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

/siberia/ - Off-topic

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

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
siberia archives

 No.270621[View All]

By invitation of the Incans of leftypol,
Alunya's most beloved monarchist
233 posts and 376 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1658986504461-0.png (341.02 KB, 1500x1500, Grace growl.png)


Is Grace-chan a furry?


What if Grace-chan was a queen and her throne was my face?


I could totally see her taking some doggy dick.



File: 1659160740976.png (333.4 KB, 1500x1500, Grace cheerful look.png)


what a qt


Dude, she's White, you gotta face reality.


File: 1659183561895.png (1.79 MB, 990x1200, ClipboardImage.png)

shit, guess she gotta adapt to ancient Egyptian royalty traditions, I'm talking sex with cats and dogs, and using crocodile intestines as condoms


hey gracechan I just found this book and wanted to see what you thought of it and if there is a monarchist book that is just as comprehensive.
This books basically outlines civic republicanism for a general audience and lays down ideas like freedom as non domination.
republicanism has become such a dominant ideology that it became invisible so when i saw this book the first thing i thought of is what would it's monarchist equivalent be like?


File: 1659232517497-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

File: 1659232517497-1.jpg (591.43 KB, 1536x966, 00dLIvdUE.jpg large.jpg)

I will quickly point out something first.
For example, the author's rejection of Cicero:
>There are several problems. The first is simply that he [Cicero] did not define a republic as requiring popular control. He observes that some define republics in this way, and even suggests that there may be some connection between popular control and freedom, as republicans claim. But this is not how he defines a republic. Rather, on his view, a republic is any regime in which there is a community of interest and shared conception of justice. He is explicit that monarchies count as republics–a claim republicans strenuously deny. His own preference, however, is for a mixed constitution blending the elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. It is difficult to see why we should count someone as a republican who denies one of its most central and distinctive political tenets
I'm not really a bleeding heart apologist for what people call republicanism as opposed to monarchy, but I'll make a few points.

>if there is a monarchist book

Idk, I'd recommend all the books I read.
I'm drawn to the names most synonymous with absolute monarchy.
Like Bodin, King James I, Robert Filmer, Hobbes, Bossuet, etc.
Although Dante Alighieri in De Monarchia & his political letters also has pre-eminent views of Monarchy.
Since, imo, the absolutist view of monarchy is the only view aspiring to what I call the "Pre-eminent State of Monarchy". that I trace back to Aristotle's Politics, although Bodin corrects Aristotle a little I think Bodin's politics of sovereign monarchy is closest to monarchical pre-eminence

Bodin's Six Books of Commonwealth:

"Republicanism vs Monarchism" distinction wasn't always a thing.
Jean Bodin's "Six Books of a Commonwealth" was originally called "Les Six livres de la République", but later as that tension grew on and that distinction developed the English translation changed the word "Republic" to "Commonwealth" in Richard Knolles' translation since by then the "monarchist vs republican" dichotomy had since then developed.
"Commonwealth" basically means the "public good" and I have read bloggers who disagree with Bodin strictly because they thought he was "too republican" for his study of the Roman state and the word "Republic" itself… because it wasn't Hoppean privatization or distinct of a civil state.
And while Bodin did talk of sovereignty in terms of ownership, I wouldn't go as far as to say a sovereign monarchy is solely a private affair with nothing concerning the "commonweal" or public, even in the keenest sense of absolute monarchy where the Sovereign Monarch is viewed as a superior to the people in general and particular.

<How is the term "Republic" like "Commonwealth" used in this sense, and why does Bodin use the term "Republic" and "Commonwealth" for Hobbes' Leviathan?

Here's an important distinction
The term "Republic" is a word for the State itself rather than the "form of state".
In absolutist terms, there are 3 forms of state and no such thing as a 4th mixed state, but only 3: monarchy, oligarchy, democracy.

>Why the term "Republic" with State itself doesn't bother you?
The State itself is synonymous with the political. Hobbes in his works refers to the State sometimes as the "City" and that's how politics in principle extended itself even beyond city-states to being the nature of states in general. Republic is understood in the same way to refer to the City since the City itself is the public good or "commonweal".

