66 KB 1895x339 Bodin every and particular 01.png)

PRE-EMINENCE OF MONARCHY From an absolutist standpoint, the Monarchy must have Pre-eminence or Majesty. The relation of the whole to the part, or as absolutists call it to be the relation of the general to the particular. The Pre-eminence of Monarchy from an absolutist perspective is explained in the motto, "I am the State" or "Nec Pluribus Impar". When the Monarch has the entire body-politic united with his natural person, His Majesty becomes greater for the political good. As one teacher means no more confusion from multiple teachers, and allows the entire political orientation and strength become realized through one man as in a Monarchy, the Monarch becomes extraordinary to everyone. As without this pre-eminence in Monarchy, there is no Majesty in Monarchy. Absolutist views on sovereignty complain about a mixed state, because it relates the Monarch to be limited and like a part in relation to the whole... no longer seen as pre-eminent, the Monarch is no different than your regular dictator to an absolutist... as many constitutionalists would say, that absolutism is no different from a dictatorship -- the absolutists would retort, that a dictator is simply a limited monarch, although their power is absolute -- they lack the sovereignty and pre-eminence, but also are sometimes limited to terms or don't have the entire state granted to them for life. The question would also be whether this dictator is a sovereign, as a dictator is seen as a limited monarch, but potentially can be a supreme sovereign -- and remember, the Monarch being supreme is also close to the notion of sovereignty, the ultimate power of life and death, like the Pater Familias. Most royalists wouldn't understand the absolutist view on dictatorship, viewing royals and dictators to be distinct... but absolutists not only agree with Plato that there is no difference between political/economical, that a small state and great household are no different, but absolutists also agreed with him on how a statesman, king, dictator, and household manager (or despot) really shared the same expertise and were in that regard no different. And even Aristotle considered a Dictatorship to be one of the four kinds of royalty. This explains why dictators, being one-man rulers and sharing the form, nonetheless sometimes transition to a state of Monarchy... as there is really no difference between a statesman, king, dictator, household manager, -- they all share the same despotic expertise. What matters to absolutists is not only whether the ruler is a king and abides by royalism -- as two kings could be a diarchy, and there not monarchy -- but whether there is one ruler. A statesman, king, dictator, or household manager could even be terrible at their jobs, but an absolutist also says that there are unique perks to Monarchy that might make even a tyrant better than a clique of great nobles, that being that one commander tends to have better victories than forces divided and unable to co-ordinate around a leader. When I talk about the pre-eminence of Monarchy, it also isn't about Meritocracy or simply being the best man -- that is great for the founder of the state and having a body-politic centered around Monarchy, but the Pre-eminence of Monarchy is more majestic than this -- not to downplay the importance of a skilled person -- but Pre-eminence is so extraordinary and grand, that Aristotle said, "What did the MOUSE say to the LION?" Or compared the Pre-eminent Monarch to a Demi-God. This is so extraordinary, and so breath-takingly great and magnificient, this pre-eminence of Monarchy and majesty, that nothing compares. One man is great and humbles an entire people, and is almost equal to them -- like Nec Pluribus Impar truly means, Not Unequal to Many -- The Monarch is great by means that most could hardly hope to physically achieve by any merit. And like Hobbes says for the Leviathan, that great Artificial Man of the Body-Politic, A Mortal God under the Immortal God. His case for pre-eminence meant having the whole People united, by true unity of them all in one person, and having a pre-eminent sovereign... for others, it meant having pre-eminence on behalf of God and what people lambast begrudgingly as "Divine Right" -- (Which really is one other means to Pre-Eminence -- what traditionalists don't understand or care about, because they this is all unique to Monarchy and not mere conservatism). The Pre-Eminence of Monarchy is not meritocratic in the sense that nationalists talk about, but it is by another means GREATER having the whole unity of People or being a divinely appointed Sovereign or by natural right of the supreme father... So people say, "How could one man rule over an entire people?" With great disbelief, and most people will say that, as if they didn't want you to believe in Monarchy, or outright deny that one person could be pre-eminent among so many people, and be the soul and unity of all of them... but Monarchy has always been compared to divinity or political power magnified for a reason... There is no justification or hope to have Monarchy without Pre-eminence. There is nothing to stand upon, and that's why these people would want to garner a disbelief and discourage them -- dash apart their political orientation towards Monarchy, because they know it sounds so grandiose that nobody could believe one person truly rules in Monarchy... and why on paper, Monarchy sounds like having a god among men, and that's because these is one man who has the relationship of the general to the particular. If you understand this about Monarchy, and how it could be so unbelievable that one person rules over thousands, then you see why the state of Monarchy is compared to God. The sovereignty, or majesty, is also compared to being an owner, but the absolutist bases this off the Father or Pater Familias rather than a private property owner, in order to see the true relationship that is political and having the pre-eminence of the whole, where the Father has the power of life and death originally, and sovereign power... So the Monarch, no different economically/politically, is the supreme father over his subjects, and has the ultimate authority, even if it gets borrowed for a limited time (like say to a limited monarch, like a non-sovereign dictator). That is why absolutists sound like edgelords to most people, because they believe in pre-eminence, and want a Monarch to have the relationship of the general to the particular... that involves going to extraordinary lengths and seeing the state united in the person of the prince, and it means respecting the Monarch like their supreme father and their royal shepherd.
(822.68 KB 1200x1200 2655.jpg)

(494.19 KB 1200x1824 0210602104313.png)

(308.06 KB 1024x626 E0vmGUoWUAQExONon.jpg)

