[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/siberia/ - Off-topic

"No chin, no right to speak."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

File: 1641981040007.png (212.19 KB, 600x912, 1638614534178.png)

 No.204808[Last 50 Posts]

By invitation of posadist anon, si/b/eria hideout.
No /yuri/ allowed.


> No /yuri/ allowed.


File: 1642057288417-0.jpg (385.76 KB, 1960x1960, 1609747663091.jpg)

File: 1642057288417-1.jpg (460.34 KB, 1532x2048, 84tiO7X8.jpg large.jpg)

>What most of /pol/ & trad monarchists want
>My authentic self


File: 1642058589855.png (621.68 KB, 3000x3000, Grace t.png)

No yuri.
I think I should do a few things different with this thread.


Grace is becoming more and more cat-like in honour of her crush Alunya


File: 1642068750668-1.png (287.29 KB, 624x591, 21f.png)


File: 1642070553028.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

What do you mean cat-like?
You are obviously mistaken.


Those eyes in this pic looking positively feline.


I mean I guess cats are the best monarchists, spoiled little predators who believe the whole world exists to serve them!…


File: 1642070861744-1.jpg (62.63 KB, 600x600, lenincat.jpg)

>I guess cats are the best monarchists
I don't know.
Your comrades would probably disagree.


Cats are just the best at everything


File: 1642093014659.gif (318.17 KB, 500x281, bueno.gif)


File: 1642096618624.png (855.54 KB, 1350x1500, Grace watermelon.png)

Delete this.



File: 1642098638728.png (230.69 KB, 672x378, ClipboardImage.png)

>dat watermelon
never thought of you as someone who would eat anything without cutlery, your grace-jesty.


File: 1642099320799.png (28.31 KB, 420x420, felix_thinking.png)

Almost all the pictures tagged as "bully" are about Grace.


File: 1642100253636.png (621.68 KB, 3000x3000, Grace t.png)

a few pics make me cringe in regret
Enough bullying, anon. Have mercy.
I think I will sleep soon.


Good night, sleep well


File: 1642161839993.jpg (448 KB, 1280x720, Grace chan art2.jpg)

Good morning.
I am a chronic insomniac


File: 1642162594423.png (238.32 KB, 441x697, gracecute3.png)

Where is tea anon?


File: 1642163684327.mp4 (1.9 MB, 640x360, Comrade Jones.mp4)

We have some of the best wild-harvested, above organic in the volcanic soil coffee in the world!


File: 1642166251814-0.gif (194.88 KB, 450x580, tea-84.gif)

File: 1642166251814-1.png (267.12 KB, 402x552, ClipboardImage.png)

we ran out of milk, the cows in your royal barn were all looted yesterday, I believe it's the serfs again.


File: 1642213285552-0.png (642.62 KB, 1800x1800, Grace disdain look.png)

File: 1642213285552-1.jpg (995.01 KB, 2477x1757, ezgif-3-479d2686d9.jpg)

>the cows in your royal barn were all looted yesterday, I believe it's the serfs again.
Lefty anons like to take their anger out on me.
When it comes to the "people are starving" meme.
It is older than you'd think.
I can recall that Anglos said the same thing about Louis XIV's France, Louis XVI, & Revolutionary France.


File: 1642214362536.mp4 (5.24 MB, 640x360, Ayeka Green Tea.mp4)



File: 1642223823148-0.png (151.67 KB, 600x557, Grace Smile crop.png)

I will bring oldposts from the previous threads,
like the beloved


File: 1642223953023-1.png (839.16 KB, 995x826, leviathan.png)

File: 1642223953023-3.mp4 (9.71 MB, 480x360, Daniel04.mp4)

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.

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. Remember, that it is said in Aristotle's Politics, like a BEAST or a GOD. The pre-eminence of Monarchy is tethered to this outlook.

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 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

Most will never appreciate how monstrous Monarchy is, & how this applies to all Monarchy in general.


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!


"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

"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


File: 1642224573868-0.png (281.36 KB, 600x912, Grace Bodin 01.png)

"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


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


"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


The general and particular is explained in these screencaps. When Bodin states that the sovereign monarch having the relationship of the general to the particular states that the Sovereign gives laws to them in general and particular. Reminding of the line from Homer:

"Each one gives law to his children and to his wives."

This is a trend between absolutists and why they view "most" dictators (if we mean dictator by being an appointed office for only a bit of time) as a limited monarch, despite having an absolute power – they lack the relationship of the general to particular… aka the pre-eminence of a sovereign monarchy.

There is no difference between a king, statesman, dictator, or despot in their expertise, so a royal could also have the relationship of particular to general or be a limited monarch no less than any dictator, like an executive swapped in and out as an interchangeable part. The US President has that role like a limited monarch in that regard, the White House being the household rule that typically denotes royalty, except each are swapped in and out in their terms like parts. That is the most clear cut example.

A dictator could gain a perpetual power and sovereignty from the absolutist standpoint: throughout history, many dictators have transitioned to this kind of pre-eminence. They typically share the form of a Monarchy even though limited, but later gain this status. Like Napoleon, King Zog, Bokassa, Franco as Regent, Reza Shah, & Julius Caesar who was a literal dictator and yet centuries of royalty took after his name.

Part 2

Royal tears aside, from leftyanons calling each other kings, despots, dictators, like it is a bad thing… the opinion is that really it's the form of state that matters rather than these various types. As a king, despot, dictator, or even a statesman, are said to have the very same expertise.
So really, no matter how you put it, king, statesman, dictator, or despot, it's no real difference. Same expertise. Nevermind the foil, that someone is a despot, & that someone else is a statesman. You're all pretty much despots.

It's not whether there is a king, a statesman, a dictator, or a despot for me. But whether there is one king, one statesman, one dictator, or one despot, and whether this person has the relationship of the general to particular – or the relationship of particular to general. The former being a pre-eminent Monarchy, and the latter being limited. A pre-eminent monarchy from an absolutist point of view has a perpetual power and relationship of general to particular (aka pre-eminence).


File: 1642225902834-0.jpg (52.48 KB, 505x406, 41028.jpg)

File: 1642225902834-1.jpg (99.78 KB, 699x412, Democracy.jpg)

While the corruption argument discredits Monarchy in certain cases (like the water argument from Aristotle), Bodin states that a tyrant, even though not the best expertise, would have the merits of being one ruler and says, "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. For while that Cleomenes king of Lacedomon did govern absolutely alone, he obtained great and goodly victories, and was never vanquished." A minor difference between the absolutist pov and what Plato would say is that absolutists do think that Monarchy itself can override the expertise, and why Bodin says a tyrant could even be better than a bunch of great nobles, given the circumstances, and why absolutists have a more neutral stance on these controversies.

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.


File: 1642226079692-0.png (156.46 KB, 500x333, 1629574937681.png)

File: 1642226079692-1.png (75.47 KB, 813x398, DPRK pinned.png)


File: 1642226250891-0.png (286.56 KB, 600x912, Grace Leviathan.png)

File: 1642226250891-3.mp4 (6.83 MB, 640x360, Leivathan02.mp4)

"The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed… The People rules in all governments, for even in Monarchies the People commands; for the People wills by the will of one man… And (however it seems a paradox) the King is the People." -Hobbes


File: 1642226604631-0.png (555.38 KB, 2362x1500, Grace Monarchic Lorddom.png)

File: 1642226604631-1.png (21.31 KB, 981x122, Cyropedia Wisdom 01.png)

File: 1642226604631-2.png (19.67 KB, 962x113, Cyropedia Wisdom 04.png)

Yes, men will follow a man who they believe is wise, like a helmsman of a ship or an expert. This is important to Monarchy, & it's partially what contributes to its success.
The prince rules as the rational part of the body-politic, like the head to a body… but while King James VI & I had that opinion, Hobbes said that it ought to be like the soul to the body.

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.

Notice, how in DPRK, Kim Jong Un is called Teacher, & the WPK firmly believes in his leadership–because they trust in his leadership and his wisdom. And also notice, how Kim Jong Un is called Father, because ideally the Monarch is the caretaker of his people and has a kinship with them.

Every household is under one head, & the Monarch as the one ruler will teach its members to live rightly & rule the royal state itself like a political household under one head.

The anarchist & democratic worldview don't think that one ruler is important–talk about the conceit of the people to be a body without a head, a family without a father, or sheep without a shepherd. Anyone who sows disbelief in Monarchy says that the Monarch cannot provide for his subjects, like a father cannot provide for his children.

But the Monarchist mentality believes in household management (where the term economic originates) and the household is a Monarchy – we firmly believe that by nature, a father provides for his children, and that a shepherd provides for his flock, and that political authority and organization of the state is best expressed by one ruler.


File: 1642226787547-0.jpg (304.52 KB, 1536x894, dante quote.jpg)

File: 1642226787547-3.png (33.22 KB, 568x338, Households.png)

Royal rule is household, & absolutists see the economic combined with the political. That's why Jean Bodin says, that a city cannot be built without houses or that the true image of a commonwealth is a household. For royal monarchy, a political household under one head – not considered any private economic household – but a political household, because royal rule extends to a city, nation, or many nations like this. (A good example of Louis XIV & Versailles or any Monarch being the founder of a city).
& Kim Jong Un being called a teacher.


File: 1642226937106-0.jpg (7.79 MB, 7000x3850, Part 7 fixed.jpg)

File: 1642226937106-1.jpg (7.7 MB, 7000x3850, part 8 fixed.jpg)

Information related to political/economical.


File: 1642227181473-0.png (368.29 KB, 883x822, Grace commie LARP.png)

File: 1642227181473-2.jpg (113.21 KB, 502x346, 1628796784942-0.jpg)

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 monarchy. Whereas DPRK succeeds in having social cohesion even in their dire circumstances, where conservatives who talk about conservative 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. They 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.


"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"


"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



>"The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea, and to bring it unharmed to the port of safety. Now the welfare and safety of a multitude formed in a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace… thus, the more efficacious a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call that more useful which leads more directly to the end. Now it is manifest that what is itself one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several… Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed. For union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all:

>"Several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now several are said to be united according as they come closer to being one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one."



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."


File: 1642228335227-1.png (204.47 KB, 1003x998, grace new sketch 22.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."


File: 1642228491094-0.jpg (12.89 KB, 232x300, 1637257768866-0.jpg)

File: 1642228491094-1.jpg (151.32 KB, 1280x1345, grace 947.jpg)

Another counter-narrative to Aristotle's water argument:

"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 sounder part: as it is always seen as well in the diets and 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 V, caused the empire to declare itself an enemy to the House of France. the which had not been so in 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. And therefore the Seigneurie of Venice to avoid these inconveniences, commits all affairs of state to the managing of a dozen persons, and most commonly to seven, especially to keep their affairs secret, wherein consists the health and preservation of an estate." -Jean Bodin


File: 1642229183051-0.jpg (575.36 KB, 1536x1615, Qy9LucL_.jpg large.jpg)

Another point Aristotle makes is that while a Wise Man might be able to individually and effectively out wit each person at a council – they could do more than the one wise man by bringing more food to the table – more ideas and thoughts – which Bodin and Hobbes, I think, acknowledge.

The 1st image is actually from Bodin, who says…
"A pure Absolute Monarchy is the surest Commonweal, and without Comparison, the best of all. The counsel of Many wise men may be better than of One; but to Resolve, Determine, and to Command, One will always perform it better than Many." -Bodin

Hobbes also conceded this point, that the Sovereign Monarch has the relationship of the Soul rather than the Head to the Body (whereas King James I does say Head, and call the Monarchy to be the rational part) – Hobbes does say that the head of the body-politic has all the senses, like the eyes for sight, nose for smell, skin for touch, tongue for taste, all centralized on the head, all concentrated in one, because unity, but also that the council for Hobbes resembled the senses and the ability to inform the Sovereign and so Bodin thought as well – the Sovereign Monarch being the soul has the Whole body, and strength of the whole body-politic, and the persona (like the face) along with the ability to command (as Hobbes also mentions), with the collective food to determine…


>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 of government.