<how then does Bodin's use of the term "Republic" matter?

Because absolutists somewhat universally back what Plato says, that there's no distinction between what is economical (household) or political (city). As if there were no difference between a great household or a small state, that no matter whether it be a king, a statesman, a dictator, or household manager, they all govern and have the same expertise and craft anyways.

Hobbes calls a family a little city and uses that to refute the view that there were families before the institution of commonwealths or cities.
The same is understood when we use the term "public servants" for statesmen, since servants are something a household management has, whether it be a domestic master and slave or any business or industry with boss and employee.
Aristotle called it an erroneous view to see no difference between a great household and small state, but does mention how a Monarch should treat his subjects like his own kin and offspring and foreigners like slaves (I think) and how a Monarchy rules various kinds of state, like cities, nations, or empires like a household.

>like freedom as non domination

I haven't read the whole book itself, but while the book makes extensive reference to the "empire of law" I'd promptly ask what kinds of laws.
Bodin makes a distinction between the laws of God and Nature, the fundamental laws, and the Sovereign's own laws (that being the right command).
While the Sovereign Monarch isn't subject to his own laws, it's not the case that there isn't an onus to follow his own rules or that there was a power without law. For instance, absolute power is viewed pretty much as the law of nature since Bodin takes inspiration from the Roman pater familias who had the power of life and death and since Hobbes pretty much views it as a fundamental law for the State itself to exist and function healthily.
The book criticizes anarchists for being critical of the law and closely associates law with freedom, but although Bodin makes the case that law triumphs over custom–he did allude to a quote I read that said law was the tyrant and custom the noble king. And despite its criticism of Hobbes on freedom, I think there's a point to be made with how slavery was once the law of the land and many other laws could be deemed illiberal.

>what you thought of it

A well-ordered republic is like a well-ordered family, as Jean Bodin adds. That book rejects sovereignty or talks about prerogative principle, but in my case the superior power is what defines the whole body-politic itself, that being the sovereignty and like Aristotle says "the whole in relation to the part" for what many people call the "common good" or "commonweal".


I think Graceposter literally made a manifesto several threads ago


I don' t know what to ask but this answer was worthwhile enough.
I'm not autistic enough to have seen that


File: 1659254971673-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

>I'm not autistic enough to have seen that
Anon is talking about my infograph collection.

>worthwhile enough

I'm a little lazy.
But I skimmed the book.


I wish I could be smart like Graceposter!



File: 1659344015528-2.jpg (79.22 KB, 1280x720, mr house nv.jpg)

Great Founder Myth in Popular Culture
Depictions of utopia or dystopia prompt the portrayal of a great founder who first established the city, like Aristotle mentions.

Andrew Ryan, as the founder of the City of Rapture

Mr. House has a computer persona like an artificial persona, kind of a reference to Hobbes' Leviathan as the artificial person of the State. It should also be remembered, a household is a monarchy and that is a household rule like >>270931 these quotes say.

I also made that comparison with >>271142 the Wizard of Oz.

Russian cities were renamed to Leningrad and the famous siege of Stalingrad in WW2.


This YT comment basically sort of makes the case for the pre-eminence of Mr. House.


File: 1659350432511.png (68.63 KB, 410x268, ClipboardImage.png)


>Playing Oblivion in 2022
Grace have shit tastes.


File: 1659351007818-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

This edit.
Nobody is going to fap to this.
at least, I don't think

I liked Oblivion better than Skyrim.


>I liked Oblivion better than Skyrim.
You prefer poo over puke? That's supposed to be a saving grace?


File: 1659351767215.png (341.02 KB, 1500x1500, Grace growl.png)

What is your taste, anon?


Hobby wise?


File: 1659353013996-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

>calls my taste awful
<doesn't enlighten us with their own taste


File: 1659355913642.png (102.67 KB, 548x547, ClipboardImage.png)


>another edit
>can't even make OC to bully


I'm not so smart, anon.