"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
"The fearful fathers fly unto their last refuge, they thought it best to name a Dictator… The city fled unto the remedy so long desired, which was to name a Dictator. And the reason was, for that they held the Dictator for a god, and his commandments for oracles… The Dictator's edict was always religiously observed. And even the enemies besieging the city of Rome, abandoned the siege, hearing that they had created a Dictator. So GREAT was the FEAR of a DICTATOR with the enemies, as he was no sooner created, but they departed from the walls." -Jean Bodin
MONARCHY IS MONSTROUS! The state of Monarchy is so monolithic, great, and monstrous, has awesome power and pre-eminence of a monarchic individual, like the pre-societal individual who first founded the state, that Aristotle called the greatest of benefactors. This is why Thomas Hobbes alludes to in his Leviathan, in its generation, and its manifestation in the natural person of a sovereign monarch... Power that is immense, tyrannical, great, absolute, resembling the status of the whole to the part, having the strength of the entire body-politic and people united in one person. This is why Caligula was called Emperor to Monster, because Caligula aspired towards the great state of MONARCHY that was greater than princes and petty kings. Let me continue about why the individual nature of Monarchy matters, and why conservatives might be juxtaposed to it despite their appraisal of royalism... When stating that Man is societal, he should also recognize the origin of that from Aristotle, where Hobbes criticizes... Aristotle says, that the STATE comes prior to the Individual and the Family... that the WHOLE comes prior to the PART... that a human body must come before there are hands and legs and heads and other appendages... Thomas Hobbes understood this very well, as Aristotle said that man separated from human society must be a GOD or a BEAST. BUT that Man who is so pre-eminent to be the Great Founder of the state, and establish wisdom and justice and teach men, is also pre-eminent, and isn't merely a part, but has the pre-eminence of the whole in comparison to the part, and has the whole power of the state invested in him... so the pre-eminent Monarch is compared to a God... and that's why Aristotle says, "What did the mouse say to the LION?" Think of the Egyptian sphinx, to better understand the Leviathan, and how Aristotle talks about GOD or BEAST... and the pyramid and its whole... these are important ideals of Monarchy, and about the individual nature, that an individual man, one person above thousands, must be pre-eminent simply because he was an individual whose person became associated with the greater whole. So that's how it ties into individuality... The conservatives rap about society, and their aversion of Monarchy is sometimes understood when the Monarch is an individual, like Nebuchadnezzar, as his Bible story had him walk with the animals, aka like a beast, and this is what conservatives fear about Monarchy, and won't accept in the individualist nature of the Monarch -- except, the individual nature is also tethered to the pre-eminence of this state and why it is likened to God. The Leviathan is hated by traditionalists no less than Frankenstein's monster, because like with Caligula whose aspirations were towards Monarchy, he assumed unto himself a great power, that was disdained by conservatives... that they associate with Monarchy as Monstrous. Hobbes Leviathan was said to be part-Man, part-God, part-Animal, Part-Machine... So Monarchy is by all means and forms, really monstrous in one way or another, because of the sheer pre-eminence and scale, even in modest royal states, because it is with great disbelief we'll see the whole state united in one person, and disbelief that one man truly rules over many... that same skepticism repeated by conservatives, because it is so hard to believe, that one man truly rules, but the pre-eminence of monarchy is so extraordinary and great, so magnificent, it obviously would be, and it's no wonder that on paper it is like a god among men, and why the state of monarchy is compared to God, if not for the fact that one person rules above thousands... as Louis XIV says, "I am the State" or "Nec Pluribus Impar" not unequal to many... not unequal to thousands... the pre-eminent Monarch humbles an entire population. The Sphinx is like the Leviathan in being a cross-hybrid, between God, Man, or Beast, and the pyramid in this image I'd say resembles the pre-eminence of the Whole... If you look at the front cover of Leviathan, you'll understand a few things: 1st, the Leviathan cover has a perfect triangle, between the Sword of Commonwealth and the Crosier, meaning protection and mastery of doctrine, with the Head... Hobbes said, that the Sovereign is the SOUL of the Commonwealth, not merely the Head, and why? Because like Aristotle mentioned, Hobbes sought the pre-eminence of the Whole in relation to the Part... Absolutists call this the relationship between general and particular... and associate it strongly with Sovereignty or Majesty... In the absolutist mythos, the Monarchy started out Despotic or Tyrannical, with Lordly Power, like William the Conqueror or the Roman Patriarch, and became Royal over-time, but still held the Power of Life and Death, the sole basis of absolute power being from the Pater Familias doctrine of the Romans that gave the Fathers of Families absolute power of life and death, the state of monarchy being like a household, no different political/economical (as economic means household) means that the political monarch is the father of his people, has the power of life and death... They will never appreciate how monstrous Monarchy is, & how this applies to all Monarchy in general. They will never truly accept the individual power, undivided, while still being the exception to the private individual, has a public personage, and such an extraordinary Monarchy. They fear Henry VIII, Akhenaten, & Caligula, they fear that one man could become a Monarch, that one person could humble thousands, and that a whole people could follow him like their shepherd and bring unity to the body-politic. They fear a Monarchy, these conservatives, not settling for anything better than multi-party democracy or said feudal equivalent, finding refuge in stagnation and division, and obfuscating everything, and hoping that the nobles would be an obstacle, as if the Twelve Disciples should be the worst enemy of Christ. SO their hatred of Monarchy could be explained through their conservatism / traditionalism. Not wanting to such an extraordinary Leviathan to shape a mold and one-man so pre-eminent to become the Father of the People.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 09/13/2021 (Mon) 20:52:22.
My opinion, why certain rightoids fail, & DPRK suceeds. Monarkiddies cannot have a political orientation, because esoteric trads and conservatives put politics secondary, and look upon it as poorman's theology. Esoteric trads want to obfuscate… don't want monarkiddies to have a proper political orientation towards a pre-eminence of monarchy. Whereas DPRK succeeds in having social cohesion even in their dire circumstances, where conservatives who talk about conservative family values and morality fail. It is not possible, without a healthy body-politic, to have the social cohesion and civic order they desire. If they place politics secondary, their pro-family talking point is a bluff. An absolutist differs from a feudfag / ordinary royalist, in seeing politics and sovereignty as crucial. It is described as the bulwark that is really the frame holding the entire ship. The conservatives consider politics to be not as important. As Bodin had a universal view on politics with his outlook on sovereignty, applied to all states, and not only his land in particular. As the traditionalists lament for "Westphalian sovereignty" & the rise of secularism, they look over the fact that the body-politic came first, and had to restore order in the circumstances leading up to the Wars of Religion & the many various regicides that followed, and conflicts. … So what I can admire in leftists / commies is that they aren't inhibited where these esoterics are, & many monarkiddies are, and leftists stress politics more. DPRK states that the family is still important, although they value the political unity first… from an absolutist point of view, the commonwealth is lawful union of many families, but also that the true image of the commonwealth is a great family. As they agreed with Plato, that there is no difference between political and economical, that a small state and great family are no different. And like Hobbes said, the family is a little city, and the city a great family. So when conservatives talk of family values exclusive to politics, they are wrong – it is no more a political affair, and you shouldn't say you are pro-family without also promoting political unity, the true image of a commonwealth being a well ordered household. And I know that they would try to assert in contempt the case against Monarchy, that Monarchy is a deviant force, that Monarchy alienated them, that Monarchy created the State, that Monarchy is responsible for all their problems. That they cannot bear the pre-eminence of a Monarchy. Let alone that one man should be supreme. And call it ambition, and follow their conservative counterparts in calling it demagoguery or despotism or tyranny or liberalism or Enlightenment or any number of names in the political arena. But Monarchy is the soul of a body-politic, Monarchy is filled with so much vitality, and like Bossuet says, that while these people might flatter the other parts of a state, they fail in desperately attacking Monarchy as nothing hurts like perishing the body and taking a rock and hitting the head. "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 "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 This might sound strange coming from a poster who once said, "Political animals". My views changed, but still in their own peculiarity.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 09/13/2021 (Mon) 21:46:46.
I only wonder what Darius in the Herodotus Debate would say about some people who call themselves monarchists, and yet explicitly make rather pro-oligarchic statements... Darius who said that the Monarch in Monarchy is the Sole Aristocrat, the best man... hardly anyone would say so, even in monarkiddie circles... how sad it is. So being a monarchist is a lonely disposition. I have accepted this & that's why I don't bother, knowing inevitably non-monarkiddies will flood in.
>>2850 I'm curious, have you read Spengler? Also, can you stop using slang (and also define what certain ideologues you've labeled believe/what the labels mean, and actually provide proof for what you claim they believe) and posting bad OC (Grace-chan)? Thanks.
>>2288 >general about [topic A] >on a board for [topic A]
(315.18 KB 1140x1140 Grace sneed.png)

>>2957 >>2958 No, I'm content with labeling conservatives as shills for multi-party democracy and clericals as always mouthing off "secularist" as if it was synonymous with "statist". For the former, the conservatives have always enjoyed being the counterpart partisan to the liberal and favored multi-party democracy, while the latter is perpetually butthurt. And esoterics as always trying to draw our attention away from political monarchy and into esoteric autism, because I'm guessing you're bietching b/c you're an NRx esotericfag What proof do I need? Conservatives have always participated in multi-party democracy and are basically sustained by multi-party democracy, and they get their rocks off by being the opposition to the Liberal, but that's about it. They favor multi-party democracy because it's how they thrive and the status quo they conserve. If you want proof about esoteric trads putting their autism first and politics in the backseat, look at /fascist/. The esoterics there took over and kinda lead conversations around by the leash, that I don't think the board there is primarily about even fascism like it used to be or the politics pertaining to it anymore. which is what I have no doubts esoterics would do with /monarchy/
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 10/01/2021 (Fri) 11:35:27.
>>2958 Like it should be. A /monarchy/ board that talks about... drum roll ... monarchy? Better than being a /his/ stand-in or NRx bloggers.
>>2972 I always thought /monarchy/ was for discussing diapers?
>>2973 >I always thought /monarchy/ was for discussing diapers? What would make you think that? We aspire towards the pre-eminence of Monarchy!
How exactly would you deal with a bad king in modern time? In olden time you just gather a bunch of peasants and storm the palace like the Frogs did it last time.
>>2978 >what if bad king, HHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMM?
(2.99 MB 8152x3662 grace jean bodin.jpg)

(2.65 MB 6724x3500 Hobbes on Tyrannophobia.jpg)

>>2978 >How exactly would you deal with a bad king in modern time? The world has no shortage of mediocre or bad rulers, but they withstand it anyways. Look at the British Royal Family and the Prince Andrew controversy -- that's a modern royal family and nobody is going apeshit. No matter how much anyone might feign moral outrage or talk about how they're going to do the next /liberty/ Sic Semper Tyrannis stunt, it's not so likely they will actually live up to their words... Especially if everyone's bellies are full, a ruler can usually get away with being a little bad. It's usually exaggerated how many people would suffer from the wrath of a monarch, but it's usually a very small number of people who face any direct ire from a vengeful ruler (while the people in general would resume their lives without even noticing). I will play Devil's advocate and repeat what Jean Bodin said, "A bad man makes a great king". Sometimes I think we really do need an actual tyrant to whip people back into shape. And like Hobbes says, it's usually the game of the political arena to point fingers and start namecalling the other person bad. I'm not convinced someone is bad because they scream "king man bad". My opinion is that a truly bad ruler will meet his own downfall and don't advocate any monarchomachist regicide theories or letting the subject decide they will correct a superior with their own judgments. "But if it be so that the soldier which had onely 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 deserveth the son which layeth hand upon his father?" -Jean Bodin Many call Hitler bad. Hitler had many assassination attempts, but later had his assassins killed. I wouldn't really loft my eyebrows at a regicide being hung, drawn, and quartered either. My other posture is why should we assume that a king couldn't redeem himself? I think it's more complex than simply this person is wholly bad -- and even if that were so, it doesn't mean they couldn't change for the better. Even King David and Gilgamesh had times where they were bad. I don't think the answer is to forever cast off the Monarchy and castrate it by making the Monarch in relation of the particular, like many people are desperate to see. Like Bossuet says, Without this absolute authority the king could neither do good nor repress evil. And ultimately it isn't for a sovereign monarch to be seen like a part, and be swapped in and out like term limits or have an eject button, as it is for some statesmen. I've heard many people criticize the Queen, "Why did Her Majesty allow X to happen?" And I think those people need to read what Bossuet said. Especially because I've come to notice over the years that moral outrage and outrage from the Monarch doing anything is stronger where the Monarch plays a more ceremonial role compared to the more tyrannical Monarch who is able to get away with much more without it being a major scandal -- while the smallest moves tend to jeopardize a ceremonial royalty -- so they are less inclined to do anything. You might as well wave good-bye forever to any pre-eminent or heroic view of Monarchy.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 10/01/2021 (Fri) 16:24:23.
(9.88 MB 654x480 es lebe sarastro.mp4)

(9.45 MB 654x480 Magic Flute ending.mp4)