"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). So understand that it goes beyond feudalism. All appeals to Divine Right might sound antiquated, but what absolutists peddled was fairly unconventional for the time period and an innovation by those standards.

The feudfags (and former sympathizers from the ancap / right libertarian circles) along with constitutionalists join together against me. You would be surprised at the feudfags / traditionalists and what they say.

But back to the topic – Bodin said Plato had 4 regimes (and I know Plato has 5, but I think he discounted the tyranny), 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


File: 1642230627441-1.png (66.36 KB, 499x558, Plato on monarchy.png)

Right, Plato & Thomas Hobbes.

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?"
"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.

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.

Hobbes also has his own spin on the monarchy and democracy emphasis that you (Gracchi Brothers anon) ascribe to Plato. Because the King is the People, in his own words.

Bodin also said, "Combining of a Monarchy with a popular government, the most assured Monarchy that is." Although both were absolutist and denied a mixed constitution/mixed form.


File: 1642230926987-0.png (629.08 KB, 1800x1800, Grace Switch video game.png)

I have scrolled through it and started looking into your recommendation.

>The beast behind the banner is not concerned with life, liberty or happiness, is in fact their greatest enemy. Hobbes has already published his Leviathan, thanks to which the beast does not only know itself by name, but also possesses a self-consciousness unavailable to Churchmen or to Lope de Aguirre. The beast knows that it cannot speak in its own name without losing the confidence of its human entrails. It knows that it must speak in terms of Life, Liberty and Happiness, and it acquires unprecedented eloquence in the use of such terms.

>The post-Hobbesian artificial beast becomes conscious of itself as Leviathan and not as Temple or Heavenly Empire or Vicarate of Christ, and it simultaneously begins to suspect its own frailty, its impermanence. The beast knows itself to be a machine, and it knows that machines break down, decompose, and may even destroy themselves. A frantic search for perpetual motion machines yields no assurance to counter the suspicions, and the beast has no choice but to project itself into realms or beings which are not machines.

>Long reconciled to spreading the mere forms of Catholicism over realms that resist the substance, Churchmen hurl themselves against the Enlightenment’s forms, against its language. The near-sighted Churchmen fail to notice that the Illuminists and Masons who reject the Catholic language retain the substance of Catholicism, and have in fact performed the feat of identifying that substance with the body of the dominant beast, something the Church has never succeeded in doing.

>Blinded by the surface of their words, the Churchmen fail to notice that Creation and Machine mean the same thing, that both presuppose a Maker, an Artificer. They fail to notice that the Illuminists are more consistent monotheists than the Catholics ever were. They fail to notice that Newton’s Cosmic Mathematician, the Great Artificer who sets the vast clocks in motion on mathematical-physical principles accessible to Newton’s mathematical-physical principles accessible to Newton’s mathematical-mechanical mind, is none other than Lugalzaggizi the King of Kings as well as Optimus Maximus the god of armored legions.

>Rather than hailing the rise of the Messiah of the Last Days and thereby placing themselves in the beast’s brightly lit cockpit, the langorous Catholics let themselves fall into the beast’s shadow, and Catholicism, the gate and cradle of the Enlightenment, is henceforth known as obscurantism.

>The Western Europeans know that they left the state of nature, but they do not yet want to know they’ve entered the entrails of Leviathan. Human beings who unabashedly affirm themselves as segments of an artificial worm, as springs and wheels, will not appear in the West until several generations later, when contemporaries of the English scribe Hobbes will institute the worship of Leviathan itself, raw and unadorned.

>Although the Church, with its Roman commitment and its Maximizing deity, already carries mor than a mere seed of Leviathan-worship, the later worm-worshippers will have to break with the Church to institute their novelty. This is because the Church cannot rid itself of the baggage that came to it from the anti-Roman crisis cult.

>The Popes are precursors of Hobbes. They know that an operating Leviathan needs a single head. Heaven is ruled by a single king. As in heaven, so on earth.

>The problem is that the operating Leviathan has its head in Byzantium, and the Popes’ own world is overrun by numerous violent war chieftains and their mounted Knights. The Byzantine Leviathan is unacceptable because it has no office for a supreme Potifex Maximus, at least none for the saints in Rome.

>The third Emperor, Caligula, already draws all the conclusions that follow from this: the head, totally disconnected from its innards and even from its limbs, bonded neither to nature nor to people nor even to the rest of its machine, is free to do whatever it wills, however unnatural inhuman or irrational. Only the murder of Caligula by his bodyguards saves the shell from shattering to pieces.

>Nero, the fifth, stretches the artificial freedom of the Prince even further. We’re told he was a decent, even a gifted person before his accession. Be that as it may, Nero quickly sees what Caligula had seen earlier: the loosened head of Leviathan has access to an artificial freedom not available to any living beings. All others are free within the bounds set by nature; they are free when they are constrained by no other bounds. The Roman Emperor is constrained by no bounds whatever, not even the bounds of his own character, for as Emperor he is as characterless as Optimus Maximus. He can be totally arbitrary; he can do anything as well as the opposite, and if he keeps his eye on his bodyguards, no one and nothing can stop him. He can murder his own mother and deify his girl friend Sabina Poppaea. He can purge, torture and kill by a mere turn of the wrist. He can experience himself as Pallas Athena and Zeus by giving Greeks their freedom one moment and taking it away the next. He can even experience the joy of the resistors by setting fire to Rome and watching it burn. He can fly as freely as the visionary of the ancient community, but unlike the visionary, who returned to his body and shared his experience, Nero keeps on hovering over nature and humanity and has nothing to share but their doom.

>We will have to keep reminding ourselves that the landed worm is a coherent and efficient entity only in the wishful thinking of a Hobbes. Continual decomposition is the normal state of artificial worms in the field. The human beings reduced to springs and wheels never cease to resist this reduction. The beast’s military campaigns against external as well as internal resisters, namely its attempts to halt the decomposition, are in fact the stuff of His-story.

>Pre-state communities were gatherings of living but mortal individuals. All their secrets and all their ways were passed on directly, by word of mouth. If the keeper of important uncommunicated secrets died, her secrets died with her. Enmities and grudges died with their holders. The visions and the ways were as varied as the individuals who experienced and practiced them; that’s why there was such a richness. But the visions and ways were as mortal as the people. Mortality is an inseparable part of Life: it is Life’s end.

>We will keep projecting modern institutions into the state of nature. There were no institutions in the state of nature.

>Institutions are impersonal and immortal. They share this immortality with no living beings under the sun. Of course they are not living beings. They are segments of a carcass. Institutions are not a part of Life but a part of Death. And Death cannot die.

> Like the thinking Ensi, Hobbes will know that this artificial man has no life of its own, and he will ask, “may we not say, that all automata (engines that move by themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life?”

>The Ensi cannot yet visualize a watch. The more advance Hobbes will no longer be able to visualize nature or human beings. He will ask “what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels…?” In a world of watches, the Leviathan will not appear as strange to Hobbes as it appears to the Ensi.

>Hobbes will know that Ur is no mere city. Ur is a State, maybe even the first State. And a state, Hobbes will say, is an “artificial animal.” It is something brand new, something neither Man nor Nature dreamt of. It is “that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth, or State, in Latin Civitas, which is but an artificial man.”


It was the geometrical method that Hobbes attempted to apply not only to political science but to the whole of science that lead Marx and English to describe Hobbes' materialism as "misanthropic" since it lacked the "poetic glamour" that materialism still possessed in Bacon's writings. Marx and Engels summed up the development of English philosophy in The Holy Family in 1844

"In its further evolution, materialism becomes one-sided. Hobbes is the man who systematises Baconian materialism. Knowledge based upon the senses loses its poetic blossom, it passes into the abstract experience of the geometrician. Physical motion is sacrificed to mechanical or mathematical motion; geometry is proclaimed as the queen of sciences. Materialism takes to misanthropy. If it is to overcome its opponent, misanthropic, fleshless spiritualism, and that on the latter's own ground, materialism has to chastise its own flesh and turn ascetic. Thus it passes into an intellectual entity; but thus, too, it evolves all the consistency, regardless of consequences, characteristic of the intellect."

Hobbes on the artificial man
>For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within, why may we not say that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that rational and most excellent work of Nature, man. For by art is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth, or State (in Latin, Civitas), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints; reward and punishment (by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty, every joint and member is moved to perform his duty) are the nerves, that do the same in the body natural; the wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus populi (the people’s safety) its business; counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason and will; concord, health; sedition, sickness; and civil war, death. Lastly, the pacts and covenants, by which the parts of this body politic were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that fiat, or the Let us make man, pronounced by God in the Creation.

>Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul: as when the power of levying money, which is the nutritive faculty, has depended on a general assembly; the power of conduct and command, which is the motive faculty, on one man; and the power of making laws, which is the rational faculty, on the accidental consent, not only of those two, but also of a third: this endangereth the Commonwealth, sometimes for want of consent to good laws, but most often for want of such nourishment as is necessary to life and motion. For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. And therefore if the king bear the person of the people, and the general assembly bear also the person of the people, and another assembly bear the person of a part of the people, they are not one person, nor one sovereign; but three persons, and three sovereigns.

>To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact.


File: 1642231479924-0.jpg (86.74 KB, 375x357, bodin harmony-1.jpg)

File: 1642231479924-1.jpg (104.14 KB, 381x429, bodin harmony-2.jpg)

Bodin was for a monarchist harmony.

Bodin was deeply concerned with the question of harmony and order in a very disordered time. For Bodin, the common good depended on order, and order in society could only exist through a well-established and properly functioning monarchy.
In Bodin's view the end of law is to secure order in the Commonweale. He even goes so far as to say that it is 'better to have an evil Commonweale than none at all'.

The state should be built with relation to the concord of numbers. The three types of progression–arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic–he called the three daughters of Themis, 'representing order, justice, and peace. The middle term included the other two. The arithmetic progression was more suited to a democratic state, since it denoted equality. Plato, in building an aristocratic state, preferred that it should be governed according to the geometric system. But the harmonic ratio, developed from the other two, portrayed the relationship of overlord and vassal and was therefore suited to a monarchy. It represented peace, and this was the highest objective of all empires. Here Bodin entered upon a discussion of musical intervals, probably drawn from Boethius or Macrobius, which sought to show a parallel between the well-tempered state and concord in music.

The conclusion is that a state can best avoid danger from within or from without if it is built on harmonic principles, which for Bodin meant a monarchy administrated in the interests of all.

"As for the fact that Plato wished his state to be governed according to geometric ratio, Aristotle decided subtly and cleverly that this concerned rewards only. Arithmetic ratio he related to honoring pledges and to penalties. How rightly, I will not discuss; but about the harmonic ratio neither said anything. Yet I think this ratio, as the most beautiful of all, pertains to the form of the best empire. First because it is developed from arithmetic and geometric ratios alone, yet is unlike each. The harmonic ratio cannot pertain to penalties or rewards, or to pledges, since in pledges an arithmetic equality inheres, in penalties and rewards an equable geometrical similarity. In the harmonic alone inheres the relationship of the superior and the inferior."