File: 1659406968501-0.jpg (325.47 KB, 460x680, grace full sketch.jpg)

"Whenever Sovereignty seems to be divided, there is an illusion: the rights of which are taken as being part of Sovereignty are really all subordinate, and always imply supreme wills of which they only sanction the execution." -Rousseau


Sounds hot…..minus the intestine condoms.


Cute Grace sketch!


>"Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
George Washington, Farewell Address

>"Instruction of the people in the essential rights which are the natural and fundamental laws of sovereignty… it is his duty to cause them [his subjects] to be instructed; and not only his duty, but his benefit also."

>"But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty."

>For he that deserteth the Means, deserteth the Ends… [Such as] of appointing Teachers, and examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defense, Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let the people be ignorant, or misinformed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essential Rights

>"It is his Duty, to cause them to be so instructed; and not only his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security…"

Hobbes on Instruction


Taste in what? I no longer play videogames.


File: 1659445518250.jpg (325.47 KB, 460x680, grace full sketch.jpg)

>I no longer play videogames.
What did you play?


My dislike of Jouvenel is an antipathy run wild.

If I had to make it relatable to /leftypol/ users, Jouvenel is my equivalent of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the "The Gulag Archipelago", always making slants against monarchical absolutism in his writings and under the influence of Tocquevillism. Everything I like about Monarchy, Jouvenel writes off as ugly and undesirable, modernity and atomization, condemns the pre-eminence of one.

>"Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is now their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course."

Bertrand De Jouvenel

>Destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone

It is the fundamental law of monarchy, that one person is the sovereign authority. One person alone is deemed to be pre-eminent and a kind of superior in a state monarchical.

>In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority

Aristotle in Politics writes that households make up the State.
Family is part of the State infrastructure, and like Bodin says we cannot imagine a city without houses. That's how the State functions.

>In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master

The Sovereign Monarch humbles both great and small, rich and poor, great nobles and great multitudes.

Hobbes on the humility of all subjects before a Sovereign [Monarch]:
>And as the power, so also the honour of the sovereign, ought to be greater than that of any or all the subjects. For in the sovereignty is the fountain of honour. The dignities of lord, earl, duke, and prince as his creatures. As in the presence of the master, the servants are equal, and without any honour at all; so are the subjects, in the presence of the sovereign. And though they shine some more, some less, when they are out of his sight; yet in his presence, they shine no more than the stars in the presence of the Sun

>and in denial of every pre-eminence

There is only one pre-eminence.
Pre-eminence is synonymous with the State.
That's why Louis XIV says, "I am the State".

Aristotle says,
>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.

And yet says for the prince of pre-eminence:
>and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part

>and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man

That's a contradiction, a tie is a common bond.
I conjecture it is "atomization" to focus on what they have in private rather than in common.
Take a family and it's good that children have a particular bond to their parents, but it is also very good they mingle with other children. A family tree benefits from a good pot of soil. How should children have future lives, if parents forbid their children to associate with other children? They would be atomized and it would be the children's detriment for not learning social skills from their peers.
Jean Bodin makes the case for what we have in particular and in general. If everyone had been kings in general, we would have no king in particular, and vice versa: There can be no kings, if every man was a king.
Hobbes stressed the need for parents to educate their children.

>whose only bond is now their common bondage to the State

That's what the State has, their bond in general and particular.
Jouvenel rants to Hobbes how man is a political animal, so this is pretty much natural.
Making any pretense about "State apparatus" and "machine government" puts cookies in Hobbes' cookie jar rather than against it.

>The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet

I consider this a good thing. That's exactly what I have in mind for Monarchy.
The individual thumb and the collective fingers meet to their benefit.

>"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


John Cook, regicide and lawyer from the trial of King Charles I.

Cook writes here, Greater than any one, but less than all

I have a few responses to this doctrine.