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

>>2288 Doesn't some rando adviser become defacto king behind the scenes if the real king is retarded or a child?
First time in a while that the Grace thread wasn't always on the top
>>2981 I didn't mean to dis the entire system. I mean how to deal with the situation when someone like Joe Biden and his puppeteers being a king.
>>3000 I don't know, I have to admit. Joe Biden would probably be too busy sleeping to utterly destroy a people, but it doesn't seem like anyone is doing anything with the administration as it stands. They're not storming the Bastille. >I didn't mean to dis the entire system. Idk, then it isn't exactly a pre-eminent absolutist Monarchy, if said person isn't an absolute sovereign. Which would mean that the king would have the relationship of the particular to the general, not really different from Biden's position except that it would be Biden for life. I'd say, it is what it is. What are you doing now under the Biden administraiton, if you are American? Imo, a king, statesman, dictator, or despot have the same expertise and only monarchy itself gives them a unique perk, as if there were one statesman or one king, or one dictator, or one despot. So it would be the same situation respectively, whether this person is a king or statesman.
Edited last time by Ramses_the_Great on 10/02/2021 (Sat) 13:33:19.
>>2288 if you are wondering about the lack of activity, this is probably because this entire board is 5 different people on different devices and tor tabs, so do be patient
I have always wondered how would you discipline a monarch? Heard of the concept of whipping boy but would the likes of Grace ever have a whipping girl?
>>3020 I assume that they get they're disciplining and behavior checked during their childhood.
>>3020 >but would the likes of Grace ever have a whipping girl? t. Alunya or any other b-tan
>>3021 probably won't be needed for grace, as she is a good girl
>ywn put Grace otk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Four_Corners Lord of the Four Corners was a title of great prestige claimed by powerful monarchs in ancient Mesopotamia. Though the term "four corners of the world" does refer to specific geographical places within and near Mesopotamia itself, these places were (at the time the title was first used) thought to represent locations near the actual edges of the world and as such, the title should be interpreted as something equivalent to "King of all the known world", a claim to universal rule over the entire world and everything within it. Thutmose I Universal Triumph >He brought the ends of the earth into his domain; he trod its two extremities with his mighty sword, seeking battle; but he found no one who faced him. He penetrated valleys which the royal ancestors knew not, which the wearers of the double diadem had not seen. His southern boundary is as far as the frontier of this land, his northern as far as that inverted water which goes downstream in going up-stream. The like has not happened to the other kings; his name has reached far as the nether world; the oath is taken by it (viz, his name) in all lands, because of the greatness of the fame of his majesty. They (viz, the lands) were not seen in the archives of the ancestors since the Worshipers of Horus, who gives breath to the one that follows him, his offerings to the one that treads his way. His Majesty is Horus, assuming his (Horus's) kingdom of myriads of years, subject to him are the isles of the Great Circle, the entire earth is under his two feet; bodily son of Re, his beloved, Thutmose I, living forever and ever. Amon-Re, king of the gods is his father, the creator of his beauty, beloved of the gods of Thebes, who is given life, stability, satisfaction, health, joy of his heart, upon the throne of Horus, leading all the living like Re, forever. >I made the boundaries of Egypt as far as that which the sun encircles. I made strong those who were in fear; I repelled the evil from them. I made Egypt superior to every land… Favorite of Amon, Son of Re, of his body, his beloved Thutmose I, Shining like Re, beloved of Osiris, First of the Westerners; Great God, lord of Abydos, ruler of eternity; given life, stability, satisfaction, and health, while shining as King upon the Horus-throne of the living; and joy of his heart, together with his ka, like Re, forever. Hobbes' Behemoth on Deposing of Atahualpa >But in Peru, when Atabalipa was King, the friar told him, that Christ being King of all the world, had given the disposing of all the kingdoms therein to the Pope, and that the Pope had given Peru to the Roman Emperor Charles the Fifth, and required Atabalipa to resign it; and for refusing it, seized upon his person by the Spanish army there present, and murdered him. You see by this how much they claim, when they have power to make it good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakk%C5%8D_ichiu Hakkō ichiu (八紘一宇, "eight crown cords, one roof", i.e. "all the world under one roof") >The term was coined early in the 20th century by Nichiren Buddhist activist and nationalist Tanaka Chigaku, who cobbled it from parts of a statement attributed in the chronicle Nihon Shoki to legendary first Emperor Jimmu at the time of his ascension. The Emperor's full statement reads: "Hakkō wo ooute ie to nasan" (八紘を掩うて宇と為さん, or in the original kanbun: 掩八紘而爲宇), and means: "I shall cover the eight directions and make them my abode".
(510.66 KB 380x620 ClipboardImage.png)

What are anons thoughts about the French tradition of treating the younger son as a girl when there are multiple male heirs to the Kingdom?
>>3038 It sounds pretty cute
(25.63 KB 120x120 ClipboardImage.png)

>>3040 It's also very true. Happened to Philippe 1st.
We have heard Aristotle's water argument, that one droplet of water corrupts more easily than an ocean of water… I have a few counter-narratives. From Dante "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 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." (Keep the Themistian concept in mind for that one) From Darius in the Herodotus Debate "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 make his counels 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 best. Again, the rule of 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," Hobbes on oligarchic passions "This inconvenience therefore must be derived, not from the power, but from the affections and passions which reign in every one, as well monarch as subject; by which the monarch may be swayed to use that power amiss. And because an oligarchy consists of men, if the passions of many men be more violent when they are assembled together, than the passions of one man alone, it will follow, that the inconvenience arising from passion will be greater in an oligarchy, than a monarchy." So while you might say, that a monarch is more prone to being corrupt, I will say that for multi-party democracy, the scheme of it lends itself to in-fighting and factionalism that is worse than any corruption of a monarch… because whole swaths of the population are seen as mortal enemies, divided into political parties and animosity, where the violence of a cruel Monarch might extend to a very small number of unlucky courtiers or officials, it is worse with the enmity seen here that is extended to vast percentages. So that itself becomes more of a corruption even if the expertise of these men are good and incorruptible. And like Bodin says, that although there might be a league of many great nobles, one tyrant could still best them by the unity of being one. "For even Leo writes in his history, that the people of Africa hold it for an infallible maxim, that a prince which is but weak in forces, shall always defeat a stronger army that has two generals. And more ineffectual, being divided, and impotent in multi-party democracy… whereas the Monarch becomes like a teacher, where many teachers would be confusing to an entire classroom, they are able to focus on real issues at hand and see the whole body-politic itself, as one man himself appears before them. So there is less confusion.
(6.09 MB 6000x5105 Grace hesiod text.jpg)

(78.96 KB 1047x474 Bodin criticize Oligarchy 2.png)

Jean Bodin's talking points "As for the other point, That they must give the sovereignty unto the most worthy, It is true; but the argument makes more for a Monarchy, than for an Oligarchy; for among the most noble, the most wise, the most rich, and the most valiant, there is always some one that does excel the rest, to whom by that reason the sovereignty does belong." (That Monarchy is Aristocracy; the sole aristocrat, or the best man – aristocracy, meaning, rule of the best, rather than the few, like oligarchy). "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 Peter Soderin Gongalonier of Florence, speaking unto the people against an Aristocratical estate, he used the same argument which Maecenas did before Augustus against Marcus Agrippa, saying, That the government of dew lords, is the government of few tyrants: and that it was better at all events to have but one tyrant. For if any one will say, that among many there will haply be some number of good men, we must then rather choose a Popular estate, for that in a great number there will be found more virtuous than in a less. But both the one and the other is unprofitable: 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: as it is always seen as well in diets or assemblies of the princes of Germany, whereas the spiritual princes of the empire, being the greatest number, have always crost the princes temporal; so as by their means the emperor Charles the Fifth, caused the empire to declare itself an enemy of the house of France, the which had not been in so many ages: to the end the temporal princes should have no hope of any succours from France in their necessities, whereinto they soon after fell. And to make short, it has been always seen, that the more heads there be in a Seigneurie, the more controversies arise, and less resolution." "There is no reason to balance the cruelties and extorsions of a tyrant, with the actions of good princes: we know well that a peaceable Optimacy and wisely governed, if it may be, is better than a cruel tyranny. But the question is, whether it be better to ahve a just and upright king, or many good lords: and whether a tyranny of fifty tyrants be not more dangerous, than of one tyrant alone: And if there be not much more danger in a Popular or Aristocratical estates. than in a Monarchy. Yea it is most certain that a tyrannical Monarchy is sometimes more to be desired than a Democracy or Optimacy, how good soever: For if many wise and skillful pilots hinder one another in striving to govern the helm; even so will many lords do, every one seeking to govern the Commonweal, be they never so wise and virtuous. Although it be not needful to insist much upon this proof, that a Monarchy is the most sure, seeing that a family which is the true image of the Commonwealth can but have one head."
(798.56 KB 1200x1824 Grace look pic transparent.png)

(66.36 KB 499x558 Plato on monarchy.png)

(46.42 KB 891x361 Hobbes fundamental law.png)