Of the three kinds of justice, Distributive, Commutative, and Harmonical: and what proportion they have unto an estate Royal, Oligarchic, and Popular.
>Let us then say in continuing of our purpose, that it is not enough to maintain, that a Monarchy is the best estate of a Commonweal, & which in it has the least inconvenience; except we also (as we said) add thereunto, a Monarchy Royal. Neither yet suffices it to say, that the Royal Monarchy is most excellent, if we should not also show that unto the absolute perfection thereof it ought to be fast knit together by an Oligarchic and Popular kind of government: which are proper unto the estates Oligarchic, and Popular. In which doing, the estate of the Monarchy shall be simple, and yet the government so compound and mixt, without any confusion at all of the three kinds of Estates, or Commonweales. For we have before shewed, that there is a great difference betwixt the mingling, or rather confounding of the three estates of Commonweales in one (a thing altogether impossible) and the making of a government of a Monarchy, to be Oligarchic and Popular. For as amongst Monarchies, the Royal Monarchy so governed (as I have said) is the most commendable: even so amongst kingdoms, that which holds most, or comes nearest unto this Harmonical Justice, is of others the most perfect. Justice therefore I say to be The right division of rewards and punishments, and of that which of right unto every man belongs. For that by these, as by most certain guides, wee must enter into this most religious and stately temple of Justice. But this equal division which we seek for, can in no wise be accomplished, or performed, but by a moderate mixture, and confusion of equality, and similitude together, which is the true proportion Harmonicall, and whereof no man hath as yet spoken.
>Plato having presupposed the best form of a Commonweale, to be that which was composed of a Tyrannicall and Popular estate: in framing the same, is contrary unto himself, hauing established a Commonweale not only Popular, but altogether a∣so Popularly governed; giving unto the whole assembly of his citizens, the power to make, and to abrogate laws, to place and displace all manner of officers, to determine of peace and warre, to judge of the goods, the life, and honour, of every particular man in sovereignty: which is indeed the true Popular estate, and Popularly also governed. And albeit that he had so (as we say) formed his Commonweale, yet neuerthelesse hee said, That the Commonweale could never be happy, if it were not by Geometrical proportion governed; saying that God (whom euery wise lawmaker ought to imitate) in the government of the world always useth Geometrical proportion.
>Now certain it is, that Distributive, or Geometrical Justice, is most contrary unto the Popular estate and government by Plato set down: the people still seeking after nothing more, than for equalitie in all things; a thing proper unto Commutative, or Arithmetical Justice. Which was the cause for which Xenophon (Plato his companion, and both of them jealous one of another's glory) being of opinion, That Commonweales ought to be framed, and the laws administered according unto Arithmetical proportion and equality, brings in Cyrus yet a boy, corrected and chastised, for that he being chosen king, had changed but the servants garments, appointing better apparel unto them of the better sort, and meaner unto them of the meaner sort: as having therein regard unto decency, and the proportion Geometrical After which chastisement, Cyrus is by his master taught, to give unto every man that which unto him belongs, and to remember that he was a Persian borne, and was therefore to use the Persian laws and customs, which gave unto every man that which was unto him proper: and not the manners and fashions of the Medes, who thought it meet, that to be unto every man given, which was decent and convenient for him. Which writings of Xenophon, Plato having read, and knowing right well that it was himself, and not Cyrus, which had been corrected; forthwith reproved the Cyropaedia, without naming of any partie. This diversity of opinions, betwixt Xenophon and Plato (famous among the Greeks) was the cause of two great factions, the one of the Nobility and richer sort, who held for Geometrical Justice, and the Oligarchical estate; the other of the baser and poorer sort, who maintained Commutative or Arithmetical Justice, and therefore wished to have had all estates and Commonweales Popular. Now of these two factions arise a third, which was of opinion, That in euery Commonweale Arithmetical Justice was to be kept in just equality, when question was of the goods of any one in particular, or for the recompensing of offences and forfeitures: but if question were of common rewards to be bestowed out of the common treasure, or for the division of countries conquered, or for the inflicting of common punishments, that then Distributive, or Geometrical Justice, was to be observed and kept, having regard unto the good or evil deserts, and the qualities or calling of every man: insomuch that these men used two proportions, and yet for all that diversely, sometime the one and some∣time the other: as Aristotle said it ought to be done, but yet not naming either Plato or Xenophon, who yet had both first touched this string.


So the royal estate also by a necessary consequence framed unto the harmonicall proportion, if it be royally ordered and governed, that is to say, Harmonically; there is no doubt but that of all other estates it is the fairest, the happiest, and most perfect. But here I speak not of a lordly monarchy, where the Monarch, though a natural prince born, holds all his subjects underfoot as slaves, disposing of their goods as of his own: and yet much less of a tyrannical monarchy, where the Monarch being no natural Lord, abuses neuerthelesse the subjects and their goods at his pleasure, as if they were his very slaves; and yet worse also when he makes them slaves unto his own cruelties. But my speech and meaning is of a lawful King, whether he be so by election, for his virtue and religion, by voice chosen, so as was Numa; or by divine lot, as was Saul; or that he haue by strong hand and force of armes, as a conquerour got his kingdome, as have many; or that he have it by a lawful and orderly succession, as have all (except some few) who with no less love and care favours and defends his subjects, than if they were his own children. And yet such a King may nevertheless if he will, governe his kingdome popularly and by equall Arithmetical proportion, calling all his subiects indifferently without respect of persons unto all honours and preferments whatsoever, without making choyce of their deserts or sufficiency, whether it be that they be chosen by lot or by order one of them after another: howbeit that there be few or rather no such monarchies indeed. So the King may also govern his estate or kingdome Aristocratically, bestowing the honorable estates and charges therein with the distribution of punishments and rewards by Geometrical proportion, making still choice of the nobility of some, and of the riches of others, still rejecting the base poorer sort, and yet without any regard had unto the deserts or virtues of them whom he so preferred; but onely vnto him that is best monyed or most noble. Both which manner of governments, howbeit that they bee euill and blameworthy, yet is this Oligarchic and Geometrical proportion of government much more tolerable and more sure, than is that popular and turbulent government, scarcely any where to bee found, as nearer approaching unto the sweet Harmonicall government. For it may be, that the king to assure his estate against the insurrection of the base common people, may have need to strengthen himself with the nobility, which come nee∣rer unto his quality and condition, than doth the base artificers and common sort of people, unto whom he cannot descend, neither with them well have any society at all, if he will in any good sort maintain the maiesty of his royal estate and sovereignty, as it seems he must of necessity do, if he shall make them partakers of the most honourable charges of his estate and kingdome. But such an Oligarchic kind of government is also euill and dangerous, not unto the common people only, but even unto the nobility & prince also: who may so still stand in fear of the discontented vulgar sort, which is always far in number more than is the nobility or the rich: and having got some seditious leader, and so taking up of arms, becomes the stronger part, and so sometimes revolting from their prince, drives out the nobility, and fortify themselves against their princes power:

But now in civil societies there is no mean better to bind and combine the little ones with the great, the base with the noble, the poor with the rich, than by communicating of the offices, estates, dignities, and preferments, unto all men, as well the base as the noble, according unto every mans virtues and deserts, as wee have before declared… but we must also, to make an harmony of one of them with another, mingle them which have wherewith in some sort to supply that which wanteth in the other. For otherwise there shall be no more harmony than if one should separate the concords of music which are in themselves good, but yet would make no good consent if they were not bound together: for that the default of the one is sup∣plied by the other. In which doing, the wise prince shall set his subjects in a most sweet quiet, bound together with an indissoluble bond one of them unto another, together with himself, and the Commonweale. As is in the four first numbers to bee seen: which God hath in Harmonicall proportion disposed to show unto us, that the Royal estate is Harmonicall, and also to be Harmonically governed. For two to three makes a fifth; three to four, a fourth; two to four, an eight; and again afterwards, one to two, makea an eight; one to three, a twelfth, holding the fifth and the eight; & one to four, a double eight, or Diapason: which contains the whole ground and compass of all tunes and concords of music, beyond which he which will passe unto five, shall in so doing mar the harmony, and make an intolerable dis0rd

Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power… And as many men for lack of understanding live like beast, smoothed with that only which is present and before them, without mounting any higher unto the contemplation of things intellectual and divine, whom the sacred scriptures call also beasts: even so also the Oligarchic and popular Common∣weales without understanding, that is to say, without a prince, are in some sort able to maintain and defend themselves, though not long: being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.

For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one souvereign prince in euery Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend. But as there cannot bee good music wherein there is not some fbi.gov, which must of necessity be intermingled to give the better grace unto the Harmony. So also is it necessary that there should be some fools amongst wise men, some unworthy of their charge amongst men of great experience, and some evil and vile men amongst the good and virtuous, to give them the greater lustre, and to make the difference known (even by the pointing of the finger, and the sight of the eye) betwixt virtue and vice, knowledge and ignorance. For when sools, vicious, and wicked men, are contemned & despised, then the wise, virtuous, and good men, receive the true reward and guerdon for their virtue, which is honour.

And it seems the ancient Greeks in their fables, to have aptly shadowed forth unto vs that which wee have spoken of these three kinds of Justice, giving unto Themis three daughters. That is to say, Upright Law, Equity, and Peace: which are referred unto the three forms of Justice, Arithmetical, Geometrical, and Harmonicall:


But these things thus declared, it remains for us to know (as the chief point of this our present discourse) Whether it be true that Plato saith, God to govern this world by Geometrical proportion: For that he hath taken it as a ground, to shew that a well ordered Commonweale ought (to the imitation of the world) to be governed by Geometrical Justice: Which I have shewed to be contrary, by the nature of the unity, Harmonically referred unto the three first numbers: as also by the intellectual power, compared unto the three other powers of the soul: and by a point compared to a line, a plain superficies, or other solid body. But let us go farther, for if Plato had looked nearer into the wonderfull Fabric of the world, he should have marked that which he forgot in his Timeo, viz. The Great God of nature to have Harmonically composed this world of Matter and Form, of which the one is maintained by the help of the other, and that by the proportion of equality and similitude combined & bound together. And for that the Matter was to no use without the Form, and that the form could have no being without the matter, neither in the whole universal, neither yet in the parts thereof: he made the world equal to the one, and semblance to the other: equall unto the matter whereof it is made, for that it comprehends all: and semblance or like unto the form, in such sort as is the Harmonicall proportion composed of the Arithmetical and Geometrical proportions equall to the one, and semblable to the other, being one of them separate from another unperfect.

So also a well ordered Commonweale is composed of good and bad, of the rich and of the poor, of wisemen and of fools, of the strong and of the weak, allied by them which are in the mean betwixt both: which so by a wonderfull disagreeing concord, join the highest with the lowest, and so all to all, yet so as that the good are still stronger than the bad; so as he the most wise workman of all others, and governor of the world hath by his eternal law decreed. And as he himself being of an infinite force and power rules over the angels, so also the angels over men, men over beasts, the soul over the the body.

Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens; with a certain secure care preserves from destruction this triple world, bound together with a most sweet and Harmonicall consent: unto the imitation of whom, every good prince which wishes his Kingdom and Commonweale not in safety only, but even good and blessed also, is to frame and conform himself.


In the Statesman, Plato gives an account on the harmony of government. He says that the art of the statesman is like the weaver, in its proportionate binding the woof and the warp together:

Royal Weaver
STRANGER: It was of these bonds I said that there would be no difficulty in creating them, if only both classes originally held the same opinion about the honourable and good;—indeed, in this single work, the whole process of royal weaving is comprised—never to allow temperate natures to be separated from the brave, but to weave them together, like the warp and the woof, by common sentiments and honours and reputation, and by the giving of pledges to one another; and out of them forming one smooth and even web, to entrust to them the offices of State.

STRANGER: This then we declare to be the completion of the web of political action, which is created by a direct intertexture of the brave and temperate natures, whenever the royal science has drawn the two minds into communion with one another by unanimity and friendship, and having perfected the noblest and best of all the webs which political life admits, and enfolding therein all other inhabitants of cities, whether slaves or freemen, binds them in one fabric and governs and presides over them, and, in so far as to be happy is vouchsafed to a city, in no particular fails to secure their happiness.