>and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part
The pre-eminent Monarch is a whole other ballpark.
He brings up the Duke of Venice, what I guess John Cook means to say an elective kingdom and mixed state, and surely says this cannot refer to absolute Monarchs.
Yet an absolute Monarch has the relationship of the Whole, the State being unmixed and the Monarch a superior, not taking any turn or being mixed/
A mixed State (which absolutists deny) would set the Monarchy as a mere part, not a whole, in equal basis with other forms of state, mixed with them as another mere component and not as the whole itself.
This could be a Monarchy where the monarch is a subject of a superior form of state, whether it be oligarchy or democracy.

Jean Bodin
>But in a monarchy it is otherwise, where every one in particular, and all the people in general, and (as it were) in one body, must swear to the observation of the laws, and their faithful allegiance to one Sovereign Monarch,; who next unto God (of whom he holdeth his scepter and power) is bound to no man. For an oath carries with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour.
So the Monarch is a superior to both the people in particular and in general on Bodin's terms. Has a pre-eminence, or majesty, called Sovereignty.

Francis Theobald (3rd pic)
>"That the King is greater than any particular single man, but less than the whole body of men in a nation."

>"If there be any force in this way of arguing, by the same reason it will follow, that a flock of sheep are more excellent than a man, because the shepherd is found out for the sheep, and not the sheep for the shepherd; for if there were no flocks of sheep, there would be no need of a shepherd."

Thomas Hobbes
>This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the Sovereignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of Sovereign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of less power than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signify the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they understand them as one Person (which person the Sovereign appears,) then the power of all together, is the same with the Sovereign's power; and so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the Sovereignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it not; and yet the power of Sovereignty is the same in whomsoever it be placed.

What I think John Cook is referring to is the food argument / water argument, that one wise man might outwit each person from a council, regardless they all together can bring more "food" to the table in terms of knowledge.

My opinion is pre-eminence is another ballpark: the pre-eminent Monarch has the relationship of the whole and like Aristotle says is a kind of god or beast; that's why Hobbes calls the Leviathan a "Mortal God". The question of pre-eminence is always whatever justifies this Monarch to be a superior or on par to them all in general and has the relationship of the general to particular.


File: 1659584760766-1.jpg (111.99 KB, 363x406, mfj5v8cev2r51.jpg)

Everyone knows Louis XIV's famous saying, "L'état, c'est moi". It is disputed whether Louis XIV said this.

His motto is "Nec Pluribus Imar". This motto means the same, because it means "Not Unequal to Many". Compare that with what John Cook poses, Greater than any one, but less than all and you see the significance of it.


File: 1659687608988-0.png (730.25 KB, 2439x3600, Grace no line.png)

File: 1659687608988-3.mp4 (4.65 MB, 640x356, Vive Henri IV.mp4)


Grace obviously plays Victoria 2. Monarchy and Constituional Monarchy ONLY!


File: 1659696905348-0.mp4 (18.83 MB, 854x480, MV BISMILLAH.mp4)


I'm not a fan of paradox games.
Yet I have played CK2 now and then.


Vic 2 does not allow you simulate becoming disgustingly inbred as you marry your cousins over and over to keep the bloodline "pure"
Crusader kings on the other hand…


File: 1659698078257.png (722.81 KB, 752x869, charles ii.png)

we're going to beat you at /icup/


Cute new Grace picture


File: 1659859643834-0.png (190.72 KB, 524x865, grace 3D.png)

File: 1659859643834-1.png (165.51 KB, 383x820, Grace 3D 2.png)


Wow, Grace virtual youtuber???


File: 1659891337883.png (1.62 MB, 3000x3000, grace icup sketch.png)


File: 1659897809328.png (2.58 MB, 3000x3536, Grace x Integralist.png)

>tfw forgotten
Y-you still like me guys, right?


File: 1659898909708-0.png (1.62 MB, 3000x3000, grace icup sketch.png)

File: 1659898909708-1.png (722.81 KB, 752x869, charles ii.png)

idk what happened to ur board.
once we beat /leftypol/, ur board will be next


File: 1659950353473-0.png (607.06 KB, 1328x968, Grace icup 3D 3.png)

File: 1659950353473-1.png (640.27 KB, 1328x968, Grace icup 3D 1.png)

Unique IPs: 12

[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 / zine ]