Plato says on Monarchy, "And when an individual ruler governs neither by law nor by custom, but following in the steps of the true man of science pretends that he can only act for the best by violating the laws, while in reality appetite and ignorance are the motives of the imitation, may not such an one be called a tyrant?" "Certainly" "And this we believe to be the origin of the tyrant and king, of oligarches, and aristocracies, and democracies–because men are offended at the one monarch, and can NEVER be made to BELIEVE that any one can be worthy of such authority, or is able and willing in spirit of virtue and knowledge to act justly and holy to all; they fancy that he will be a despot who will wrong and harm and slay whom he pleases; for if there could be such a DESPOT as we describe, they would acknowledge that we ought to be too GLAD to have him, and that he ALONE would be the happy ruler of a true and perfect State. "To be sure." "But then, as the State is NOT a beehive, and '''has no natural head who is at once recognized to be the superior both in body and in mind, mankind are obliged to meet and make laws, and endeavor to approach as nearly as they can to the true form of government." Much spoken here in Plato, I believe, attributed much to the baseline of Hobbes' political philosophy. Firstly, for Plato, stating that the state is not like a beehive and has no natural head. I think much of what everyone criticizes about Hobbes was really Hobbes in reaction to this line. For example, Hobbes criticizing Aristotle and saying that men aren't exactly political like ants or bees… No doubt Hobbes read this from Plato. I personally think that Hobbes' political philosophy was monarchist in origin, and in response to the dilemma put forward by Plato, that naturally, mankind doesn't have a natural head and superior of a Monarch, and could only endeavor to approach this true government… Hence, Hobbes individualism and reaction to this, that all traditionalists despise and lament for his Frankenstein creation of the Leviathan, I believe has a monarchist discrepancy in origin, that most traditionalists wouldn't understand as they lament about Hobbism. I think why Hobbes did what he had done was from a monarchist mentality. In frustration with what Plato said here, he wanted to correct it and re-adjust so that there would be a place for Monarchy under the Sun. So you see the Hobbesian state of nature, and the individualist methodology, and the artificial person of the Leviathan, and leniency towards Monarchy that he did, where the People form this body-politic and find a head who is at once recognized to be a superior by this popular pre-eminence. 2ndly, on the origin of the tyrant, that the word itself came from scorn and disbelief, because "men are offended at the one monarch, and can never be made to believe that any one can be worthy of such authority" – and like I said before on how monstrous Monarchy is, there is a great disbelief in Monarchy, not withstanding the potential it has… because when Plato says "but following in the steps of the true man of science pretends that he can only act for the best", they immediately suspect that it is by appetite and ignorance, and not for the best of the state that this is done – and so he replies, that men are offended, because they cannot believe in the pre-eminence of Monarchy, and it isn't for no reason that there is disbelief that one man should be supreme over thousands – because it is so great. The whole notion of the origin of the word tyrant coming from men's scorn and offense is pretty Hobbesian. To be glad to have such a despot, if they could only believe this. Which is the major discrepancy, not whether he would act justly and holy, but that they couldn't believe it – that inhibits it. I've talked much about pre-eminence and how it is so great that hardly anyone could believe it, and thus why certain anti-monarchy people try to prompt a monarchist into this -- because they understand this very well, and want you to doubt it or step down, rather than double down and re-affirm that there is pre-eminence in Monarchy. So Bodin responds, "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. 3rdly, while absolutists agree to disagree with Plato, on the sovereign being subject to laws, it is 50/50. Hobbes disagreed with Aristotle in support of the rule of men. For fundamental laws, there is a certain respect, and those are seen as molding the state/form of Monarchy itself. For the laws of God and nature, Bodin says the Monarch is subject. But not to human laws/customs. But they agree with Plato, despite their absolutist tendency that a Monarch is absolved from human laws and has the power of life and death, that not following their own laws or the laws of nature, would lead to their ruin (like 4th pic related for fundamental laws). Except the absolute power of a sovereign is seen as a fundamental law. All states have an absolute power in that sense. If something must be done, there's no doubt some states will do it. But I can see why Hobbes called Plato the best of the Greek philosophers, if bits like this inspired him.
While Arthur Schopenhauer said that Monarchy is natural, I think it goes both ways… for Monarchy is also said to be monstrous, or in more polite terms said to be extraordinary or divine or pre-eminent. There have certainly been those who said that Mankind has a place for Monarchy, and like Robert Filmer in Patriarcha marks out a kind of right of fatherhood for various peoples by descent, giving them that natural person at once recognized as a superior. But there are many who will stress how naturally mankind is democratic and has no need for monarchy or any state (like the anarchists) and that there might as well not be any Monarchy. That it is insufficient. That Monarchy is outside the nature of men, and that the people have no need or desire for a monarch. If anyone could understand this sentiment I talk about from a monarchist standpoint, you too would understand this problem.
(209.93 KB 1323x2048 EUxAoIvXQAIGR.jpg)

(2.63 MB 640x360 Jean Bodin Lordly Monarchy.mp4)

>>2844 The main reason I put so much emphasis on fear in that quotation from Jean Bodin is I imagine this passage inspired Hobbes in his assertion that it was fear that brought about the generation of the commonwealth or leviathan. He says that by fear of each other is sovereignty by institution, and fear of him who rules is soverignty by acquisition, but the rights of sovereignty are the same in both. That was no doubt influenced by Bodin's distinction between royal and lordly monarchy (lordly monarchy primarily being the monarchy of a conquerer in this context). That's the other more neutral view, that while there is royal monarchy, lordly monarchy, and tyrannical monarchy from this point of view, monarchy is monarchy at the end of the day (from the absolutist view) and sovereignty belongs to each regardless (unconventional and neutral for the time). There is a kind of mythology in Absolutist thinking, that Monarchy starts out tyrannical or lordly. Where the Father has power of life and death. Or Nimrod. Or William the Conqueror. Or Qin Shi Huang. Rulers that initially start out very heavy-handed and by magnanimous rule, but later on become soft-handed as a Royal Monarchy. King James VI & I said this in a speech, I believe Of course, they retain the power of life and death from this point of view for any Monarchy.
(34.08 KB 750x534 ciq1b2k73ck21.jpg)

What would happen if you gave a woman soy-filled food products? What "feminizing" effects would we see take place in their bodies externally? What about internally?
>The accession of Louis XIV (1661) ushered in a new era in the history of France. He was young, headstrong, anxious to extend the territories of France, and determined to assert his own supreme authority, including that over papal claims. This attitude led inevitably to friction with the Papal States, resulting in the so-called Corsican Guard Incident. >The Corsican Guard was the personal guard for the pope, formed by Pope Clement VIII in 1603. Unfortunately, the Corsicans were rather intemperate, and in 1662, as a result of an insult to Pope Alexander VII by the Duke du Crequi, the French ambassador to the Papal States, the Corsican Guard led an attack against the French ambassador's Guard in Rome, leading to several deaths. This created an international incident. Louis XIV of France retaliated by dismissing the nuncio at Paris and forcing Alexander VII to disband the Corsican Guard. Louis also seized Papal Venaissin and Avignon, which was declared an integral part of the Kingdom of France. Alexander VII was also obliged to accept the very humiliating terms imposed upon him by the Peace of Pisa (1664). In fulfillment of this treaty, Cardinal Chigi, the pope's nephew, came to Paris in 1664 to tender the pope's apology to Louis. The guilty individuals were punished, the Corsicans were banished forever from the Roman States, and in front of the guard-house that they had occupied, a pyramid was erected in Rome, bearing an inscription that embodied the pope's apology. In 1668, with the accession of the new pope, Clement IX, and as a gesture of good will, Louis ordered the destruction of this humiliating pyramid.
(642.62 KB 1800x1800 Grace disdain look.png)


(82.35 KB 1032x348 Bodin on Imperial Humiliation.png)

Jean Bodin concerning popes >But I think no man doubts, but that the king even before his consecration enjoys both the possession and propriety of the kingdom, not by inheritance or his fathers right, and much less by the country of the bishops or peers, but by the royal law and custom of the realm, as was long since decreed of the French men, that no man should think the power of the king to depend on the pleasure of the bishops; not for that the Senat ever doubted the power of the king before his coronation; but that those vain quirks of the bishops might be utterly reselled. For it is an old proverb with us, '''That the king doth never die, but that so soon as he is dead, the next male of his stock is seized of the kingdom, and in possession thereof before he be crowned, which is not conferred unto him by succession of his father, but by virtue of the law of the land; least the succession of the kingdom should be uncertain, then which nothing can be more dangerous in a Commonweal. >And to show a greater submission of the emperors unto the popes, the subscription of the emperor's letters unto the pope, is this, I kiss the hands and feet of your Holiness. So used always the emperor Charles V to subscribe to his letters, when he writ unto pope Clement the seventh. Which he did not upon a feigned courtesy, but indeed in most humble and servile manner kissed the Pope's feet, in open sight of the people, and the greatest assemblies of many noble princes, at Bononia, Rome, and last of all at Marsielles in Provence, where were met together the Pope, the Emperor, the Kings of France and Navarre, the dukes of Savoy, of Buillon, Florence, Ferrara, Vitemberg the Grand Master of Malta, with many other princes and great lords, who all kissed the Pope's feet, except the dukes of Buillon and Vitemberg, Protestant princes, who had forsaken the rites and ceremonies of the church of Rome. In far more base sort did that duke of Venice humble himself (who of the Venetians themselves is called a dog) for that he with a rope about his neck, and creeping upon all four like a beast, so craved pardon of Pope Clement the 5th. But nothing was more base, than that which almost all historiographers which write of the Pope's affairs, report of the Emperor Frederick the Second, who to redeem his son out of prison, lying prostrate upon the ground at the feet of the Pope Alexander the Fourth, suffered him to tread upon his head, if the histories be true. Whereby it is well to be perceived, the Majesty of the Emperors, by the power (should I say) or by the outrageousness of the Bishops of Rome, to have been so diminished, as that scarce the shadow of their ancient majesty seems now to remain. They also say themselves to be greater than the emperors, and that so much greater, as is the Sun greater than the Moon: that is to say, six thousand six hundred forty and five times, if we believe Ptolemy and the Arabians. And that more is, they have always pretended a right unto the empire: for the imperial seat being vacant, they have given the investitures unto them which held of the empire, and received of them their fealty: as they did of John and Luchin, viscounts of Milan, the imperial seat being empty in the year 1341, who are in the records called vassals of the church of Rome, and not of the empire; and are forbidden their obedience unto Lewes of Bavaria the Emperor, who was then excommunicated, as we have before said. For which cause the Canonists have maintained, that the emperor cannot give up his imperial dignity unto any, but unto the pope. >But howsoever the Bishop of Rome pretended to have a sovereignty over all Christian princes, not only in spiritual, but also in temporal affairs, whether they got it by force of arms, or by the devotion and grant of princes; or by long possession and prescription: yet could not our kings even for any most short time endure the servitude of the Bishop of Rome, nor be moved with any their excommunication, which the Popes used as firebrands to the firing of Christian Commonwealths. For these Popes interdictions, or excommunications, were wont with other nations, to draw the subjects from the obedience and reverence of their prince: but such has always been the love of our kings towards their people (and so I hope shall be forever) and loyalty of the people towards their kigns: that when pope Boniface the Eight saw himself nothing to prevail by his excommunication, nor that the people were to be drawn from the obedience of their king, after he had publically excommunicated Philip the Fair, he in like manner excommunicated all the French nation, with all them which took Philip for a king. But Philip having called together an assembly of his princes, and other his nobility, and pereceving in his subjects in general a wonderful consent for his defense of his state and sovereignty: he thereupon writ letters unto Boniface (which are common in every man's hand) to reprove him of his folly: and shortly after sent Nogaret with his army into the Pope's territory, who took the Pope prisoner, (giving him well to understand that the King was not his subject, as he had by his Bull published) but seeing him through impatience to become furious and mad, he set him again at liberty. Yet from that the Pope's interdiction, the King by the advice of his nobility and Senat, appealed unto a general council, which had power over the Pope, abusing the holy cities. For the king next unto Almighty God had none his superior, unto whom he might appeal: but the Pope is bound unto the decrees and commands of the council. And long times before Philip the Victorious, and his realm being interdicted by Pope Alexander the Third, who would have brought him into his subjection: answered him by letters, That he held nothing of the pope, nor yet of any prince in the world. Benedict the third, and Julius the second, had used the like excommunication against Charles the seventh, and Lewes the twelfth (who was called the Father of his country) that so as with firebrands they might inflame the people to rebellion: yet failed they both of their hope, the obedience of the subjects being nothing diminished, but rather increased: the Bull of excommunication which the Popes legat brought into France, being by the decree of the parliament of Paris openly torn to pieces, and the legat for his presumptuousness cast in prison… True it is, that they which have thought better to assure the majesty of the Kings of France against the power of the Pope, have obtained the Pope's bulls whilest they yet stat in the city of Auignion to be exempted from their power. And namely there is in the records of France a Bull of Pope Clements the Fifth, whereby he not only absolved Philip the Fair and his subjects from the interdiction of Boniface the Eight, but also declared the King and the realm to be exempted from the Pope's power. Pope Alexander the Fourth also gave this privilege unto the realm of France, That it could not for any cause be interdicted, which was afterward by seven Popes successively confirmed by Gregory, Clement the fourth, Urban the fifth, and Benedict the twelfth, whose bull yet remain in the records of France: which yet seem unto me not to increase, but rather to diminish the majesty of our Kings, who were never in any thing beholden unto the Popes. And that more is, the court of parliament of Paris, has been by many decrees declared the clause, By the authority Apostolical; usually inserted into the Popes rescripts sent into France, to be void, mere abusive, and to no purpose: and therefore it behooved him, that would help himself by any such the popes rescript, to protest in judgment, That he would not any way take benefit of that clause. By all which things it is plainly to be understood, not only the kings, but the Kingdom of France also, to have been always free from the Pope's power and command.
(879.75 KB 1200x1824 Grace angry transparent.png)