File: 1642232217768-1.jpg (329.57 KB, 1060x1344, jean-bodin.jpg)

How the absolutist view differs from feudfag/constitutionalist view

"The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth" -Hobbes

"The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the UNION of many men.." -Hobbes

"No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which UNITES in one body ALL members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the UNION of the people under the same sovereignty of government." -Jean Bodin

"And that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects." -Aristotle, Politics
(Absolutists disagreed, with the view, that they differed in kind or were a concord by different kinds / parts, but rather that they were by the number of their subjects… the feudalist/constitutionalist generally views the state to be a concord, whereas the absolutist views it as a unity with harmony by a sovereign)

>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.

>For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend

>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

"Aristotle gives the lie to Plato… and those that say… do not differ specie… but only multitudine et paucitate (number)" -Rob. Filmer

"They who compare a City and its Citizens, with a man and his members, almost all say, that he who hath the supreme power in the City, is the relation to the whole City, such as the head is to the whole man. But it appears by what has been already said, that he who is endued with such a power (whether it be a man, or a Court) has a relation to the City, not as that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill." -Hobbes

>Hobbes expressed society as a combination of the people, as the body of the society, and the monarchy, as the soul of the society, making a healthy commonwealth. Without the soul the body dies and so it is with society for Hobbes. Civil war should be avoided because it is "the process of a society losing its soul".

"For there are (says Aristotle) three parts of a Commonwealth, the one to take advice and councel, the other to establish magistrates and officers, and every man in his charge, and the third to administer and execute justice. Here (in mine opinion) or else no where he seems to speak of the right of Sovereignty." -Bodin

Here, I think Bodin deliberately considers these to be the right of Sovereignty, because he views the state by unity.

"But that state which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales, differs in deed nothing from a mean popular state; For if three cities, whereof one of them is governed by a king, and so a Monarchy; the second by the nobility, and so an Aristocracy; the third by the people, and so a Democracy; should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale, and so the chief power and sovereignty communicated unto all: who is there that can doubt but that that state shall be all together a state popular? except the sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the king, then to the nobility, and afterwards to the people; As in the vacancy of the Roman kingdom, the king being dead, the Senators ruled by turns; yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonweale, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all." -Bodin

That reminds me of 2nd pic, talking about rule by turns.

"In which doing, the estate of the Monarchy shall be simple, and yet the government so compound and mixt, without any confusion at all of the three kinds of Estates, or Commonweales. For we have before shewed, that there is a great difference betwixt the mingling, or rather confounding of the three estates of Commonweales in one (a thing altogether impossible) and the making of a government of a Monarchy, to be Oligarchic and Popular." -Bodin


File: 1642233163485-0.jpg (7.76 MB, 7000x3850, part 10 fixed.jpg)

File: 1642233163485-1.jpg (109.17 KB, 868x630, Crook-and-Flail.jpg)

The means by which any sovereign could govern could change – it's not something that is really fixed.

Keep in mind, that the Sovereign Monarch from the absolutist stance is seen as the unity itself, and not as a symbol of that unity (as ceremonialists would have it). And that the Sovereign Monarch is the State and political unity, and that the Sovereign Monarch's government IS his method of governing, that could be mixed, whereas the State is unmixed.

To understand this point of view from Absolutism, you should recognize the Royal Weaver >>206129 here & how it is related to the idea of the indivisibility of Sovereignty.

The Sovereign Monarch is the Royal Weaver. He is an indivisible power, has the relationship of the general to particular, meaning pre-eminence and an infinite majesty. For the meaning of Sovereignty is also Majesty. He is the State, and the government is his method of governing – that's how I would say, it does differ from the constitutionalist view.

Traditionalists don't really disagree with constitutionalism in principle, but only that it is written and their view of conscience and rights. And that the Written Constitutionalism is a Protestant rehash of Sola Scriptura. They still pretty much are for the mixed constitution.

Whereas the constitutionalist narrative is that it has effectively replaced absolutism, and borrowed its concept of sovereignty and of unity… I obviously am not convinced or sold on that narrative, and also believe that they haven't taken that view of Sovereignty from absolutists wholeheartedly since they deny pre-eminence and since they don't believe in the indivisibility of the Sovereign.


File: 1642234567717-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

File: 1642234567717-3.jpg (39.28 KB, 427x377, Wizard of Oz 2.jpg)

Q: What will it take for people to believe in Royal Monarchy?
A: Firstly, the Monarch should be a source of Wisdom, like a Teacher; secondly, the Monarch should be a provider/caretaker, like a Father; thirdly, the Monarch should be a Protector, like a Soldier; fourthly, the Monarch should make the people believe there is a blood relation “of the same blood & suckled by the same milk” for the nation under a king, that king is kin, that the king is father of the people, that the palace is the center of political life, & a lifelong royal bond of King & Country, that is firmly political–"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 ; fifthly Pre-eminence of Monarchy & Majesty, being the whole in relation to the part, “I am the State.”. The state should be ordered like a political household under one ruler: “If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is a need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place to direct and govern.” -Dante Alighieri
“When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves… You may see how the sick man will beg the doctor to tell him what he ought to do, how a whole ship's company will listen to the pilot, how travellers will cling to one who knows the way better, as they believe, than they do themselves. 'You would have me understand', said Cyrus, 'that the best way to secure obedience is to be thought wiser than those we rule?' 'Yes', said Cambyses, 'that is my belief.'” -Xenophon, Cyropaedia
“None quicker, my lad, than this: wherever you wish to seem wise, be wise.” -Xenophon, Cyropaedia
“Well, my son, it is plain that where learning is the road to wisdom, learn you must, as you learn your battalion-drill, but when it comes to matters which are not to be learnt by mortal men, nor foreseen by mortal minds, there you can only become wiser than others by communicating with the gods through the art of divination. But, always, whenever you know that a thing ought to be done, see that it is done, and done with care; for care, not carelessness, is the mark of the wise man.” -Xenophon, Cyropaedia
“For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy, since the father cares for his children; and this is why Homer calls Zeus 'father'; it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule.” -Aristotle (Comment: Take notice of “since the father cares for his children”, for caretaker/provider, being an ideal for Monarchy, like a father)
“The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus 'father of Gods and men,' because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superiour of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son.” -Aristotle
Monarchists should also believe in the Pre-emince of Monarchy like stated for the Great Founder. “And yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors…” -Aristotle – This ties in with Household rule, & the royal monarch who establishes the state (whether it be a city or country or empire or any political bond) as the Great Founder. A city made like a great household, an Absolutist would see (in disagreement w/ Aristotle here, but confirming that royal rule is household rule. A great monarch knows his pre-eminence when he is the Great Founder who established the state, & became the progenitor of a people. As God & New Jerusalem, Akhenaten & Amarna, Ramses II & Pi-Ramses, Alexander the Great & Alexandria, Romulus & Rome, Constantine & Constantinople, Louis XIV & Versailles, Emp. Peter I & St. Petersburg, revealed this pre-eminence.


I know leftoids think of the feminine side too, like I said about Hobbes who viewed the mother as a natural sovereign more than the father (because the mother, if left alone with the child, has the power to nurse or reject any child from this view) – because of Engel's book on the family, and the nursemaids–

I'd consider Hobbes to be the black sheep in the absolutist fold. Because Bodin and Robert Filmer are more patriarchal. They believed the father of the family has the power of life and death (and Hobbes believes so too, by the institution of the family and contract by marriage, the father gains the power of life and death, I think). This belief was linked to the Roman Pater Familias, and in Christianity to Adam and Eve and Abraham and Isaac (father having power of life and death).

Hobbes Leviathan on mother sovereignty / paternal dominion
>"And whereas some have attributed the dominion to the man only, as being of the more excellent sex, they misreckon in it. For there is not always that difference of strength or prudence between the man and the woman as that the right can be determined without war. In Commonwealths this controversy is decided by the civil law: and for the most part, but not always, the sentence is in favour of the father, because for the most part Commonwealths have been erected by the fathers, not by the mothers of families. But the question lieth now in the state of mere nature where there are supposed no laws of matrimony, no laws for the education of children, but the law of nature and the natural inclination of the sexes, one to another, and to their children. In this condition of mere nature, either the parents between themselves dispose of the dominion over the child by contract, or do not dispose thereof at all. If they dispose thereof, the right passeth according to the contract. We find in history that the Amazons contracted with the men of the neighbouring countries, to whom they had recourse for issue, that the issue male should be sent back, but the female remain with themselves: so that the dominion of the females was in the mother."

>"If there be no contract, the dominion is in the mother. For in the condition of mere nature, where there are no matrimonial laws, it cannot be known who is the father unless it be declared by the mother; and therefore the right of dominion over the child depends on her will, and is consequently hers. Again, seeing the infant is first in power of the mother, so as she may either nourish or expose it; if she nourish it, it owes its life to the mother, and is therefore obliged to obey her rather than any other; and by consequence the dominion over it is hers. But if she expose it, and another find and nourish it, the dominion is in him that nourishes it. For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved, because the preservation of life being the end for which one man becomes subject to another, every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in whose power it is to save or destroy him."

>"If the mother be the father's subject, the child is in the father's power; and if the father be the mother's subject (as when a sovereign queen marries one of her subjects), the child is subject to the mother, because the father also is her subject."

>"Secondly, that a child of his own, male or female, be preferred before any other, because men are presumed to be more inclined by nature to advance their own children than the children of other men; and of their own, rather a male than a female, because men are naturally fitter than women for actions of labour and danger."

>The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State begins with an extensive discussion of Ancient Society which describes the major stages of human development as commonly understood in Engels's time. It is argued that the first domestic institution in human history was the matrilineal clan. Engels here follows Lewis H. Morgan's thesis as outlined in his major book, Ancient Society. Morgan was a pioneering American anthropologist and business lawyer who championed the land rights of Native Americans and became adopted as an honorary member of the Seneca Iroquois tribe. Traditionally, the Iroquois had lived in communal longhouses based on matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence, an arrangement giving women much solidarity and power

>"The rediscovery of the original mother-right gens as the stage preliminary to the father-right gens of the civilized peoples has the same significance for the history of primitive society as Darwin’s theory of evolution has for biology, and Marx’s theory of surplus value for political economy." -Engels


File: 1642235471633-0.jpg (7.35 MB, 7000x3850, part 5 fixed.jpg)

File: 1642235471633-1.jpg (7.68 MB, 7000x3850, part 6 fixed.jpg)

File: 1642235471633-2.jpg (105.6 KB, 797x435, Teacher.jpg)

This view of a sovereign monarchy isn't diminished because there are assemblies or parliaments –
>Wherefore we conclude the majesty of a prince to be in nothing altered or diminished by the calling together or presence of the states: but to the contrary his majesty thereby to be much the greater, & the more honorable, seeing all his people to acknowledge him for their sovereign; albeit that in such assemblies, princes not willing to reject their subjects, grant, and pass many things, whereunto they would not otherwise yield their consent, if they were not overcome by the requests, prayers, and just grievances of the people, afflicted and vexed oftentimes without the knowledge of the prince, who yields many things unto them all, which he would deny unto them in particular; or at leastwise not so easily grant them: either for that the voices of every one in particular, are less heard, than of all together: or for that the prince at other times commonly uses to see but by other mens eyes and to hear but by other mens ears and reports: whereas in parliament he sees and hears his people himself, and so enforced with shame, and fear of religion, or his own good disposition, admits their just requests.

>And in that the greatness and majesty of a true sovereign prince, is to be known; when the estates of all the people assembled together, in all humility present their requests and supplications to their prince, without having any power in arny thing to command or determine, or to give voice, but that that which it pleases the King to like or dislike of, to command or forbid, is held for law, for an edict and ordinance. Wherein they which have written of the duty of magistrates, & others such like books, have deceived themselves, in maintaining that the power of the people is greater than the prince; a thing which oft times causes the true subjects to revolt from the obedience which they owe unto their sovereign prince, & ministers matter of great troubles in Commonweals.