(122.10 KB 1035x632 Bodin on pope 02.png)

(96.77 KB 1026x429 Bodin on pope 01.png)


Jean Bodin on popes continued >Upon this difference cast themselves into the protection of the Kings of France, who were the GREATEST Monarchs of Christendom; wherein they were not of their hope deceived. For hereupon, Pipin, Grand M. of France (a man of great wealth and power, who then disposed of all the affairs of the realm) with a great army passing over the Alps, overthrew and discomfited the power of the Lombards, and afterward going to Rome, was the first that gave unto Pope Zacharie, part of the seignorie of Italy, who had before crowned him King of France, forbidding the peers and people of France to make of any choice of any other for their kings but of the house of Pipin, having publicly pronounced King Childeric for his sottishness to be unable for the government. Whereunto the people of France made so much the less resistance, for that Pipin then had the nobility and the army of France at command: and for that the Pope (who as then was esteemed as a God upon earth) was the author thereof, unto whom Pipin had before solemnly promised, and given him letters pattents thereof, That if he should become victorious over the Lombards, he should give unto the Church of Rome the Exarchate of Ravenna, which contained thirty cities, and the province of Pentapole, which contained sixteen cities moe; which he after the victory performed, laying the keys of the said cities upon Saint Peter's altar; yet reserving unto himself and his successors in the crown of France, the sovereignty of both the provinces; and that more is, power also to choose the Popes. Whereunto the Pope not only willingly granted, but almost persuaded Pipin to take upon him the name of an emperor: which title none then used, but the emperors of Constantinople. But Pipin being dead, the Lombards again took up arms, to the great disquiet of the Popes, who again had recourse unto the French Kings, as unto ta most sure sanctuary. Whereunto Charles, Pipin his son (for his many and worthy victories surnamed the Great) with a strong army passing the Alps, not only overthrew the king of the Lombards, but even their kingdom also: and having surely established the power of the Roman bishops, was by them called Emperor: and they again by Charles so long as he lived, all chosen bishops of Rome. But after the death of this Charlemagne, they which were of great credit in Rome, caused themselves to by chosen pope by the clergy, whether it were for the distrust they had to obtain that dignity of the Kings of France, having no favor in the court; or through the negligence of the French Kings, who had thereof no great care; or that it was by reason of the great civil wars which arose betwixt the children of Lewes the Gentle, wherewith the French Kings busied, lost the prerogative they had in choosing of the chief Bishop. Yet Guitard, a great antiquary, who lived in the same time writes, 3 Popes successively to have come into France to excuse themselves to Lewes the Gentle, That they had been by the clergy of Rome constrained to accept the papal dignity, beseeching him to confirm the same: which he either as a man not desirous of glory, or else fearing to provoke the clergy (being then in great authority) did: of which his error he afterwards though to late full sore repented him; being by the college of cardinals constrained to yield up his Crown, & to make himself a monk, and his wife a nun, shut up apart from her husband in a cloister with other nuns, who yet were again afterwards delivered by the princes and nobility of France, (disdaining to see the pride of the clergy) and so again restored unto their former honors. But after the death of this Lewes the Gentle (who was Emperor of France, of Germany, and of greater part of Italy, and Spain) the empire was divided into three kingdoms, which the brethren Charles the Bauld, Lothaire, and Lewes, every one of them held in title of sovereignty, without acknowledging a superiority of one another; and again, the kingdom of Lothaire was divided amongst his children into three parts: unto one fell the kingdom of Lorraine, unto another the kingdom of Arles, and to the third the kingdom of Italy: Lewes holding Germany, and Charles the Emperor, France. So their divided power began to decay, and the wealth of the bishops of Rome greatly to increase: they now succeeding one another by way of election, and in nothing acknowledging the majesty of the French kings, as they ought to have done: which came to pass especially in the time of Pope Nicholas the First, who better understood to manage matters of state than his predecessors, and was the first that used the rigors of excommunication against princes, having excommunicated Lothaire the younger brother of Lewes king of Italy." >Howbeit that in truth the right of choosing of the pope belonged to the Kings of France, and not unto the German princes, who have but usurped the name and title of emperors, got by the prowess and force of Charlemagne king of France and by him left unto his successors the kings of France, and not unto the kings of Germany; for so they were called in all the ancient treaties and histories of Germany and France, and not emperors, except those which were crowned by the popes. But after that the power of the German kings was far spread in Italy, they then sought to usurp unto themselves that right of choosing of the bishops of Rome: whether it were for the increasing of their own wealth and power, or for to take away the ambition and foul corruption then used in voices giving, and in their elections. For the emperor Henry the third thrust out of his papacy Gregory the sixt, chosen pope by the clergy, and set Clement the second in his place, and afterwards compelled the clergy to swear, not from thenceforth to admit any into the papacy, without the consent of the German emperors; as we have learned out of the Vatican records. But Clement the second being dead, the college of cardinals sent ambassadors unto the emperor to appoint whom he thought good to be pope, who appointed Pepon, afterwards called Damasus the second; who dead, the clergy again sent ambassadors unto the emperor, for the creating of a new pope.
(45.58 KB 800x600 France_1552-1798.png)

(156.74 KB 1440x1465 New-France1750.png)

>pic 1, Louis XIV receiving keys to Strasbourg >pic in Versailles, cities captured, including Strasbourg >other pics in Versailles war room ceiling You can view it here. http://www.galeriedesglaces-versailles.fr/html/11/collection/guerre.html
>Minerva personifies the Royal Wisdom which is also at the origin of the project of the royal hotel of the Invalides. Around 1670, Louis XIV had decided to build a hotel that would house officers wounded in service. The edict of establishment of the hotel dates from April 1674, but the medal of the History of the king which was struck for its inauguration bears the date of 1675. This medal includes a cavalier view of the building quite close to the painting in the Hall of Mirrors (only the foreground differs). Let us add that the architectural plan is a traditional attribute of Magnificence which is undoubtedly also mentioned here: the word is even used in the text of the Mercure galant of December 1684.
>The king is painted on his throne, his feet resting on a red cushion; his right hand rests on the government tiller and at the same time points to the Harpyes being chased by Minerva; he holds in his left hand the golden key of the casket of the royal treasure which he hands to Fidélité (this key was added by Charles Le Brun at the very last moment: it does not appear in the box kept at the Musée du Louvre, inv. 29950). Fidelity shows the sovereign the books of accounts; suppliant France is on its knees before him; the king is dressed in armor and the fleurdelysé blue mantle. François Charpentier (1684) sums up the subject by writing: "the care of finances has always occupied the greatest princes, who by this means make themselves formidable to their enemies, and put themselves in a position to relieve their subjects". >France is represented kneeling at the feet of the king: she wears the closed crown, holds the scepter in her left hand and is dressed in the fleurdelysé blue mantle; it begs the sovereign to remedy the abuses committed in the field of finance; it is the “partisans”, that is to say the financiers responsible for collecting taxes, who are particularly targeted (they are symbolized by the Harpyes painted just behind France: in the box preparing the composition [Louvre, inv. 29950], the Harpyes attacked France directly); Gérard Sabatier (1999) indicated the relation of this composition with an anonymous engraving of October 21, 1624: France demands justice from the king against the financiers >The Piety of Louis XIV is represented by a winged young woman with a flame on the top of her head, who holds a cornucopia and distributes bread to the people. The attributes are consistent with the allegory of Piety in Iconologiaby Cesare Ripa: the flame on the top of the head signifies that "the spirit is ablaze with the love of God, the more it is exercised in Piety, which naturally aspires to heavenly things"; the cornucopia means that "whenever it is a question of doing works of piety, we must not take into account worldly riches but liberally assist those whom we know to be in need". This is what Louis XIV did by distributing wheat to the people who lacked it because of a bad harvest during the summer of 1662, which was called the “crisis of the advent”. The subject was the subject of a medal entitled: FAMES PIETATE PRINCIPIS SUBLEVATA MDCLXII (France preserved from famine by the piety of the prince in 1662).
(1.49 MB 4356x2222 Grace Egypt 08.jpg)

"My heart leads me in doing excellent things for Seti I. 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."
Got to say, aside from when they had that Corsican upstart as Emperor, French military prowess has gone completely downhill ever since they became a Republic. If we restored the French monarchy do you think France would become a great military power again?
>>3138 Yes, but I doubt there will be any restoration, even if a monarchy formed in France. My hunch is, that if there's ever going to a Monarch, he certainly isn't going to wear a crown.
>>3141 Considering the state of modern degeneracy, any monarch would likely have to wear a strap-on.
(629.08 KB 1800x1800 Grace Switch video game.png)

>>3142 I find that royalism itself is a taboo. Like they say it was for the Romans. And that it's like a dead branch, and dead tree trunk, easily being struck off. Neither do royalists or monarchists themselves genuinely believe in royalism or any monarchist ideals... I've seen communists who would probably make better monarchists, because they sincerely believe in their leaders and their cause. The best we have are anarchists and tradcaths who are left crying over spilled milk (i.e. the Reformation). And no crown will be worn because 1. it's terrible politically -- comes packaged with these loaded ideas and none of them really count for much. I don't see anyone rushing to put a crown on only to be a rubber stamp or get called a tyrant the moment he does anything. 2. royalist / monarchist supporters are useless and lousy. 3. Depending on whether Christianity returns to relevance or not, the old aesthetic of royalism is unlikely to come back -- those were attached to Christianity or the royal dynasties. 4. Crowns themselves are no longer a good symbol. Even royalists themselves will think you're less capable of governing if you put on a crown (because like I said, most don't believe any royal even should govern or are true aristocrats). I've seen Internet monarchists show more passion and loyalty to the idea of Donald Trump getting elected or fascism. Any return to Monarchy or royalism will likely look like North Korea or appear different from what anons here anticipate.
>>3143 It has been demonstrated time and again that the average pleb will gladly liberties and freedoms for strong and stable leadership. Just look at Napoleon in Gaul, Franco in Iberia, Hitler in Germania, Erdogan in Anataloia, Putin in Ruthenia. A gradual return to a total monarchy situation would not be that hard to pull off as the people all secretly demand it.
>>3144 I don't doubt that there could potentially be a return to Monarchy, but our conventions today of royalism or royal monarchy, let alone restorations? I strongly doubt. Let me put this into proper context: I have known monarchists who have tried to assist a restoration effort, but only found that said royals involved only cared to be anonymous and getting rich. That's why I say, that any return to Monarchy will unlikely be wearing crowns (unless it be a restoration of an older royalty).
>>3146 As for constitutionalism, while the majority of royalists fall into the constitutionalist camp, I don't believe the hype that constitutionalism is still the hot stuff in the 21st century. WW1 + the decline of the British Empire says that constitutional monarchy has become old-fashioned and like a relic of the Victorian era. While restorationists have the benefit of the doubt that if there were a restored dynasty, they would be constitutionalist, it isn't so likely there will restorations. Constitutionalism has the status quo, but nothing more -- various political ideologies still take the field. And there's a leniency more towards being a republic than returning to being a kingdom as far as constitutionalism goes... so the most limited monarchs you'll be seeing are non-royal heads of state like presidents or prime ministers. It is like Pepin the Short & Mayor of the Palace, except instead of usurping the Kingdom after overthrowing a figurehead, they stay put.
>>3146 Monarchs aren't made, they're chosen by God (and I don't necessarily mean this in the Christian way). We are not going to see a restoration by voting for it to happen, the concept of electing a republic into a monarchy is absurd. That being said, I doubt restorations as such will happen. Returns to monarchy, certainly. But the involvement of many members of the old aristocracy seems unlikely. The surviving constitutional monarchies have a fairly strong association between the (powerless) monarch and the republican-style government. Any failing of the latter is likely to reflect on the former, so them using a failing republic to leverage themselves back into power is likely to fail. As for countries where the aristocracy got pushed out completely: They've been private citizens for a century. I'm as nostalgic for the Habsburgs as the next man, but the reality is that many, though not all, of the old aristocracy got corrupted by the world (and I can say this from personal experience) over the century of them being private citizens in a rapidly degenerating culture. What we're likely to see (and what Irlmaier, among others, prophesied) is a complete meltdown of government at some point, which is inevitable due to the many failings of republics as a concept, coupled with/caused by a larger surrounding crisis, and a leader appearing in that moment, who fixes things up locally, which causes men to flock to him, which the leader then uses to bring order back to more of the lands. In that case, nobody is going to object to a crown either, because they were just saved from starvation, marauding barbarians, and general chaos by this new monarch. Most will agree that he is better than them, for he will have proven it a hundred times over. New monarchies, and new aristocracies will arise in time. It is as inevitable as the sun rising in the morning.
(533.96 KB 1800x1800 Grace royal tears.png)


>>3148 >New monarchies, and new aristocracies will arise in time This is what irks me. Royalists today, don't even believe the Monarch is a true aristocrat. They refer to the Nobility as the aristocracy, but what happened to Darius in the Herodotus Debate, who said that... THE MONARCH WAS OUR BEST MAN! No royalist believes a Monarch is the true aristocrat, like the Herodotus Debate. Aristocrat meaning rule of the best, not the few. Like Bodin said, it is more for Monarchy, that the Monarch is the sole Aristocrat. I know, that I come from an absolutist hinge, that we should ultimately revere the Monarch above all else, rather than the nobility (as traditionalists and royalists are fond of), but how the royalists use the term aristocrat exclusive from Monarch is another proof that they don't believe Monarchy is worthy of being true aristocracy and are convinced by Otanes or Megabyzus rather than Darius. >What we're likely to see (and what Irlmaier, among others, prophesied) is a complete meltdown of government at some point It seems like wishful thinking. We'll end up like any other group, like leftists who say that revolution will inevitably happen, or natsocs or libertarians thinking a collapse is coming. >and a leader appearing in that moment That is part of the problem, anon. We are sheep without a shepherd.
The whole notion of pre-eminence or majesty of Monarchy is dead among royalists. And the royalist ideals concerning Monarchy, like Bodin said, that the true image of a commonwealth is a family or household well ordered, is dead. There is that familial spirit or patriotism concerning Royal Monarchy... I get irked at tradcath Jacobites for the same reason, that while they claim to care about royalism, they only care about restoring Catholicism and said so about James II (and especially irked with them who cling to monarchomachist theories from the Wars of Religion), but not the Cavalier cause and as it was related to Charles I. (Royalism, that meant the esteemed political ideals of royal monarchy, as talked about a kingdom being a great family, or the extraordinary nature of the person of the prince, where one man is sovereign, is dead). That is dead to most people in royalist circles. When I said that communists would make better monarchists, I sincerely meant it. They don't talk about killing their leaders, because they believed in them. Even the idea of the Monarch being a helmsman or pilot, they have with Mao (another sign that they believe a person is very capable). Even in North Korea, I could feel sympathy, because like Bodin said, "The true image of a Commonwealth is a family/household well ordered" -- they're the only state that really believes that ideal, that I felt was the soul of royalism (and no longer believed by any royalists, that the royal government prevailed because they were of the same blood and suckled with the same milk). What about the idea that Monarchy is a household under one head? North Korea sees that in the WPK, Kim Jong Un is the Leader (like a Shepherd is a Leader) and the party is like a house under one head, and esteem him as a teacher and source of wisdom (something royalists don't see).
>>3149 Personally, I'd very much count the monarch as above the nobility/aristocracy. I'm a follower of Evola, the monarch to me is -literally- a god on earth. Aristocrats are the best men... but they are not gods. However, absolutism (as practiced, not as the name implies) does not follow from that. The monarch gives out fiefs which are then governed by lords. These then hand parts of the land to lower nobility and so on until you've got peasant families getting their strip of land. The monarch is the father of the country in a literal sense, like the father of a family. Much like older brothers are set to watch over younger siblings, the nobility is set to watch the masses. The father meanwhile, has more important things that concern him. As above, so below. The entire structure repeats from palaces right into peasant huts and through this, the monarch allows even the meanest peasant participation in the Divine, which he embodies in a literal sense. A monarchy is an earthly reproduction of Heaven. Much like God has his angels, so does the monarch have his nobility. A feudal system does not imply that the monarch becomes merely the first among equals.
Even communists have a kind of reverence for monarchist ideals. For example, Aquinas here talks about the Monarch being a helmsman. >>3151 >However, absolutism (as practiced, not as the name implies) does not follow from that. The monarch gives out fiefs which are then governed by lords. Yes, it does, but the Monarch is central to the system and governs. What is peddled is that Absolutism is more towards meritocracy than hereditary nobles, but even in the Middle Ages the Monarch had officials who would manage the household and work for the service of the country. >Much like older brothers are set to watch over younger siblings The Father raises his sons, not the brother of said son. >The father meanwhile, has more important things that concern him It is not beneath the Monarch to be political. Monarchy is a political form of government. Feudfags value feudalism more than Monarchy. >Much like God has his angels, so does the monarch have his nobility. But the Monarch has supreme authority, and we tend to revere God more than angels (who are like a footnote in comparison). Feudfags seem to me to only care about becoming nobles than the grand estate of Monarchy, where one man rules supreme, and only associate the name of Monarchy / Royalism with the ideal of nobles. But forget that Monarchy goes beyond royalism, but even a statesman if he be one person is like a monarch (although mostly limited).
(879.75 KB 1200x1824 Grace angry transparent.png)