John Bramhall
>His sixth Paradox is a rapper, the Civil Laws are the Rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest, and therefore what the Lawgiver commands that is to be accounted good, what he forbids bad.

>Where by the Laws he doth not understand the Written Laws, elected and approved by the whole Commonwealth, but the verbal Commands or Mandates, of him that hath the Sovereign Power, as we find in many places of his Writings. The Civil Laws are nothing else but the Commands of him, that is endowed with Sovereign Power in the Commonwealth, concerning the future actions of his Subjects. And the Civil Laws are fastened to the Lips of that man who hath the Sovereign Power.

>Where are we? In Europe or in Asia? Where they ascribed a Divinity to their Kings, and, to use his own Phrase, made them Mortal Gods. O King live for ever. Flatters are the common Moths of great Palaces, where Alexander's friends are more numerous than the King's friends. But such gross palpable pernicious flattery as this is, I did never meet with, so derogatory both to piety and policy. What deserved he who should do his uttermost endeavor to poison a common Fountain, whereof all the Commonwealth must drink? He doth same who poisoneth the mind of a Sovereign Prince

Thomas Hobbes
>What verbal Command of a King can arrive at the ears of all his Subjects (which it must do ere it be a Law) without the Seal of the Person of the Commonwealth (which is here the Great Seal of England?) Who but his Lordship ever denied that the command of England was a Law to Englishmen? Or that any but the King had Authority to affix the Great Seal of England to any Writing? And who did ever doubt to call our Laws (though made in Parliament) the King's Laws? What was ever called a Law which the King did not assent to? Because the King has granted in diverse cases not to make a Law without the advice and assent of the Lords and Commons, therefore when there is no Parliament in being, shall the Great Seal of England stand for nothing? What was more unjustly maintained during the long Parliament (besides the resisting and Murdering of the King) then this Doctrine of his Lordship's?

>But the Bishop endeavoured here to make the Multitude believe I maintain, That the King sinneth not though he bid hang a man for making his Apparel otherwise than he appointed, or his Servant for negligent attendance. And yet he knew I distinguished always between the King's natural and politick capacity. What name should I give to this willful slander? But here his Lordship enters into passion and exlaims, Where are we, in Europe or in Asia? Gross, palpable, pernicious flattery, poisoning of a Commonwealth, poisoning the King's mind.

>Do I flatter the King? Why am I not rich? I confess his Lordship has not flattered him here.


File: 1642236609867-0.png (2.22 MB, 3419x3096, Grace recites.png)

File: 1642236609867-1.png (39.55 KB, 255x182, 1621102991411.png)

Pre-eminence / Majesty is an all-encompassing greatness, by means extraordinary, and having the relationship of general to particular.

Hobbes made a popular pre-eminence by having the unity of the People in the Sovereign. All their united strength made the Sovereign by artificial and popular pre-eminence.

Others talk about pre-eminence by divine eminence and majesty.

A natural pre-eminence of the fatherly power, having the relationship of a natural superior, but still being the same kind or kin…

Pre-eminence is more than meritocracy. What man could ever hope to merit the strength of the entire People in one Person ? (one for all, all for one) – Or what did the lion say to the mouse? I've heard fascists / Hitlerists / nationalists talk about merit in comparison to pre-eminence, but I don't think they understand it.

I raised the question before about whether Monarchy being natural or extraordinary or artificial, but pre-eminence or majesty is also central to the question.



Merneptah's Speech:
Lo, his Majesy was enraged at their report, like a lion; he assembled his court, and said to them: "Hear ye the command of your lord; I give–as ye shall do, saying: I am the ruler who shepherds you; I spend my time searching out–as a father who preserves alive his children; while ye fear like birds, and ye know not the goodness of that which he does. Is there none answering… Shall the land be wasted and forsaken at the invasion of every country, while the Nine Bows plunder its borders, and rebels invade every day?"

Court eulogizess Ramses II:
"We come to thee, lord of heaven, lord of earth, Re, life of the whole earth, lord of duration, of fruitful revolution, Atum for the people, lord of destiny, creator of Renenet, Khnum who fashioned the people, giver of breath into the nostrils of all, making all the gods live, pillar of heaven, support of earth, adjusting the Two Lands, lord of food, plentiful in grain, in whose steps is the harvest goddess, maker of the great, fashioner of the lowly, whose word produces food, the lord vigilant when all men sleep, whose might defends Egypt, valiant in foreign lands, who returns when he has triumphed, whose sword protects the Egyptians, beloved of truth, in which he lives by his laws, defender of the Two Lands, rich in years, great in victory, the fear of whom expels foreign lands, our king, our lord, our Sun, by the words of whose mouth Atum lives. Lo, we are now before they majesty, that thou mayest decree to us the life that thou givest, Pharaoh, breath of life, who makes all men live when he has shone on them."


"For the power by which the people are to be defended consists in their armies, and the strength of an army in the union of their strength under one command; which command the sovereign instituted, therefore has, because the command of the militia, without other institution, makes him that has it sovereign. And therefore, whosoever is made general of an army, he that has the sovereign power is always generalissimo." -Hobbes, Leviathan

From Charles I's speech on scaffold
>I shall begin first with my innocence. In troth I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I.

More from Behemoth
>A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim.

>A: It is also worth observing, that this petition began with these words, Most gracious Sovereign: so stupid they were as not to know, that he that is master of the militia, is master of the kingdom, and consequently is in possession of a most absolute sovereignty.

>A: I know not what need they had. But on both sides they thought it needful to hinder one another, as much as they could, from levying of soldiers; and, therefore, the King did set forth declarations in print, to make the people know that they ought not to obey the officers of the new militia set up by ordinance of Parliament, and also to let them see the legality of his own commissions of array. And the Parliament on their part did the like, to justify to the people the said ordinance, and to make the commission of array appear unlawful.

>A: King William the Conqueror had gotten into his hands by victory all the land in England, of which he disposed some part as forests and chases for his recreation, and some part to lords and gentlemen that had assisted him or were to assist him in the wars. Upon which he laid a charge of service in his wars, some with more men, and some with less, according to the lands he had given them: whereby, when the King sent men unto them with commission to make use of their service, they were obliged to appear with arms, and to accompany the King to the wars for a certain time at their own charges: and such were the commissions by which this King did then make his levies.

>A: After the sending of these propositions to the King, and his Majesty’s refusal to grant them, they began, on both sides, to prepare for war. The King raised a guard for his person in Yorkshire, and the Parliament, thereupon having voted that the King intended to make war upon his Parliament, gave order for the mustering and exercising the people in arms, and published propositions to invite and encourage them to bring in either ready money or plate, or to promise under their hands to furnish and maintain certain numbers of horse, horsemen, and arms, for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws); promising to repay their money with interest of 8l. in the 100l. and the value of their plate with twelve-pence the ounce for the fashion. On the other side, the King came to Nottingham, and there did set up his standard royal, and sent out commissions of array to call those to him, which by the ancient laws of England were bound to serve him in the wars. Upon this occasion there passed divers declarations between the King and Parliament concerning the legality of this array, which are too long to tell you at this time.

>B: Nor do I desire to hear any mooting about this question. For I think that general law of salus populi, and the right of defending himself against those that had taken from him the sovereign power, are sufficient to make legal whatsoever he should do in order to the recovery of his kingdom, or to the punishing of the rebels.


>Henry II reigned from 1154 – 1189. Henry appointed Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury hoping he would help the King reform the Church from some abuses, but in fact Becket became ascetic and refused to help.

>When a clerk commited a murder and went unpunished, King Henry promoted a law that clergy should be tried for murder in civil courts, not church courts, restricting movements of high-ranking clergy, and also taking control of revenues of vacant sees (Bishop’s territories). Becket signed this but later asked the Pope to release him from his oath. Becket defied the King and fled to France.

>Henry had the Archbishop of York, Roger, crown his eldest son (also called Henry). Becket and the Pope were upset by this, as was King Louis VII of France, who was sheltering Becket. Henry was forced to let Becket return to England, but Becket then excommunicated Roger of York and four other Bishops who had opposed him!

>A group of knights, apparently misunderstanding some words spoken by Henry in anger and haste, murdered Becket at the alter of Canterbury Cathedral.

>It’s also worth mentioning that the Pope had given Henry II permission to conquer Ireland.

King Henry II
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

“What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric!”

Thomas Hobbes on Temporal vs Spiritual Power
"And when kings deny themselves some such necessary power, it is not always (though sometimes) out of ignorance of what is necessary to the office they undertake, but many times out of a hope to recover the same again at their pleasure: wherein they reason not well; because such as will hold them to their promises shall be maintained against them by foreign Commonwealths; who in order to the good of their own subjects let slip a few occasions to weaken the estate of their neighbours. So was Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, supported against Henry the Second by the Pope; the subjection of ecclesiastics to the Commonwealth having been dispensed with by William the Conqueror at his reception when he took an oath not to infringe on the liberty of the Church."

"Temporal and spiritual government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign. It is true that the bodies of the faithful, after the resurrection, shall be not only spiritual, but eternal; but in this life they are gross and corruptible. There is therefore no other government in this life, neither of state nor religion, but temporal; nor teaching of any doctrine lawful to any subject which the governor both of the state and of the religion forbiddeth to be taught. And that governor must be one; or else there must needs follow faction and civil war in the Commonwealth between the Church and the State; between spiritualists and temporalists; between the sword of justice and the shield of faith; and, which is more, in every Christian man's own breast between the Christian and the man."

"For the forth council of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent the Third (in the third Chapter, De Haereticis), hath this canon: "If a king, at the Pope's admonition, do not purge his kingdom of heretics, and being excommunicate for the same, make not satisfaction within a year, his subjects are absolved of their obedience." And the practice hereof hath been on diverse occasions: as in the deposing of Childeric, King of France; in the translation of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne; in the oppression of John, King of England; in transferring the kingdom of Navarre; and of late years, in the league against Henry the Third of France, and in many more occurences. I think there be few princes that consider not this as unjust and inconvenient; but I wish they would all resolve to be kings or subjects. Men cannot serve two masters. They ought therefore to ease them, either by holding the reins of government wholly in their own hands, or by wholly delivering them into the hands of the Pope, that such men are willing to be obedient may be protected in their obedience. For this distinction of temporal and spiritual power is but words. Power is as really divided,and as dangerously to all purposes, by sharing with another indirect power, as direct one."


File: 1642237661870-0.mp4 (6.2 MB, 720x404, Emp Joseph II P1.mp4)

File: 1642237661870-1.mp4 (7.09 MB, 720x404, Emp Joseph II P2.mp4)

File: 1642237661870-2.mp4 (5.65 MB, 720x404, Emp Joseph II P3.mp4)



Ramesses II Speech for his Father:
"For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him."

"My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me."


File: 1642238136628-1.jpg (121.41 KB, 635x359, New_Science.jpg)

File: 1642238136628-2.jpg (6.99 MB, 7000x3850, part 4 fixed.jpg)

File: 1642238136628-3.jpg (618.44 KB, 1536x1615, UTSWWVsR.jpg large.jpg)

Another reason why… absolutists believe in an absolute power is also the belief that the Roman pater familias has the power of life and death… so the Sovereign Monarch.


File: 1642238212988.jpg (349.64 KB, 1536x1536, yVZ3o-NE.jpg large.jpg)

The quote, ascribed to Mao:
Political Power grows out the barrel of a gun

Absolutists also believe that the power of life and death is the ultimate mark of Sovereignty.



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.

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".