(105.84 KB 1012x603 Bodin on Lord of All Things.png)

(7.67 MB 7000x3850 part 19 fixed.jpg)

(82.90 KB 1255x578 Hobbes_property.png)

It's typical for them to shill for an Oligarchy, and take the focus away from Monarchy, like I warned about feudfags. Here you go talking about the brother governing over children rather than the Father. This is your mind on feudfaggotry, where you drop the pre-eminence of Monarchy and simp for nobles and anarcho-capitalist ideals of decentralization rather than understanding the centrality of Monarchy, that has the relationship of the general to particular. Outright crypto-oligarchy faggotry, that's what feudalfaggotry has become. My God, would it kill them to stop giving lipservice to the nobility and pay heed to Monarchist ideals, where one ruler is supreme and governs. Like Homer says, "Each one gives law to his children and to his wives." Or, "Let there be one ruler, one king!" rather than advocating petty kingdoms. The Monarch is lord of all goods. He does give out land from an absolutist point of view. He even has an administration that could concern the nobility, but the Monarch is seen as political and has the relationship of general to particular... he is not a limited monarch chosen by the nobility to be like a particular to general.
(647.37 KB 1800x1800 Grace royal tears hat.png)

I know what the traditionalists are thinking, when I talk about the pre-eminence of Monarchy and absolutism. Like always, they equate everything with Catholicism... So no doubt you're thinking I take the nobles like the clergy, and advocate Protestant ideas that we should focus directly on God rather than the clergy... Because everything revolves around Catholicism for them. (At least, I am guessing, with trads you never know). Or NRx peddling HLvM (which again, they're borrowing from nobles who opposed these ideals in the past like Alexander de Tocqueville and the like). Give me a break. When I talk about the pre-eminence of Monarchy, it goes beyond these petty denominational disputes, but that Monarchy itself is a unique system that puts one man in focus, not the nobility or his administrators, but he himself is believed to govern the whole people. Which sounds radical, but Monarchy in that context is understood that one man leads them.
(719.54 KB 1350x1350 Grace eats watermelon.png)

I would kill for a monarchist who isn't a total feudfag (that sucks of the nobles and thinks of himself as a wine-sipping noble) or a constitutionalist (that heavily shills the prime minister), but someone who genuinely believes that the Monarch has a pre-eminence.
(3.91 MB 3400x3082 grace-reprimands.png)

(21.06 MB 544x304 Ramses The Greatest Hero.mp4)

(11.33 MB 544x304 Pi-Ramses Capital.mp4)

>>3155 I am so sick of the trad types who talk about politics like poorman's theology and conflate everything with Catholicism. Would kill to have an anon who believes in the idea of Monarchy rather than constantly shilling for a noble oligarchy and snipping about one-man rulers as dictators. If only we could look at it in its proper political context. I understand well, that the Monarch has servants and a nobility, but they always sidestep the Monarch and abandon those Monarchist ideals, because they have taken heed to some trad autism related to >>3155 what I said here. As I have argued with those who have ulterior motives, whether it be ancaps who prioritize the nobility because they equate Monarch = centralization or statism interfering with the free market, or catholics who view it as a shade of protestantism (a narrative I'm SICK and ill of constantly being equated to everything) with the nobility being the political equivalent of the clergy... rather than respecting Monarchy itself as a form of state and understanding that the crucial underpinning is the one man rules, they come up with these bogus equations that interfere with this ideal of pre-eminence. Personally, I think we need a political monarchy and could care less for having a nobility or bloating about a meritocracy. I think we need one man to lead us, like it was initially said, and while I understand the place of those who work for him (like I said about the Disciples of Christ), it doesn't mean that the Monarch doesn't have "anything important to do with it". Blegh, we need a Monarch to be a ruler where the oligarchist tendency has caused problems -- their constant stagnation and political parties, and their political hampering, and trivalities, are something only a MONARCH could resolve, not the nobles, and to me it is IMPORTANT that the Monarch be involved with the affairs of state and his country, and would be believed as a true leader who has wisdom -- not only because of his administrations -- but because he himself devised that. This is all so trite to me. If only we could have monarkiddies that believed in a grand monarchy rather than this conceit of the nobility, constantly being faggots about it, and not adhering the the politics concerned with Monarchist ideal as I stated.
(642.62 KB 1800x1800 Grace disdain look.png)


A father who trusts his son's brother to look after his sons and go drink coffee all day is an irresponsible father. That is a terrible outline. I much prefer Homer who speaks of Monarchy in the sense that "each one gives law to his children and his wives". Of course, a father could appoint a son's brother or hire a babysitter, but ultimately it is the father who governs and watches over them. If we take the father out of the picture, it is no longer concerning Monarchy. If we think of it as this brotherhood and fraternity, where brothers themselves are only assembled, then it is an Oligarchy, the rule of a few men, rather than the rule of one man. If this brotherhood appoints one of their brothers to preside over their brotherly meetings, it is a limited monarchy in a state oligarchical. It doesn't matter whether the Monarch has nobles or statesmen, imo. The state itself is reproduced, like a household, from families. While the idea of nobles sounds better because we think of established families, but it really makes no difference to me, because as Plato states, that a king, a statesman, a dictator, and a despot pretty much have the same despotic expertise. The state itself and any administrators always themselves come from a family. What matters is whether they adhere to a state monarchical and carry what their father had directed themselves, rather than divide into another entity or state oligarchical... I could care less for having a clique of nobles in this instance, because if we have the monarch as best man who is reproduced, he needs assured officials whose loyalty are to him and interchangeable, to branch out... he could have nobles too, as honorary -- it isn't exclusive to the idea of meritocracy, but I personally see nothing wrong with the Monarch having state officials so demonized, that are men of learning chosen for this end. We should not forget, that by law and by the form of state itself, the Monarch is considered to be the one who governs in Monarchy -- regardless of how many statesmen or nobles serve him. The focus is never detached from the Monarch. And this Monarchy is a political system, that the entire city is like a great household, under the watchfulness of their father (and not only the brothers). We should not confuse brothers, simply because they are appointed, to be sovereign or that the father is now insignificant and the brother of his son take pre-eminence. That sounds ridiculous to me... But no less, I doubt it sounds incredulous to most people, when they say "one man cannot rule alone" and make those cases, quite bitterly against the state of monarchy, and deny this pre-eminence. Of course, the sovereign monarch has a government, but I won't deny a Monarch rules simply because a MASTER has SLAVES carrying out his bidding or that the FATHER sometimes has his SONS -- doesn't mean the sons are now presumed superior to the father or the slaves to their master.
(435.02 KB 1350x1350 Grace arms fold.png)

(14.16 KB 1079x180 feudfag 02.png)

(15.25 KB 1309x128 feudfag 01.png)

(145.59 KB 637x594 04.jpg)

>>3151 Now, I understand, that you don't consider the monarch one among equals, but that's typically what every feudfag advocates, whereas it is the absolutists who stay the Monarch has the relationship of general to particular. It is usually the feudfags who view the Monarch as just another noble and nothing especial. They only care for the idea that they are mini monarchs, rather than a pre-eminent monarch... which reverts back to the problem of petty kings, that Caligula said, "let there be one ruler, one king" because the states became more oligarchical and being a king was no longer something special. The absolutist view has nothing against the idea of this being reproduced, and despite the bad press -- not even against a nobility (although I confess, I have had enough of tradfags gloating about the nobility like they are oligarchyfags). The Commonwealth is seem in the context of families. If feudfags had their way, they would put it as if the Disciples of Christ should be every barrier to Christ. They like the idea of mini-monarchs more than a supreme and grand monarchy, which leads inevitably to oligarchical states. Just like how a Diarchy could be made of two kings, but nevertheless be an oligarchy (because Monarchy is one ruler, not two rulers). If you look at these screencaps related, you see all the problems with feudfags on full display and where most of them depart from the idea of Monarchy. It no longer becomes the idea of a supreme father or monarch over the state, but the entitled nobles and their cliques.
(798.56 KB 1200x1824 Grace look pic transparent.png)

(98.51 KB 653x506 hoppean anarcho-feudalist.jpg)

(79.35 KB 1267x213 Feudal faggot.jpg)

(7.15 KB 788x84 feudboy stuff 02.png)

I would plead with you to re-consider being a feudboy, but I doubt you'll heed my words for whatever motives... Just look at this feudfaggotry. I would ask you to re-consider it, where you began to think of a brother rather than a father, sounds like a big departure from the monarchist ideal (which has NEVER once in any political treatise I know, talked about brotherly rule or let alone mentioned it, compared to the pre-eminence of a Father). That is alien to a monarchist point of view, which has always talked primarily about the Father as supreme over his children in general.
(395.56 KB 768x1024 Grace vomits.png)

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



To drive my point home, let me give you a few classic examples. Example #1, too many kings can ruin an army-mob rule! Let there be ONE commander, ONE master only Whatever ONE man needs to lead his lead his people well ^Homer doesn't even bring up any brother, but explicitly talks about a Monarch leading his people. This is the same exact thing that feudfags today SCOFF at or call a despotic dictatorship. 2nd screencap, Homer calls Zeus Father of the Gods, and talks about the relationship between Father and Son (which is sovereign and subject), doesn't even bring up a brother. But the pre-eminence of the Father. All well before Protestantism this is understood. But the supreme state of Monarchy and it explicitly being the rule of one person. And whenever we hear about any brothers, it's always the case of a Diarchy, where inevitably one kills the other -- Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, and so forth. That's the relationship between the oligarchs and people, and their political parties, constantly wanting to kill each other... Whereas like Hesiod says, the Monarch soothes with soft words and stops this.
The last thing I should add about feudfags: They always present themselves as a 3rd option between absolutism and constitutionalism, but truthfully said -- it was always only between absolutism and constitutionalism, or another form (for them, oligarchy). The feudfag is a constitutionalist or oligarchyfag at heart. Usually they appeal to a more antiquated constitutionalism. There is only an absolutist or constitutionalist view of Monarchy, imo. You are either for the mixed constitutional or the pre-eminent state of Monarchy as sovereign. It's either the Monarchy that has the relationship of the general to the particular or the Monarchy that has the relationship of the particular to the general. They are kidding themselves if they think "feudalism" is a whole other form of Monarchy. It's not.
>I'm angry, angry about Feudalism Good read. I just want Grace OC of her ranting about it now.