File: 1642239422795-0.png (356.98 KB, 761x723, Grace chan amorous.png)

File: 1642239422795-2.mp4 (5.25 MB, 638x360, Pyramid Story.mp4)

Most people ardently believe in their politics, because they believe it will provide for them, and that it sustains them. It is the very compelling.
When they believe the father provides for his children, that the shepherd feeds his flock, and the household management, that the political authority and state are best expressed and organized by one ruler.

Egyptian Teachings of a Man for his Son (Praise extracts):
>Praise the King, may you love him, as a worker. He makes radiant by the giving of his powers. He is greater than a million men for the one he has favored. He is the shield for the one who makes him content… Praise the King, adore the King. That is the post before god. Spread his powers, rejoicing when he has decreed and devising plans for what he has desired… He is the bodily health of the nameless. He exercises his body for him. He is the right arm of the man whose arms are weak.

Egyptian Loyalist Teaching
>He is the sun in whose leadership people live
>Whoever is under his light will be great in wealth
>He gives sustenance to his followers
>He feeds the man who sticks to his path
>the man he favors will be a lord of offerings
>the man he rejects will be a pauper
>He is Khuum for every body

"For it ought to obey him by whom it is preserved, because the preservation of life being the end for which one man becomes subject to another, every man is supposed to promise obedience to him in whose power it is to save or destroy him." -Thomas Hobbes


File: 1642239594293-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

File: 1642239594293-1.jpg (432.62 KB, 927x1200, jacobus.jpg)

File: 1642239594293-2.jpg (252.1 KB, 621x800, mw57647.jpg)

K. James VI & I on King as Royal Physician for Body-Politic
>"As every humane body (deare Countrey men) how wholesome soever, is notwithstanding subject, or at least naturally inclined to some sorts of diseases, or infirmities: so is there no Common-wealth, or Body-politicke, how well governed, or peaceable soever it bee, that lackes the owne popular errors, and naturally enclined corruptions:"

>"For remedie whereof, it is the Kings part (as the proper Phisician of his Politicke-body) to purge it of all those diseases, by Medicines meete for the same:"


File: 1642239760501-0.jpg (328.21 KB, 2048x2048, xKNfeFSL.jpg large.jpg)

File: 1642239760501-1.mp4 (23.72 MB, 480x360, Cambodia Sihanouk.mp4)

Pol Pot describing Sihanouk's Monarchy
>that we are not at all under the reign of a constitutional monarchy, but rather under a regime of absolute monarchy

>The King is absolute; he seeks to destroy the interests of the people when they are in a position of weakness; he is concerned that the more educated a people, the easier it becomes to see the faults of kings. The absolute king uses good words, but his heart remains wicked; he uses demagoguery to deceive the people

>the people, who are considered a herd of slaves, are forced to work tirelessly, night and day, to feed the absolute monarchy and its harem of courtiers.

>But since ancient times, the monarchy uses demagoguery by making the people believe that it also represents religion, that it respects the Ten Royal Virtues. To convince the people and exploit them more easily, the monarchy had the poets compose the legend of Preah Leak Chinavong, according to which the king always had the right to life and death over the people.

>She uses all means so that people are uneducated so as to believe that the King is the Supreme Being. When a people is educated, it becomes the virulent enemy of the monarchy and it desperately wants its abolition.

>It is not the first time that H.M. Norodom Sihanouk has abused the will of the Khmer people. We can see that, when the people are weak and let themselves go, the King takes the opportunity to scorn the constitution, as happened in 1949 when he tried to camouflage his absolutism.

>Such a program aims only to gag the people, to arrest and expel those who dare to oppose the policy of the King. Second, it aims to dissolve political parties that oppose the interests of the throne, because political parties do not remain silent

This read is a guilty pleasure to me.
I like the way Pol Pot depicts King Sihanouk to be this scheming absolutist King. He's probably be right about his demagoguery. It's strange how Sihanouk uses nationalist language despite being a French simp.


File: 1642239888026-0.jpg (196.75 KB, 1536x1079, E3GWoBKWEAE7D5a.jpg)

That looks like all the important oldposts from the last thread…
Now I am free to funpost.


holy schizo


File: 1642240588551-0.jpg (557.53 KB, 3521x3521, 3214124214.jpg)

Bossuet on the Royal Bond / Hereditary State
>The people, by themselves, have grown accustomed to this. "I saw all men living, that walk under the Sun with the second young man, who shall rise up in his place."

>The second reason which favors this government, is that it makes the authorities who guide the State the ones who are most interested in its preservation. The prince who works for the State works for his children; and the love he bears his kingdom, mixed with that he has for his family, becomes natural to him."

>"Thus it is that peoples become attached to royal houses. The jealousy that one naturally feels against those whom one sees above him here turns into love and respect."


File: 1642240685406-1.mp4 (2.72 MB, 480x360, Leviathan.mp4)

"The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth" -Hobbes

>Hobbes expressed society as a combination of the people, as the body of the society, and the monarchy, as the soul of the society, making a healthy commonwealth. Without the soul the body dies and so it is with society for Hobbes. Civil war should be avoided because it is "the process of a society losing its soul".


From Homer:
Too many kings can ruin an army-mob rule!
Let there be one commander, one master only!

DPRK Children's Cartoon on single-minded unity:
So, the nine men on the boat were all steersmen
Too many cooks spoil the broth
As there's one guide in the flock, so there should be one steersman on the boat
So, there should be one steersman on the boat.




>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.



File: 1642241253187-0.png (45.58 KB, 800x600, France_1552-1798.png)

File: 1642241253187-1.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.


>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.


File: 1642241471978-2.jpg (16.45 KB, 175x256, A135g.jpg)

>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).



File: 1642241581250.png (261.83 KB, 1783x708, ClipboardImage.png)

>I can recall that Anglos said the same thing about Louis XIV's France, Louis XVI, & Revolutionary France.

lmao the memes wrote themselves 200 years ago


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.


File: 1642241707423-0.png (879.75 KB, 1200x1824, Grace angry transparent.png)

File: 1642241707423-1.png (122.1 KB, 1035x632, Bodin on pope 02.png)

File: 1642241707423-2.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.


If you take these French posts into context, that Louis XIV had his victories on the ceiling of Versailles, you'll see why what the Germans did at Versailles was the ultimate mocking gesture.

And later that gesture was unraveled with the Treaty of Versailles.


>english democracy? failed, and a dictatorship
he right though, anglos just can't into democracy, they lived most of their lives under a monarch.



Reform of justice, 1667.
>Justice is painted on the right of the king; she holds the scales in her right hand and a bundle of lictors including the ax (fasces cum secutus). She wears a tiara and she is dressed in a gold cloak. In a preparatory drawing kept at the Louvre (inv. 29749), Justice bows towards the king, who hands him the scales
>Louis XIV is seated on a throne; he holds the scepter in his right hand and the book of the "new ordinance" of justice, that is to say the reform of civil procedure dating from April 1667 (this is the date which appears in the text of registration); the "new court order" gave rise to a medal published in Metal History ( Medals… 1723 [1701]) under the title: LITIUM AMBAGES RESCISSAE NOVO CODICE MDCLXVII (the procedures shortened by the new ordinance in 1667). This reform, with that of the criminal procedure carried out in August 1670, constitutes what is called the “Louis code”. The king is dressed in armor and the fleurdelysé blue cloak; he looks at Justice and crushes the Chicane at his feet.
>La Chicane is represented by an old woman stretched out, emaciated and greenish, whose body ends in a screw "to signify its various detours" (Mercure galant December 1684). She holds bags full of papers that emanate from endless legal proceedings, the only asset that ultimately remains with litigants. The body ending in a screw is inspired by the allegory of Deception in Iconology by Jean Baudoin, an allegory in which the body "ends in two serpent's tails entwined in one another".
>The judges are standing behind the king, preparing to receive the new code of civil procedure. The first is dressed in red with a beard and white hair. Charles Le Brun was undoubtedly inspired by the allegory of the Council in the Iconology of Baudoin where it is specified that "the long red dress, is very well suited to the counselor, either because it seems more serious, or because purple has always been the livery of senators ”. In the preparatory studies, and even in the cartoon by Charles Le Brun (Louvre, inv. 29956), the Judges are absent and Minerva, who symbolizes royal wisdom, is represented in their place. We don't know why Le Brun made this change in extremis : perhaps for the sake of variety in the decor because Minerva was represented chasing quibblers, thus duplicating the composition The Order Restored in Finances , where she hunts Harpyes symbolizing partisans (financiers).

Restoration of navigation
>The king is seated on a golden throne; he rests his feet on a red cushion embroidered with gold; he is dressed in armor and a blue mantle with golden lilies; he holds Neptune's trident in his right hand; he points to bales of merchandise with his left hand. According to François Charpentier (1684), Louis XIV endeavored to put navigation "in its prime, and to make France powerful at sea, both for trade and for war". It is of course a question of evoking the action of Colbert in favor of the trade by sea, and in particular the creation of the companies of the East and West Indies in 1664: the Mercure galant(1684) wrote that “His Majesty established two companies [in 1664] for the East and West Indies”; Pierre Rainssant (1687) confirms that this subject specifically evokes the companies of the Indies: "the companies established for the trade of the Indies". It is therefore not understood why the date of the inscription is 1663 and not 1664. The “Restoration and increase of navigation”

Just in front of Louis XIV, Charles Le Brun painted a sailor seizing a bundle of goods to carry it on board a ship which is represented in the background: François Charpentier (1684) specifies this scene is an "image of Commerce ", Because this" consists mainly in the transport of goods ". The bundles of goods symbolizing Trade were frequently used to represent Colbert's action in this field:
>The young woman who is painted behind the king is crowned with ears of wheat; she wears a red dress and holds a cornucopia filled with flowers and fruits: this is an allegory of Abundance which results from peace and commerce. It was precisely Colbert's theory that trade is the means of bringing wealth into the kingdom.
>According to François Charpentier (1684) and Pierre Rainssant (1687), the men wearing turbans and having their hands tied behind their backs who are painted at the foot of the royal throne are "Turkish corsairs", who were also called "pirates. barbarians ”; Louis XIV led a campaign against them in the 1660s: bombardment of Algiers in 1661 and 1665; landing at Djidelli in 1664. They have an anchor near them, signifying that they hindered navigation.

Junction of the two seas
>The allegory of the Atlantic joins hands with that of the Mediterranean to symbolize the creation of the Canal du Midi which joins both. The Atlantic is painted as a crowned Neptune holding his trident in his left hand, and who has a whale behind him. In Louis XIV's Metallic History ( Médailles… 1723 [1701]), the creation of the canal is represented by Neptune opening the earth with his trident to form "a communication between the two seas"



did the Romanovs do a similar mocking gesture after winning the great northern war against the swedes, like proclaiming an empire inside Stockholm?


>France is painted in the center of the dome brandishing lightning while sheltering behind a shield adorned with the portrait of Louis XIV (crowned with laurel). She wears the fleurdelysé blue coat and a plumed helmet adorned with the crown of golden lilies. Pierre Rainssant (1687) specifies that the image of the king is painted "to convey that it is he who makes [France] victorious over her enemies, and who puts her under cover of their efforts". The principle of lightning from which lightning flashes that propagate in other compositions is taken from the Capture of the city and citadel of Ghent in six days .


Did they?


idk if they did That's why I'm asking.


File: 1642242275254-2.png (445.68 KB, 1100x600, Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

File: 1642242275254-3.jpg (62.91 KB, 900x645, mmwc2fruiib11.jpg)

Jean Bodin, like Voltaire, on the HRE
"The way in which the Germans define a monarchy is absurd, that is, according to the interpretation of Philip Melanchthon, as the most powerful of all states. It is even more absurd that they think they hold the empire of the Romans, which of course would seem laughable to all who have well in mind the map of the world. The empire of the Romans was most flourishing under Trajan."

"The Germans, however, hold no part of the Roman Empire except Noricum and Vindelicia. Germany is bounded by the Rhine, the Danube, the Vistula, the Carpathian Mountains, and the ocean, but all authority ends at the foothills of the Alps in the south; by the Rhine and a few cities this side of the Rhine in the west; by Silesia, in turn, on the east; by the Baltic regions on the north. How much truer it is of the king of the Turks, who took Byzantium, the capital of the empire, from the Christians, the region of Babylon, which is discussed in the book of Daniel, from the Persians, and joined a great part of his dominion beyond the Danube, up to the mouth of the Dnieper, to the old Roman provinces? Now, if we identify monarchy with force of arms, or with great wealth, or with fertility of areas, or with the number of victories, or with the size of population, or with etymology of the name, or with the fatherland of Daniel, or with the seat of the Babylonian empire, or with the amplitude of sway, it will be more appropriate, certainly, to interpret the prophecy of Daniel as applied to the sultan of the Turks."

"Turning to foreign nations, what has Germany to oppose to the sultan of the Turks? Or which state can more aptly be called a monarchy? This fact is obvious to everyone–If there is anywhere in the world any majesty of empire and of true monarchy, it must radiate from the Sultan. He owns the richest parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and he rules far and wide over the entire Mediterranean and all but a few of its islands. Moreover, in armed forces and strength he is such that he alone is the equal of almost all the princes, since he drove the armies of the Persians and the Muscovites far beyond the boundaries of the empire. But he seized provinces of the Christians and the empire of the Greeks by force of arms, and even devastated the lands of the Germans. I shall not discuss the prince of Ethiopia, called by his people Jochan Bellul, that is, precious gem, whose empire is little less than all Europe. What of the emperor of the Tartars, who rules tribes barbarous in their savagery, countless in number, unconquered in strength? If you compare Germany with these, you compare a fly to an elephant."


Bodin responding to Aristotle calling hereditary states barbaric & HRE Frederick II deceased, anarchy
"Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes."

Bodin is harsh on the Germans, and likely it's based on French chauvinism. Although I could sympathize with Bodin because I also face aggro for absolutist politics from right libertarians / ancap Hoppeans / tradcaths who also happen to be HRE fanboys

The Habsburg / HRE fandom can be as onerous as 3rd Reich wehraboos are to /pol/.
at least, from my perspective

I never liked the way they view royalism, and much to the disdain of traditionalists would probably prefer the way King James I describes royalism as the King being like a Father and a royal bond I describe – and like Bodin comments, they happen to be for electoral princedoms and I find conflict with the tradcaths there from a hereditary standpoint b/c the Pope, HRE, Venetians, Poland, Hungary Catholic states – even in this century I can understand exactly how Bodin feels.


I thought I was done.
But then I decided I wanted to highlight how much of a French chauvinist Jean Bodin was…
& Louis XIV tribute to follow it up.
Now I will be free to funpost?


File: 1642242738466.jpg (31.67 KB, 359x398, grace book.jpg)

>lmao the memes wrote themselves 200 years ago
Idk, that meme you posted will probably age like fine wine…
What with the right libertarians / ancaps self-identifying as neofeudalists thanks to Hoppeanism.
I don't consider myself a feudfag, btw


File: 1642243013357-0.png (688.07 KB, 1079x1087, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642243013357-1.png (319.81 KB, 510x621, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642243013357-2.png (176.39 KB, 651x762, ClipboardImage.png)

>What with the right libertarians / ancaps self-identifying as neofeudalists thanks to Hoppeanism.
Do you mean like this fine specimen?


File: 1642243333517-0.png (395.56 KB, 768x1024, Grace vomits.png)

File: 1642243333517-1.png (275.08 KB, 600x436, 42131242222.png)

Yes, and they inevitably become neofeudalists down the line when they fall for the "centralization / decentralization" meme.
ever since a close friend of mine told me how he noticed there were a lot of ancap tradcaths, it's been something that cannot be unseen for me
Both ancap Hoppeans and Tradcath trads like to gang up on me because they both have a problem with the political supremacy of Monarchy (at least, Absolutism). The former for being anarkiddies and the latter for wanting spiritual supremacy over political.


File: 1642247631996-1.mp4 (2.97 MB, 640x360, LouisXIV Bossuet.mp4)

Bossuet on the true riches of a King
Men are the true riches of a king… One is delighted when he sees, under good kings, the incredible multitude of people and the astonishing largeness of the armies. By contrast one is ashamed of Achab and of the kingdom of Israel exhausted of people, when one sees his army encamp "like two little flocks of goats"–while the Syrian army which faced it covered the face of the earth… In the enumeration of the immense riches of Solomon, there is nothing finer than these words: "Judah and Israel were innumerable, as the stand of the sea in the multitude."…But here is the pinnacle of felicity and of richness. It is that this whole innumerable people "ate and drank of the fruit of its hands, every one under his vine and under his fig-tree, and rejoicing. " For joy makes bodies healthy and vigorous

The people must keep itself in a condition of repose under the authority of the prince… As soon as there is a king, the people has only to remain at rest under his authority. If an impatient people stirs, and does not want to to keep itself tranquil under royal authority, the fire of division will flare up in the state, and consume the bramble-bush together with all the other trees, that is to say the King and the nations… When a king is authorized, "each remains at rest, without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig-tree, from one end of the kingdom to the other. "…Such was the condition of the Jewish people under Solomon, and the same under Simon the Maccabee." And every man tilled his land with peace… the ancient men sat all in the streets, and spoke together of public good; and the young men put on them glory, and the robes of war… and every man sat under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and lived without fear. "…To enjoy this repose one needs not just external peace: one needs internal peace as well, under the authority of an absolute prince."

The State is Me
One owes the prince the same service one owes his country… No one has any doubts about this, since we have seen that the whole State is in the Person of the Prince. In him is found the will of the whole People. It is for him alone to make everything converge in the public good. One must render concurrent the service which one owes to the prince and that which one owes to the State, viewed as inseparable things.

It is only public enemies who separate the interest of the Prince from the interest of the State… In the ordinary style of sacred Scripture, the enemies of the State are called the enemies of the King. We have already observed that Saul called his enemies, the Philistines, enemies of the people of God… Thus one should never think that he can attack a people without attacking its King, nor that one can attack a King without attacking a people… To flatter a people in order to separate it from the interests of its King, is to make the cruelest of all wars upon it, and to add sedition to its other misfortunes… Let the nations then detest the Rabsaces and all those who pretend to love them, while they attack their King. One never attacks the body so much as when one attacks the head, though one can seem for a while to flatter the other members.

The Prince must be loved as a public good, and his life is the object of the People's good wishes… From this comes the cry, Long live the King! Which has been passed from the people of God to all the peoples of the world. At the election of Saul, at the coronation of Solomon, at the rite of Joas, one heard this cry from the whole People: Long live the King, long live the King, long live King David, long live King Solomon! … The Prince is a public good whom each must preserve jealously… The life of the Prince is viewed as the salvation of the whole people: this is why each is careful of the life of the Prince as if it were his own, or rather more than his own… "The anointed of the Lord, whom we regard as the breath of our mouth": that is to say, who is dear to us as the air we breathe. It was thus Jeremiah spoke of the King/ "Then David's men swore unto him, saying: "Thou shalt go no more out to us to battle, lest thou put out the lamp of Israel." …See how the Prince is loved: he is the light of the whole Kingdom. What is loved as much as light? It is the joy and the greatness of the Universe… Thus a good subject loves his Prince as he loves the public good, as he loves the safety of the whole State, as he loves the air he breathes, the light of his eyes, his life and more than his life.


ayy Grace-Tennō chan, in your royal opinion, What makes a king, a good king?

>holiness, the more religious the better, become le based tradcath XD and god will guide you.

>wisdom, can't form an empire with a small autism score and no personal philosophy

>cruelty, it's better to be feared than loved for you can control fear

>greed, it's for the greater good to be slightly greedy so that your people may never be ruled by fully greedy revolutionaries

>justice, do i need to say more? help lady justice and she'll help you back.

>wealth, the things that keeps you standing out, the beauty of your mansion, and the lavishness of your parties, that will make you remembered as a good king.

>good looks, make the virgin peasants submit with your abs, your giga-chad jawline and colorful eyes, king.

>bloodline, if your dynasty did glorious things in the past so can you 100% do too.

>successful culture, it's the reason why we remember many german monarchs but not a single Aztec monarch, only one managed to survive the tide of history for longer.

>inbreeding, Dios Mio… le roi a une lignée tres pure et six doigts à la main gauche


My top 4…
Wisdom, justice, good looks, & bloodline.

A bit of greed & cruelty.
Wealth is a good bonus.
Holiness, if genuinely authentic.
A great leader makes a successful culture.
Good looks can really help, as much as bad looks can make it harder – but I personally think even a mediocre looking monarch can still be admired as long as they make their personality likeable someway.


File: 1642250453384-0.png (621.68 KB, 3000x3000, Grace t.png)

File: 1642250453384-1.jpg (35.35 KB, 365x388, King Henry VII.jpg)

File: 1642250453384-2.jpg (111.05 KB, 449x650, henry8eworth1.jpg)

Behemoth on Henry VII & Henry VIII: Greed & Cruelty
>The two great virtues, that were severally in Henry VII and Henry VIII, when they shall be jointly in one King, will easily cure it. That of Henry VII was, without much noise of the people to fill his coffers; that of Henry VIII was an early severity; but this without the former cannot be exercised.

Greed, imho, can be justified, if it means securing some essential strength and marks of Sovereignty, as well as being rightfully frugal.

Cruelty, it's better to not be seen as a pushover… I don't mind cruelty as long as it seems, again, to secure what is vital and personally I don't mind a bit of a wild card.


File: 1642253298022-1.jpg (139.19 KB, 543x800, james1.jpg)

As for Wisdom, I can admire King James VI & I because I like his political works & speeches, & there is wisdom in being called Rex Pacificus "Peacemaker King".

If too many people are killed in wars, it turns the protection justification on its own head and doesn't help with revolutionaries if those wars are being lost.

Aristotle says, that the external factors hardly lead to the overthrow of royalty like internal factors, but I think the past centuries disprove that notion and show that external factors can also be severe.


File: 1642254953549-0.jpg (154.46 KB, 750x509, DoughtyDance.jpg)

File: 1642254953549-1.jpg (135.75 KB, 432x563, King Charles II.jpg)

Good looks? King Charles II.

Restless he rolls about from whore to whore,
A merry monarch, scandalous and poor.
-A Satyr on Charles II
By John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester



Leftyanons requested a PDF
The Essential Graceposter


Alunya after reading this thread:
>"DARN! I can't stop simping for Grace! What have I become, a royal house cat!? What would Rodina think? And yet I want to lay my head on her royal lap, but my revolutionary comrades will never forgive me for being a class traitor! Why do I feel like a jewish nigger?"


Crashing in this thread like my Homies Crashed into Roswell New Mexico, now are stuck in the Alien Version of Guantanamo in the Mojave Desert.

Hello I am back again to bully Grace-chan because we here in the Louisiana Bayou with a Albanian Bunker in the middle of it with our Pyramid Space ships ready to go to bring all the /yuri/ into our favorite supposed Monarchist. We know that /yuri/ is the cute and fluffy love we have between two girls that love each other very much and to bring it here. Also when did you get invited? I don't remembering doing this oh well me and the Dolphins are hanging out playing black jack and poker.

One of our many flags will fly in this thread as we make sure that our Zeta Comrades steal all of Grace's cows for experimentation. Don't worry there were no probes used in the making of the abduction!


File: 1642260479440.png (608.42 KB, 2000x2000, grace pic 3333.png)

No, this is the real deal.
I am not LARPing.

>We know that /yuri/

Is banned.

>Also when did you get invited?

Didn't you invite me?

>our Zeta Comrades steal all of Grace's cows for experimentation

What do commie aliens have to do with cows…


File: 1642261420616-2.jpg (163.18 KB, 850x562, Ancient Vibes.jpg)

File: 1642261420616-3.png (2.71 MB, 3408x2800, Citizen Grace.png)

Oh sweet summer child, you have much to learn about the world around you.

>No, this is the real deal.

>I am not LARPing.

Right and I am the Arbiter of Posadism, I had been brand to die but I have freed my people from the fanatical religious cult fighting the Extremeists that wanted to end the universe.

>We know that /yuri/

>Is banned.

What's that /yuri/ is banned, time to pull a Galileo from house arrest and say that the Church is wrong still and slide in Yuri of our supposed monarchist Grace-chan.

>What do commie aliens have to do with cows…

Oh you sweet summer child, I guess you never heard of the Space Comrades abducting cows with the UFOs later making crop circles. But that is okay they need the cows to study the strange life on Earth of course.

Now then I think its time for /yuri/ and Alien posting.


File: 1642263118917-0.jpg (103.54 KB, 495x507, grace annoyed.jpg)

>Now then I think its time for /yuri/ and Alien posting.
posadist anon invades my colony
serious lèse-majesté by suggesting Grace is a "Pillow Princess"
steals my pet cows.
& plots with /yuri/
& is a heretic.


File: 1642263578010-0.png (1.11 MB, 833x832, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642263578010-1.png (946.77 KB, 962x542, ClipboardImage.png)

don't worry grace, your loyal army of 9.000 farmers, 30 swadian sharpshooters and 3 kherhit lancers whom I recruited from a tavern for 1098 denars will gladly protect you from aliens


File: 1642264674498-0.png (621.68 KB, 3000x3000, Grace t.png)

That is good to know.
tfw anon has Grace in video games.


File: 1642265508815-0.jpg (345.96 KB, 850x1003, Big tiddy yuri love.jpg)

File: 1642265508815-2.jpg (70.97 KB, 1280x720, Glassing.jpg)

File: 1642265508815-3.png (1.89 MB, 1518x1080, SailorBeep.png)

>Is a heretic
I maybe considered a heretic to you but to my people I am a hero, the one that freed them from a life of servitude of a religous cult after learning that the religion was false and based on lies.

>serious lèse-majesté by suggesting Grace is a "Pillow Princess"

So this was Grace's coup de grâce interesting to know.

>steals my pet cows

<mfw monarchists care about cows as their exotic animals than looking at them as the peasant farmer's animals.

Well goes to show that Grace has a heart for the peasants. Though its time for the peasants to rise up again and become Proleteriatized as we uplift them with the help of the Space comrades.

Aww how cute Grace acknowleges the simps. Well its time to Glass the Army from orbit then nothing else can be done they are a flood that must be stopped.

Anyways time to drop more Yuri and do orbital bombardment sadly it must be done.


>when you'd like to read the thread but can't filter out Gracefag's 60+ autism posts because they don't use a trip


Just look at the images and imagine her sitting on your face. That's what I do.


File: 1642278321648-0.png (1.21 MB, 1026x643, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642278321648-1.png (3.34 MB, 1877x928, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642278321648-2.png (2.8 MB, 1897x962, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642278321648-3.png (848.19 KB, 1184x394, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1642278321648-4.png (2.88 MB, 1907x956, ClipboardImage.png)

>tfw anon has Grace in video games.
you're saying that like it's a bad thing.



I see that you are a man of culture as well. Beep is the strongest.


oh i just recognized the art style.
i got a Cactus hive friend
he has a cactus on his inventory


That's fine, my dood you can come hang out with me and the Space Comrades in the Bunker. Play some Kenshi make an alcohol distillery in the middle of Kenshi which is the moon. Making massive kats on the way.


File: 1642300293851.jpg (78.83 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)


i want a brothel mod
i can skin people alive
make some dank monster kush

but i can't open a fucking brothel?


enjoy you degenerate


will this hyperlink?
also beware you probably will become a deranged coomer or pedophile if you spend too much time there



well no, and yea and no.
i'm already watching the thread, there's nothign there yet.
i might be a deranged coomer but that's debatable.
and no, almost sure the pedophiles there got kicked out when the forums changed, and they stayed on their sjw cringe compilation contaimnent thread.


>almost sure the pedophiles there got kicked out when the forums changed, and they stayed on their sjw cringe compilation contaimnent thread
But of course



afaik they stayed with the undesirables of the "old loverslab"
there is an old loverslab forum which is not "loverslab" because it doesn't has any mods anymore. and iirc all the scum stayed there making chincel threads and such.


File: 1642311551312.mp4 (14.01 MB, 320x240, Paradise Lost Book 1.mp4)

paradise lost is a guilty pleasure, too, being from anti-royalist John Milton


File: 1642323664883.png (4.66 MB, 4150x3000, Grace leftypol org.png)

>be me
>visit 4/pol/
>look into /pol/ lit
<the entire thread is esoteric faggotry


why did you give her a french flag?



Unironically at this point I don't find the idea of reading some of Evola's purely esoteric shit that revolting. Evola fans are retards and his political philosophy is worthless, but if I actually read books I can see myself enjoying throwing him in with Crowley.


I'm getting tired of seeing esoteric fags everywhere.
They're like an invasive overgrowth.


I'm ok with Grace having a French flag, personally.


Do you believe in secular monarchy or what? How would that even work?


I want Political Supremacy.
which could mean the union of temporal & spiritual, like State Shinto or other examples
& they want a theocracy with priest caste.


File: 1642332393409.png (3.13 MB, 1905x961, ClipboardImage.png)

it was the only flag in the game with identical colors of grace, blue and gold.


I don't understand /pol/'s urge to put the clergy or churchmen above everyone else (including the political authority, that being the City / State & the Sovereign Monarch too). But, to be fair, uplifting a political Monarchy supreme probably seems like a bizarre urge to them likewise.
But I guess it has to do with a combination of reading Evola & wanting to return to the Indian caste system because it is Traditional or watching Pastor Anderson or gays being thrown off rooftops. It think it's a hard reaction to globohomo (as they call it) that makes them turn towards theocracy and lionizing their holy men.
It's obvious why right libertarians do it – because they like to pit the Church against State to further their anarkiddie ends and see it as a limitation on the State.
…Traditionalists give me hard rejection… because they dislike the absolutism… dislike the political supremacy… consider it proto-totalitarian…
Absolutists basically are the black sheep.
Because they believe in Political Supremacy.
& the infinite majesty & pre-eminence of a political Monarch.
To put this in context, the vid related hints that the Wars of Religion lead to the need for a strong political power & strong state & strong royal monarchy.
& this Wikipedia article for further context.
It doesn't necessarily mean secularism or apathy towards religion, but stresses the need for the Body-Politic and its order.
To explain the idea of political supremacy & how absolutists view it, I usually start with Aristotle.
Aristotle in his work Politics explains that the State has the relationship of the Whole to the Part, the State being the City – (hint, hint, Polis, meaning City, & Politics). A church building is a building in the City, has the relationship of a part to the whole, but the order of politics relates to everyone in the CIty – so you see the importance of Politics, and how it relates not only to the Church, but also to the entire scope of political order and the public interests. What is political means each member of the City, those who sit in the pews of the church, & all the professions there involved and the Commonweal of each in particular and in general. As Bodin sees a Commonwealth as what they share in particular and general (or what they share in common).
Absolutists believe in the supremacy of Monarchy, – Monarchy being a political form of state (as I define it). Wants a strong Body-Politic.
To explain this further, the Leviathan frontpiece is another good example – the Leviathan, being the Body-Politic, holds the Public Sword of the Commonwealth and the Crosier. They form a triangle, which represented the unity and order of it all. That temporal and spiritual authority united made a strong body-politic, – the two columns on the cover represent the temporal and spiritual authority.
Most importantly, the Leviathan towers above the City – the City represented the State – the City is the Sovereign (or the Sovereign Monarch is the State). They talked in terms of the State as the City… then take that same principle of politics and apply it outside the city-state (and there's nothing wrong with that imho, although some traditionalists want there to be only city-states and not use the term political outside that context and limit the term autistically).
It isn't only Hobbes, but Bodin & other absolutists basically re-affirm the need for the political authority & Sovereignty…


Does Grace affirm Henry VIII as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England?


File: 1642340169736-0.jpg (349.64 KB, 1536x1536, yVZ3o-NE.jpg large.jpg)

File: 1642340169736-1.jpg (352.74 KB, 1125x1461, ECYirINU8AEcr6G.jpg)

File: 1642340169736-2.jpg (1.41 MB, 2376x1324, vivat rex.jpg)

I can see some aggro, so no comment
but I can probably hear torches and pitchforks being gathered
But the traditionalist narrative is overdone to me.
I don't care if they call a modernist (call me early modernist, idc).
But like I mentioned here >>206107 rivaling the Body-Politic with the Two Swords doctrine was their undoing from my perspective, and I sometimes wish I could be the old man in >>206182 this North Korean cartoon P3, where he breaks one the sword against a rock, and shows them one sword (symboling the need for political unity itself).


ITs because /pol/fags want to larp as crusaders and as you know that the pope was the only one in the Catholic world. That is why they put it above everyone else because they larp as Christians and want an excuse to murder muslims for the "sake of their religion" so it makes sense.

Its okay Grace Poster when you are here you got instead me the Space Comrade taking what's mine in a Max Stirner kinda way. Don't worry about morons they get glassed from orbit too;


File: 1642477832625.mp4 (686.01 KB, 854x480, grace x alunya.mp4)

For our supposed Monarch I hope you remember this lovely yuri video from months ago enjoy the /yuri/ that is totally allowed and don't listen to the sign.


File: 1642478597975.png (13.89 KB, 392x428, Untitled.png)

Why does Grace soi the Royal turnip?


holy lmao


File: 1642490240850-0.gif (Spoiler Image, 6.2 MB, 600x338, b0931a98be3bad2cbb8b5d3004….gif)

File: 1642490240850-1.mp4 (Spoiler Image, 77.95 KB, 728x720, based2.mp4)

File: 1642490240850-2.mp4 (Spoiler Image, 2.69 MB, 1920x1080, gay weed.mp4)

File: 1642490240850-3.jpg (Spoiler Image, 38.64 KB, 293x359, chillin.jpg)

File: 1642490240850-4.png (Spoiler Image, 104.05 KB, 514x746, trapalunya.png)

i know it isnt related but imagine if grace and alunya were like this


>Alunya bites Grace


One last PDF.


Yes, I remember.
It is still an illicit video here.


File: 1642638108674.jpg (155.46 KB, 1280x1207, AlunyaxGrace Yuri.jpg)

What's that I can't hear you over the sound of /yuri/ happening in the thread. Oh how love is so soft and gentle.


File: 1642638785786.jpeg (28.28 KB, 356x314, images (59).jpeg)

hail qween


But is Grace even a queen how do we know that she isn't just a monarch simp like the British are for Queen Elizabeth "Totally not a vampire" Windsor.


What is the state of si/b/eria lately?
Looks pretty desolate.


File: 1642687005759.png (2.27 MB, 3500x3500, Grace 707.png)

Thinking about another Grace pic…
what reaction picture to use…


File: 1642688567556.png (278.48 KB, 1000x1000, sketch grace 01.png)

>Oh how love is so soft and gentle
Love hurts, anon.


File: 1642705649006.png (171.35 KB, 425x283, ClipboardImage.png)

I never saw grace laughing, KEK levels of laughing.


File: 1642706391546.png (505.75 KB, 597x596, 1633426752306.png)


how do I turn a thread into a pdf?


How about Grace and Alunya kissing? Haha just kidding… unless…?


File: 1642713292645-1.jpg (114.48 KB, 1248x978, Love in the winter air.jpg)

Unique IPs: 28

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]