(90.26 KB 1008x456 hobbes mixed state.png)

(47.90 KB 1029x253 Bodin rule by turns mixed.png)

>Athens was a true democracy, and in Plato's critique of it, he advocated form of Republic. A mixture of a monarchy and democracy, a combination of bottom up voting and top down representation. Jean Bodin & absolutists denied a mixed form. Instead they said that there were 3 forms. "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 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." -Jean Bodin There is a false trend identifying Absolutism as the ideology of the Middle Ages. Because Constitutionalism was for the Middle Ages & Renaissance the predominate ideology, and like Bodin said, had the leverage and authority of antiquity. There was always in royalist circles a dialogue between constitutionalism and absolutism, before absolutism was formally manifest as a political ideology in the later half of the 1500s, but much more obscure… wherever there was any longing for a pre-eminence of Monarchy or as talked about in the Herodotus debate (that constitutionalists view as obsolete, imo). Bodin said Plato had 4 regimes (and I know Plato has 5, but I think he discounted the tyranny or the rule of the wise), but overall only thought 3 regimes (since rule of the wise is a pure aristocracy from his pov). Denied that he had a mixed… but for Rome, he says, "But here might some man object, That the Senat of Rome had power to make laws, & that the more part of the greatest affairs of estate, in peace or war, were in the power of the Roman Senat to determine of. But what the authority of the Senat is, or ought to be in every Commonweal, we shall in due place declare. But by the way to answer that it is objected, I say, that the Senat of Rome, from the expulsion of the kings, until the time of the emperors had never power to make law, but only certain decrees and ordinances: which were not in force past a year, wherewith for all that the common people were not bound, and so much less the whole body and estate of the people. Wherein many are deceived and especially Conan, who says, That the Senat had power to make a perpetual law: for Dionysius Halycarnasseus, who had diligently read the Commentaries of Marcus Varro, writes, That the decrees of the Senat had not any force, if they were not by the people confirmed: and albeit that they were so confirmed, yet if they were not published in form of a law, they then had force but for one year. No more than the city of Athens, where the decrees of the Senat were but annuall, as says Demosthenes in the Oration which he made against Aristocrates: and if it were a matter of importance, it was referred unto the people to dispose thereof as they thought good: which Anacharsis the philosopher seeing merrily said, The wise and grave propound matters at Athens, and fools and mad men resolve thereof. And so the Senat in Rome did but consult, but the people command: For so Livy oft times says, Senatus decreuit, populus tussit, The Senat hath decreed, and the people commanded. Yet true it is, that the magistrates, and namely the Tribunes, oft times suffered the decrees of the Senat, in a manner to have the force of laws, if the matter seemed not to impair the power of the people, or to be prejudicial unto the majesty of the estates in general." -Jean Bodin And says, at the last line, "Majesty in the people in general" which matters – because like I said before, sovereignty is seen as having the authority of general to particular. Bodin says that majesty is sovereignty. "Wherefore let us firmly set down and resolve there are but three forms of Commonweals, and no more, and those simple also, and without any confused mixture of the with another, albiet that the government be sometimes contrary to the state. As a Monarchy is contrary to a Democracy or popular estate; and yet nevertheless the sovereignty may be in one only prince, who may popularly govern his estate, as I have before said; and yet it shall not be for that a confusion of the popular estate with a Monarchy, which are states of themselves incompatible, but is well (as it were) combining of a Monarchy with a popular government, the most assured Monarchy that is." -Jean Bodin
>>3164 And while Bodin did say, that the mixed form has the dignity of antiquity, he did try to snatch Herodotus and Plato.
(494.19 KB 1200x1824 0210602104313.png)

>>3151 >Aristocrats are the best men... but they are not gods There are two views of this. There's the ceremonialist view (that is called sacred) and the absolutist view (that is called divine) and generally it interprets the view of the pre-eminent man who is said to be "not part of a state" -- for the ceremonialist view, it's that "he isn't part of a state, because he's a god and has no concerns with the affairs of men" view or the other view that "he is no part of a state, he IS the state!" view that is called divine and does partake in the political. While the pre-eminence is beyond meritocracy, the Monarch is still viewed as the very best man as in the Herodotus Debate. It was Darius who argued on behalf of Monarchy, and I will quote him. "For the coice 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... He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch." I hold that the ceremonialist view here is apolitical, and doesn't mean much for the political state of Monarchy, but rather becomes something else. Imo, an apolitical royal is no different than a deposed ruler. Except that the other sometimes keeps his life. The secret of the apolitical royal's survival is he doesn't get involved in politic... And while ceremonialists will tout that this is why apolitical royalty is the best, I don't think it really counts, because like I said -- there is no difference between an apolitical royal and a deposed royal. Even deposed royals like Pu Yi later become symbols (like he was for Mao, a symbol of communism's defeat of imperialism) and proletarian triumph. To further elaborate why I discredit it as something to boast about, let me give an example. Imagine that you have contestants in a race. The loser first is defeated, but inevitably each contestant in the race fails. The runner who ran the furthest gets the most honor... but at the last moment, a non-contestant walks onto the ring from the audience and says, "I won the race!" without even running. I would respect the loser, even though he didn't even run that much further, than a non-contestant who claimed victory. That's how I feel about the ceremonialist take about longevity -- to that I add, I generally admire political monarchy for its accomplishments, even if it be a short span, but an apolitical royalty I generally only respect by the feats and culture of the people (since that's what they are regarded to be a symbol of) or whatever religion. They might have the honor and esteem of the state and culture, but to be an apolitical royalty doesn't really take the risk or ambition involved than any other citizen who is ruled. From my point of view, a pre-eminent & political monarchy is definitely needed.
>>3166 The ceremonialist view takes royalty to be like a collectible, imo, that shouldn't be opened and pushed away to a corner and hidden from the sight of everyone. Sacredness in what cannot be done. Whereas the divine point of view stresses the awe and power of the pre-eminent Monarch on Earth, and his ability to govern the people, like it was for Ramses II. He is very much considered the best (as a superior who has the relationship of general to particular) and pre-eminent while being a political ruler. It isn't for no reason that Hobbes called the Leviathan to be a Mortal God. The political state of Monarchy does resemble a supreme command on Earth, that is the very best like it was stated by Darius in the Herodotus Debate.
(3.93 MB 4000x5000 Grace blush.jpg)

The more I think about this idea of brotherly rather than fatherly rule, the more subversive I find it. A brother isn't always regarded as an elder. As a brother could be the same age as his sibling. So it doesn't confer to the idea of being a natural superior, unless he was older... but the father is naturally a superior over all his sons and always older. This introduction of the brother than a father gives me the opposite idea, that I think you were hoping for, rather than being hierarchical, it sounds more egalitarian. The only other examples I can think about is the Orwellian "Big Brother", but I'm sure even that counts. As they talk about fraternity and being brothers, it's akin to how feminists call each other sisters.
>>3168 A brother is a rival. Never forget that.
>>3168 >>3172 not saying there's anything wrong with your idea, but maybe you just had shit brothers
>>3173 It is the natural order of things. Siblings are always natural rivals. Sisters though are worse.
A royal rule is a personal rule. That is why they abuse the term "Cult of Personality". The King is a mirror to his people, and the all people aspire towards a person like a great avatar. The Monarch is personal as they follow him like a shepherd, and his face gives a familial resemblance to them. So monarchical rule is personal like a shepherd who leads his flock with his person. The charm of princes has the same mesmerizing effect. That's why it is said, "When the government is personal, the ruler is a king." That is why I say, A people desire a person
(7.75 MB 7000x4900 part 1 fixed.jpg)


>>3179 This I explained in the "personal rule" subsection. And why it is the person of the king, not a crown, that defines Monarchy for me. As not all monarchy even has a crown to wear.
(39.46 KB 403x540 khw808.jpg)

(160.56 KB 1030x896 1 jPi08hgnkenH8f6D0tYhiQ.jpeg)

(156.46 KB 500x333 1629574937681.png)

(75.47 KB 813x398 DPRK pinned.png)

(189.93 KB 849x476 DPRK People are God doctrine.jpg)

(460.36 KB 1532x2048 84tiO7X8.jpg large.jpg)


(225.02 KB 1536x1022 Qu1KdDzZ.jpg large.jpg)

"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
(256.89 KB 1547x1953 1633897281981.png)

(7.26 MB 474x360 TSP Petersburg.mp4)

(635.33 KB 688x702 Constantine_I_Hagia_Sophia.jpg)

>>3203 >who said it better none of them lmao
Do you think that Grace bathes in ass milk like sovereigns of old?
>>3203 this pic is also related to those screencaps
>>3216 What? Like Cleopatra? Read my Egyptian series
>>3231 Grace would need a huge nose to be like Cleopatra.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply