[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

By invitation of the Incans of leftypol,
Alunya's most beloved monarchist


Very cool new picture!


The last thread is in PDF
So I don't have to re-post all my politics again.
The thread will last longer w/o re-posting.


Thank you, lefty anon.


grace has helmet hair


Grace and Alunya
S e x


Gracefag how would you feel about a republic but the present has lots of rituals symbols and pomp like a monarch?


Gracefag simps for Kim Jong Un




Isn't that every presidency though?


File: 1656374118504-1.jpg (201.63 KB, 1360x768, KJU 7.jpg)

File: 1656374118504-2.jpg (338.43 KB, 1360x768, KJU 19.jpg)

File: 1656374118504-3.jpg (200.92 KB, 1360x768, KJU 10.jpg)

Jean Bodin notes that the Romans took their ceremonies very seriously and there are many other states with arguably as many ceremonies.

>Gracefag simps for Kim Jong Un

KJU doesn't have the pomp and clothes of royalty. They wear fairly plain clothing.

>I do not call majesty that pomp which surrounds kings or that exterior magnificence which dazzles the vulgar. That is but the reflection of majesty and not majesty itself.


"O he links his feelings with the people with the blood relationship" -World of Humane Affection

"Nobody can cut our bloodline linked with him" -To the End of the Earth

"Our ties to the General is as to our own flesh and blood. Like a family to our hearts. Always with him, our whole people as one single mind" -Single-minded people

"For high ideals, to become one with him… We are all under his guidance. Nothing in this world can separate us. We came from the same bloodline" -Whether 1000 ri or 10 000 ri

"We all share one single heart. His affection is our flesh and blood." -Our Revolutionary Armed Forces Support Only the Marshal's Leadership

"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

In Christianity, this royal bond prevails when Christians drink the blood of Christ, formally called the Eucharist, exactly what Aristotle said what prevailed for the royal bond.

Themistian Concept
The Themistian concept of the King as a caring Monarch who loves mankind. It is through the virtue of philanthropia that he is linked to God because of his love of his subjects shows that he is like God. An important aspect of the King's philanthropia is the good King's determination to mitigate the excessive harshness of inflexible statute law with its fixed penalties and its inability to take account of circumstance. The Sovereign demonstrates that 'He himself is Law and above the laws.' It is rooted in the concept of the King as 'ensouled law'. Here the King is both nomos empsuchos and nomos logikos 'By virtue of God's Providence', which has appointed him in his ignorance to be a lawgiver for men. The King is 'superior to the laws' on account of his closeness to God (which is the fundamental reason for his superiority).

Dante Alighieri on Monarchy & Philanthropia
Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude toward 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 thought to be most loved by him."


File: 1656375587499-0.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."


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!


Darius in the Herodotus Debate
>But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom – from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve

Song of General Kim II Sung
>He severed the chains of the masses
>brought them liberty
>The Sun of Korea today
>Democratic and free


"So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero

"For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero

"Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero

"But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero

"Plato himself is for a Divine Power assisting in Human Politics… 'tis a remarkable passage that of his in his Meno. "We may as properly call Governors, or States-men, Divine, as we call those who give out the Oracles, or Prophets or Poets by that name; and we may affirm, that they have a Divine Illumination, and are possessed by the Deity, when they consult for the good of the commonwealth" –William Nichols


File: 1656376841800-0.jpg (460.34 KB, 1532x2048, 84tiO7X8.jpg large.jpg)

"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 best Prince is the best Father." -Jean Bodin

"The Prince, whom you may justly call the Father of the Country, ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father, as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God." -Jean Bodin

"It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shews the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction." -Robert Filmer

"If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference but only in the Latitude and Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferior Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People." -Robert Filmer

"To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death." -Hobbes

"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." -Hobbes (from the context of Pastors / schoolmasters / public education & propaganda)

"Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his People." -King James VI & I

"Man who, as has been said, saw the image of a kingdom in the union of several families under the leadership of a common father, and who had found gentleness in that life, brought themselves easily to create societies of families under kings who took the place of fathers… it is apparently for that reason that the ancient people's of Palestine called their kings Abimelech, that is to say: my father the king. Subjects took themselves to be children of the Prince: and, each calling him, My father the king." -Bossuet

"For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule." -Aristotle


"Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with himself, since He is infinite and two infinities cannot co-exist, so the Sovereign Prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction." -Jean Bodin

People's Joy
Just calling out his name, makes waves of joy
Rise up inside our chests
Because of this uniquely great man
Who guides us through our lives
The whole People is overwhelmed with pride
Inside his bosom of affection and determination
We all stand United
The power of our Unity is Infinite
The bright shining light of the Sun leads us into our future

"We see they cannot admit many kings, nor many lords, however good soever. Solyman emperour of the Turks used this example, hearing the great cries and acclamations of joy which the whole army made unto Sultan Mustapha his son returning out of Persia, he put him to death through jealousy, causing him to be strangled in his withdrawing chamber, and his dead body to be cast out before the whole army: then he made a proclamation, that there was but one God in heaven, and one Sultan upon earth: Two days after he put Sultan Gobe to death, for that he had wept for his brother; and Sultan Mehemet the third brother, for that he fled for fear: leaving but one son living, to avoid the danger of many lords." -Jean Bodin


File: 1656378028430-0.jpg (197.05 KB, 2048x1024, North Korea.jpg)

File: 1656378028430-1.jpg (154.22 KB, 1100x611, a031231234s.jpg)

Jean Bodin on equality & a state as household?
>But the error originated with Plato, who, after he had established a popular state, introduced dangerous equalization. Then the Academicians who came from his school amplified his reasons, assuming that society is maintained by harmony, harmony by equality of justice, and equality by a popular state. Then all the citizens are made one and the same in the most perfect equality and likeness, and this should be the aim of human society. Aristotle did not confute the hypothesis of Plato, but he thought that Plato had erred especially in trying to make the citizenship one and the same; in that way the state is destroyed and becomes a family. This reasoning seems to me to be ineffective; but I judge the hypothesis not only absurd, as Aristotle would have it, but also clearly false.

>And the ancients (to assure Popular estates) did strive to equal all citizens in goods, honours, power, and rewards: and if any one were more virtuous, more just, or more wise, than the rest, he was banished, as I have showed before, seeking to make an equality, if it were possible: and even Plato did wish, That wives and children should be common to all, to the end that no many might say, This is mine, or, That is thine: for those words of Meum, and Tuum (said he) were the breeders of disc0rd, and the ruin of states. By the which there will grow many absurdities: for in so doing, a city shall be ruined, and become a household (as Aristotle said) although that a household or family (which is the true image of a Commonweal) has but one head. And for this cause, an ancient lawmaker, being importuned by some one, to make his country a Popular estate: Make it (says he) in thine own house. And if they say, That it is a goodly thing so to unite citizens and a city, as to make one household of it, they must then take away the plurality of heads and commanders, which are in a Popular estate, to make a Monarch, as the true fathers of a family; and to cut off this equality of goods, power, honour, and commandment, which they seek to make in a Popular estate; for that it is incompatible in a family.

Jean Bodin on Monarchy
>If we should inspect nature more closely, we should gaze upon monarchy everywhere. To make a beginning from small things, we see the king among the bees, the leader in the herd, the buck among the flocks or the bellwether (as among the cranes themselves the many follow one), and in the separate natures of things some one object excels: thus, adamant among the gems, gold among the metals, the Sun among the stars, and finally God alone, the prince and author of the world. Moresoever, they say that among the evil spirits one alone is supreme. But, not to continue indefinitely, what is a family other than the true image of a state? Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king.

>If, then, Plato were to change the nature of things and set up several lords in the same family, several heads for the same body, several pilots on a ship, and finally several leaders among bees, flocks, herds (if only the farmers will permit); if at length he would join several gods into an association for ruling, then I would agree with him that the rule of the optimates is better than a kingdom.

>But if the entire nature of things protests, reason dissents, lasting experience objects, I do not see why we ought to follow Plato or anyone else and violate nature. What Homer has said, "No good thing is a number of masters; let one man be master, one man be king," Euripides has repeated, "Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities." For this reason Sibylla is said to have prophesied in her poems that the safety of the Roman Republic is founded upon a kingdom, that is, the citizens cannot be protected unless they have a king.


File: 1656378198296-0.jpg (225 KB, 1536x1022, Qu1KdDzZ.jpg)

Jean Bodin on Equality continued
>For if we refer all things to nature, which is chief of all things, it becomes plain that this world, which is superior to anything ever joined together by immortal God, consists of unequal parts and mutually discordant elements and contrary motions of the spheres, so that if the harmony through dissimilarity is taken away, the whole will be ruined. In the same way the best republic, if it imitates nature, which it must do, is held together stable and unshaken by those commanding and obeying, servants and lords, powerful and needy, good and wicked, strong and weak, as if by the mixed association of unlike minds. As on the lyre and in song itself the skilled ears cannot endure that sameness of harmony which is called unison; on the contrary, a pleasing harmony is produced by dissimilar notes, deep and high, combined in accordance with certain rules, so also no normal person could endure equality, or rather democratic uniformity in the state. On the other hand, a state graduated from the highest to the lowest, with the middle orders scattered between in moderate proportion, fits together in a marvelous way through complementary action. It is true this gives rise to that blight of all public affairs, the fact that people who are alike from a certain aspect think that they are altogether unlike; but, those who are in a certain degree unlike, think that they are altogether alike. If, therefore, such is the disparity of men among themselves, such the disparity of natural talent, who would divide authority, resources, honors, and offices on the basis of equality? It is as if the same food and clothing were given to boys, grown men, old men, the sick, and the strong and by this reasoning they think to preserve equality.

Hobbes on Equality
>The cause of mutual fear consists partly in the natural equality of men, partly in their mutual will of hurting: whence it comes to pass that we can neither expect from others, nor promise to ourselves the least security: For if we look on men fullgrown, and consider how brittle the frame of our human body is, (which perishing, all its strength, vigour, and wisdom itself perishes with it) and how easy a matter it is, even for the weakest man to kill the strongest, there is no reason why any man trusting to his own strength should conceive himself made by nature above others: they are equals who can do equal things one against the other; but they who can do the greatest things, (namely kill) can do equal things. All men therefore among themselves are by nature equal.

>The question whether of two men be the more worthy, belongs not to the natural, but civil state; for it has been showed before, Cap. I. Art. 3. that all men by nature are equal, and therefore the inequality which now is, suppose from riches, power, nobility of kindred, is come from the civil law. I know that Aristotle in the first book of Politics affirms as a foundation of the whole political science, that some men by nature are made worthy to command, others only to serve; as if Lord and Master were distinguished not by consent of men, but by an aptness, that is, a certain kind of natural knowledge, or ignorance; which foundation is not only against reason (as but now has been showed) but also against experience: for neither almost is any man so dull of understanding as not to judge it better to be ruled by himself, than to yield himself to the government of another; neither if the wiser and stronger do contest, have these ever, or often the upper hand of those. Whether therefore men be equal by nature, the equality is to be acknowledged, or whether unequal, because they are like to contest for dominion, its necessary for the obtaining of Peace, that they be esteemed as equal; and therefore it is in the eight place of the Law of nature, That every man be accounted by nature equal to another, the contrary to which Law is PRIDE.

>Some there are who are discontented with the government under one, for no other reason, but because it is under one; as if it were an unreasonable thing that one man among so many, should so far excel in power, as to be able at his own pleasure to dispose of all the rest; these men sure, if they could, would withdraw themselves from under the Dominion of one God. But this exception against one is suggested by envy, while they see one man in possession of what all desire: for the same cause they would judge it to be as unreasonable, if a few commanded, unless they themselves either were, or hoped to be of the number; for if it be an unreasonable thing that all men have not an equal Right, surely an Oligarchy must be unreasonable also. But because we have showed that the state of equality is the state of war, and that therefore inequality was introduc'd by a general consent; this inequality whereby he, whom we have voluntarily given more to, enjoys more, is no longer to be accompted an unreasonable thing. The inconveniences therefore which attend the Dominion of one man, attend his Person, not his Unity.

>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.

>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.

>The inequality of subjects proceeds from the acts of sovereign power, and therefore has no more place in the presence of the sovereign; that is to say, in a court of justice, than the inequality between kings and their subjects in the presence of the King of kings. The honour of great persons is to be valued for their beneficence, and the aids they give to men of inferior rank, or not at all. And the violences, oppressions, and injuries they do are not extenuated, but aggravated, by the greatness of their persons, because they have the least need to commit them. The consequences of this partiality towards the great proceed in this manner. Impunity makes insolence; insolence, hatred; and hatred, an endeavor to pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatness, though with the ruin of the Commonwealth.


File: 1656378470496-0.png (156.46 KB, 500x333, 1629574937681.png)

File: 1656378470496-1.png (75.47 KB, 813x398, DPRK pinned.png)

From Hobbes De Cive
>The People is somewhat ths 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 will by the will of one man

From Generation of a Commonwealth, Hobbes Leviathan
>This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN [the People], or rather (to speak more reverently) of that Mortal God, to which we owe under the Immortal God, our peace and defense.

Which is the closest, imo, any Western political treatise has come to the Juche doctrine that "The People are God".


"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 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.


File: 1656379121892-2.jpg (208.49 KB, 2048x1182, Caligula quote.jpg)

"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." -Jean Bodin

"But it is a manifest sign, that the most absolute Monarchy is the best State of government, that not only Kings, but even those Cities which are subject to the people, or to Nobles, give the whole command of war to one only, and that so absolute, as nothing can be more (wherein by the way of this must be noted also, that no King can give a General greater authority over his army, than he himself by Right may exercise over all his subjects). Monarchy therefore is the best of all governments in the Camps. But what else, are many Commonwealths, than so many Camps strengthened with arms…." -Thomas Hobbes


File: 1656379862543-0.jpg (243.67 KB, 1708x2048, 1643679542925-0.jpg)

File: 1656379862543-1.jpg (502.27 KB, 770x513, kim jong il poster.jpg)

"It is not only Homer, then, who calls the Princes the Shepherds of nations; it is the Holy Ghost. This name sufficiently warns them to provide for the need of the whole flock, that is to say the whole People… It is a royal right to provide for the needs of the People." -Bossuet

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

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: 1656380395075-2.mp4 (4.98 MB, 492x360, pharaoh02.mp4)


"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


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


File: 1656381433370.png (11.61 MB, 3024x4032, ClipboardImage.png)

That's cool and all but we got real milk everyday in school for free.


File: 1656381468691-0.jpg (304.52 KB, 1536x894, dante quote.jpg)

King James I
>It is a true old saying, That a King is as one set on a stage, whose smallest actions and gestures, all the people gazingly do behold
>Be careful then, my Son, so to frame all your indifferent actions and outward behaviour, as they may serve for the furtherance and forth-setting of your inward virtuous disposition

>But it is not enough to a good King, by the scepter of good Laws well execute to govern, and by force of arms to protect his people; if he join not therewith his virtuous life in his own person, and in the person of his Court and company; by good example alluring his Subjects to the love of virtue, and hatred of vice. And therefore (my Son) see all people are naturally inclined to follow their Princes example (as I showed you before) let it not be said, that ye command others to keep the contrary course to that, which in your own person ye practice, making so your words and deeds to fight together: but by the contrary, let your own life be a law-book and mirrour to your people; that therein they may read the practice of their own Laws; and therein they may see, by your image, what life they should lead

>I remember Christ's saying, My sheep hear my voice, and so I assure myself, my people will most willingly hear the voice of me, their own Shepherd and King.

Jean Bodin on Prince as Mirror to People
>For nothing more divine ever was said by a prophet than what was said by Plato, "As are the princes in a state, so will be the citizens." By lasting experience we have found this abundantly true. For examples it is unnecessary to seek farther than Francis I, king of the French. As soon as he began to love literature, from which his ancestors had always turned away, immediately the nobility followed suit. Then the remaining orders studied the good arts with such zeal that never was there a greater number of learned people.


"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".

"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

>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

"But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood." -Jean Bodin

"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

Basically saying, the ship is well defined by the unity of the ship – so likewise the State.

No Motherland Without You
>We are unable, to survive without you
>Our nation cannot, exist without you
>Our fate, and ambitions, depends on you
>Peoples' fates depend on you, Comrade Kim Jong-il


States are defined by an individual, indivisible, and majestic power, called Sovereignty, being the unity itself and the supreme power.

To be a Monarch is to be supreme.
Political Supremacy is the foundation of political order.

Anons might say,
Gracefag, you self-contradict
Thinking of >>270918 the 3rd screencap.
About the not self-sufficing individual, but also the Pre-Eminent Monarch who founded the State, taught men a social bond, and became the soul of this Commonwealth, sufficient for himself?

Woof. Woof. I will explain myself on why the Pre-eminent Monarch is the exception to the rule.

As I said the State as a bond is defined by an individual, indivisible, majestic power, called Sovereignty. And also Hobbes went on to say, that the Commonwealth has one soul.

Also, they depend upon the sovereign.

My view of Monarchy is it is a political form of State. The Pre-Eminent Monarch is the State. I do not deny the political in this respect.

Bodin also made the case that the Pre-Eminent Monarch should govern with laws.

>Wherefore Aristotle is deceived, in deeming the Commonweale then to be happy, when it shall chance to have a prince of so great virtue and wisdom, as that he both can and will with greatest equity, govern his subjects without laws. For why, the law is not made for the prince, but for the subjects in general.

The law being a strong social force.

Woof, I also point to Must be either a BEAST or a God line. Think about Monarchy. This is one person set above myriads of people. One ruler alone with a relationship either on par with or that of a superior to myriads of people and to command them. It's for this reason Louis XIV's motto was Nec Pluribus Impar or Not Unequal to Many or Hobbes said that this Leviathan was a Mortal God or that Bodin talked about the Dictator's edicts being religiously observed. Bodin also asserted that the Sovereign Monarch has the relationship of a superior. Pretty much as if it were the case with Monarchy.

Bodin says, "It is one thing to bind all together, and to bind every one in particular: for so all the citizens particularly swore to the observation of the laws, but not all together [meaning, the People itself is absolute]; for that every one of them in particular was bound unto the power of them all in general. But an oath could not be given by them all: for why, the people in general is a certain universal body, in power and nature divided from every man in particular. Then again to say truly, an oath cannot be made but by a lesser to the greater, but in a popular estate nothing can be greater than the whole body of the people themselves.But in a monarchy it is otherwise, where every one in particular, and all the people in general, and (as it were) in one body, must swear to the observation of the laws, and their faithful allegiance to one sovereign monarch; who next unto God (of whom he holds his scepter & power) is bound to no man. For an oath carries always with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour."


File: 1656383387083-0.png (72.47 KB, 947x341, Plato royal weaver.png)

File: 1656383387083-3.png (43.43 KB, 1206x274, Royal Weaver 02.png)

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 & 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.

"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

"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: 1656383774034-0.png (875.71 KB, 4000x4000, grace qt 2.png)

Everything I recently posted is why I simp for Kim Jong Un and why I admire North Korea.

I have a field day with them, lol.



north korea isn't improving
it is stagnating and getting worse imo

they seems don't have new ideas apart military


The world is getting worse atm.
Pandemics & War in Ukraine

>they seems don't have new ideas apart military

Tell that to NATO imperialists.


>Everything I recently posted is why I simp for Kim Jong Un and why I admire North Korea
Fascist simping for North Korea, why am I not surprised?


>Fascist simping for North Korea


They do that because they believe liberal propaganda. There are also fascists who simp for Makhno.


>The world is getting worse atm.



File: 1656423785298-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

File: 1656423785298-3.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-eminence 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.


O - People believe and follow him with one mind

There is mention early pre-eminence of one.
The task of Monarchists is to re-create the pre-eminence of one. by whatever means, whether raveling back to its natural majesty or artificially inflating it like a balloon.


File: 1656424142936.png (1004.29 KB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)


The task of Monarchists is to re-create the pre-eminence of one. by whatever means.


I am not clicking that.


>liberal propaganda
Gracefag is literally posting media from the DPRK.


File: 1656430406099-0.png (173.93 KB, 649x588, Grace vomits crop.png)

If only I could persuade anon not to call me a fascist.
Fascists are always picking on me for advocating the hereditary…


File: 1656511327963-0.png (598.68 KB, 2000x2000, grace sketch b.png)

Are dogs better than humans?


>notable dog breeds
Golden retriever

>notable Cat breeds

skinless cat

yeah I'm thinking dogs are better than cats and humans, no idea why the Egyptians decided cats were worthy of worship


cat breeds:
normal cat
orange cat
black cat
calico cat
expensive cat


The Dragon Ball world is ruled by a king who is a dog.


File: 1656521116708.png (471.91 KB, 2000x2000, Grace chan pic.png)


Where are Grace boobas


Cute! Grace-chan a cute!


I want to abdicate grace chan's virginity


File: 1656528171415.png (642.62 KB, 1800x1800, Grace disdain look.png)

All this lewdposting.



File: 1656529773350.png (1.09 MB, 1522x1100, 14 lichess.png)

Good night, lefty anons.


File: 1656530785957.png (134.48 KB, 500x281, k.png)


File: 1656554747440.png (10.71 MB, 2796x4000, ClipboardImage.png)

A proper queen knows how to serve her subjects


With all due respect, it is a shame that Grace didn't have a stage of honor in the Inti Raymi


She probably was playing Age of Empires.


File: 1656607990921-0.png (1.33 MB, 1522x1100, 2 Oblivion.png)

>playing video games


Grace enjoys a game about regicide and the extermination of a royal dynasty? Unexpectedly based


File: 1656608781419-0.png (400.05 KB, 1800x1800, Grace sketch laugh.png)

File: 1656608781419-1.jpg (69.6 KB, 952x839, old sketch.jpg)

This comic is so bizarre.

Hentai Peach
>Um, I hope to see our Kingdom continue to prosper, and… Ah~! <3 Propagate on my behalf so we can expand with fresh faces.

Thomas Hobbes on increasing the multitude
>Concerning multitude, it is the duty of them that are in sovereign authority, to increase the people, in as much as they are governors of mankind under God Almighty, who having created but one man, and one woman, declared that it was his will they should be multiplied and increased afterwards. And seeing this is to be done by ordinances concerning copulation: they are by the law of nature bound to make such ordinances concerning the same, as may tend to the increase of mankind.

Not because it involves regicide!
But because it was my first TES game.


File: 1656608862194.jpg (71.28 KB, 1200x1200, d7e-3011696890.jpg)

why the fuck did you post that shit
go castrate yourself


File: 1656609098370.png (9.48 MB, 2788x4000, ClipboardImage.png)

Just say you wanted more



Good night again


damn is that comic really shocking to you? you oughtta see my furaffinity favourites, you'd have a conniption


I'm not "shocked" by Princess Peach masturbating. However, that caught me off-guard, since a leftist imageboard really isn't the most appropriate place for that.


on the contrary, it's the perfect place to demonstrate that the monarchs are just fallible, horny humans like the rest of us


>dude it's not coombait
>it's actually le heckin political message
<Why'd you post hentai then?.


Sorry grace


sleep well


File: 1656612403313.png (509.24 KB, 710x573, ClipboardImage.png)

It showcases quite well the abuse of power over peasants by a single monarch


It's an off-topic shitposting board named after place known for labor prisons, I'd say it's fitting


Super Bitch World


You know what? Fair point. I should've expected porn from leftypol's equivalent to /b/.
Although gulags probably didn't have hentai


Graceposter should use the carlist flag. Its the closest flag we have to monarchobolshevism.


I'm not interested in larping as
Carlists, Action Française, or Jacobites
My politics is focused on promoting absolutist politics & absolute monarchy.
The traditionalists and royalists would hate me.

This is my thread on a leftist imageboard.
Even more inappropriate and uncalled for.


File: 1656644449856.jpg (246.33 KB, 1280x1756, 1656273176741.jpg)

>My politics is focused on promoting absolutist politics & absolute monarchy.
>The traditionalists and royalists would hate me.


File: 1656645813913-0.png (471.91 KB, 2000x2000, Grace chan pic.png)

File: 1656645813913-1.png (275.05 KB, 600x436, graceposter cat.png)

Traditionalists hate absolutism and see it as Enlightenment cringe. They also follow into the tradcath bunch and tradcaths esp. dislike my politics. What they advocate instead is neofeudalism, basically a more archaic mixed constitutionalism.

Hoppeans are more focused on the pre-eminence of the Free Market than One Man and along with traditionalists blame absolutism for everything about the upbringing of the modern State today and like all the other anarchists will defame my politics for "centralization" and advocate neofeudalism for "decentralization". Any libertarian getting into monarchist politics usually devolves into neofeudalism or "anarcho-monarchism".

Modern constitutionalists consider themselves the main rivals to my politics.

Most royalists are modern constitutionalists or traditionalists. Both dislike my politics.



A Bumper Harvest in the Chongsan Plain
Who has brought this happiness?
Our Party has brought it.
Who has brought this happiness?
It is thanks to the Leader!


what are absolutist views on preventing modocracy ?


Bossuet on Apathetic Rulers
>"The hand of the strong shall bear rule: but that which is slothful shall be under tribute… Negligence pulls down roofs… Everything is weak under the slothful…"

>"It is the rule of divine justice to punish not only those violent servants who abuse the power that he has given them, but also those useless servants who do not make the most of the talent he has placed in their hand. 'The unprofitable servant cast yet out into the exterior darkness'".

Also, not to alienate your sovereign powers and carefully deal with factionalism, not to take part in a side, and not to punish all at once (but slowly). And also that punishments should be handed out by a magistrate and formally, but give out rewards yourself.


Do not make any pretense of being any other kind of State or mixed:

>And when Kings deny themselves some such necessary Power, it is not alwayes (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 forraign Common-wealths; who in order to the good of their own Subjects let slip few occasions to Weaken the estate of their Neighbours. So was Thomas Beckett Archbishop of Canterbury, supported against Henry the Second, by the Pope; the subjection of Ecclesiastiques to the Common-wealth, having been dispensed with by William the Conqueror at his reception, when he took an Oath, not to infringe the liberty of the Church. And so were the Barons, whose power was by William Rufus (to have their help in transferring the Succession from his Elder brother, to himselfe,) encreased to a degree, inconsistent with the Soveraign Power, maintained in their Rebellion against King John, by the French. Nor does this happen in Monarchy onely. For whereas the stile of the antient Roman Common-wealth, was, The Senate, and People of Rome; neither Senate, nor People pretended to the whole Power; which first caused the seditions, of Tiberius Gracchus, Caius Gracchus, Lucius Saturnius, and others; and afterwards the warres between the Senate and the People, under Marius and Sylla; and again under Pompey and Caesar, to the Extinction of their Democracy


You'll also want to stack the factions and integrate and sweet talk your rivals. Subversion is a good tactic.


Most importantly, secure your position as the Provider.
Become such an asset to their ambitions and desires, that they depend on you and it would be much easier for them to imagine their fruition through you, that they depend on you.
Do your best to become valuable and not to be disposed of, but especially the person who provides. That they will revolve around you like their center of gravity.


Aristotle recommends to take sides with a faction if they have the upperhand and beneficial. If the oligarchs have the upperhand, side with the rich. If the many and destitute gain the upperhand, side with the poor.

But Bodin warns about factionalism, so it should be carefully tread.


File: 1656654660502-0.png (346.32 KB, 800x600, pic8.png)

File: 1656654660502-1.png (582.78 KB, 800x600, pic.png)

File: 1656654660502-3.webm (12.62 MB, 800x600, isotest1.webm)

that sounds interesting

i have this map renderer/economic simulator (this is resource based, so closer to autharky)
but autarky is inferior, you still need imports/externalities which make it more complicated especially for a game :)

would be nice if you could have digital maoism / green anarchism like that
now its more of a 'game' or map renderer

its just not as fantasy as your usual game


File: 1656654974565-0.png (212.19 KB, 600x912, 1638614534178.png)

Both bunkerchan & the Watermelon clique did purges without the assurance of having the upperhand support and without replacements ready.

The fence-sitters were also driven away.


File: 1656655497240-0.jpg (209.91 KB, 1323x2048, EUxAoIvXQAIGR.jpg)

Not to have too many moderators to begin with?


we have few and modocracy is established on /leftypol/


How many mods were there before?


i don't know


i think mods do this because no mods was banned for his actions



>Cute! Grace-chan a cute!




leftypol fanart of Grace
by étienne


File: 1656664375954.png (3.54 MB, 2222x2365, ClipboardImage.png)

here's my favourite


File: 1656664684878-0.png (340.15 KB, 2000x2000, Grace smug pupils shade.png)

File: 1656664684878-1.jpg (783.67 KB, 3957x3601, eng dog book.jpg)

Why would Rodina do this?


Are they jumping in a lake? Why are they not in swimsuits?


File: 1656664998291-0.png (608.42 KB, 2000x2000, grace pic 3333.png)

It is probably a reference to the barbara pit meme


File: 1656665246057-0.png (1.05 MB, 3000x3000, Grace 03.png)


File: 1656665663427-0.png (875.71 KB, 4000x4000, grace qt 2.png)

I thought about getting different costumes for Grace
Like swimsuits and sports
Not too sure how these new costumes would be designed.


I think she would look pretty in the Emperor's new clothes!


State mandated grace gf


some nk transport photos on this site:



By royal decree, Alunya is now everyone's Grace-mandated gf.


File: 1656706997560.mp4 (686.01 KB, 854x480, 1618942786351.mp4)


They love each other :)


File: 1656832806467-0.png (5.35 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1656832806467-1.png (1.56 MB, 2000x3040, ClipboardImage.png)

The oldest documented labor strike happened in Ancient Egypt in the 12th century BC
>In the seventh month of the 29th year of Ramses’ rule, the workers had had enough. One day, all the workers simply lay down their tools and marched out of the necropolis they were building. According to Ammenakht, their supervisors had no idea where they had gone - they had never seen anything like this before. They marched to their local government officials, and demanded that they be paid their food rations. Though the local elders agreed that they should be paid, they were unable to provide the rations. The next day, the workers marched towards the temple of Ramses II, and were able to speak with the Visier (Mayor), who was finally able to secure a ration payment for the workers (though it was not a full payment). Satisfied, the workers returned to their labor.
>There is evidence that the success of this strike compelled workers to continue to use the tactic effectively throughout the reign of Ramses III. As the strikes continued regularly, local government officials began to increase the number of workers they hired to deliver food and supplies to the workers, so that it was obvious to the workers that they were being heard. It is clear that the tactic was so new to all the authority figures in ancient Egypt that they were completely unprepared to deal with it in any way other than to simply attempt to appease the workers. They were very successful in their campaign, one of the first of its kind.
Thoughts, Gracefag?


'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 Person
>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.

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, explains Hobbes & the Monarchy of the Leviathan, and why Hobbes also says man isn't a political animal like ants are.

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.

Struggle for Monarchical Pre-eminence
While Bodin, Filmer, & Arthur Schopenhauer said that Monarchy is natural, I think it goes both ways… for Monarchy is also said to be monstrous, or in more polite terms said to be extraordinary or divine or pre-eminent.

There have certainly been those who said that Mankind has a place for Monarchy, and like Robert Filmer in Patriarcha marks out a kind of right of fatherhood for various peoples by descent, giving them that natural person at once recognized as a superior.

But there are many who will stress how naturally mankind is democratic and has no need for monarchy or any state (like the anarchists) and that there might as well not be any Monarchy. That it is insufficient. That Monarchy is outside the nature of men, and that the people have no need or desire for a monarch. If anyone could understand this sentiment I talk about from a monarchist standpoint, you too would understand this problem.


File: 1656835008945-0.png (3.91 MB, 3400x3082, grace-reprimands.png)

File: 1656835008945-2.jpg (661.57 KB, 2048x1558, 4zHU8jTC.jpg)

>Thoughts, Gracefag?
They fared better than the English peasants in Wat Tyler's Rebellion.

>The situation was now precarious and violence appeared likely as the rebels prepared to unleash a volley of arrows. Richard rode forward towards the crowd and persuaded them to follow him away from Smithfield, to Clerkenwell Fields, defusing the situation. Walworth meanwhile began to regain control of the situation, backed by reinforcements from the city. Tyler's head was cut off and displayed on a pole and, with their leader dead and the royal government now backed by the London militia, the rebel movement began to collapse.

>At this point Richard, then only 14, showed great courage, shouting to the peasants to follow him. He led them off, calmed them down with promises of reforms, and convinced them to disperse to their homes. His promises were immediately revoked by his council of advisors, and the leaders of the revolt were hanged.





File: 1656836364975-0.png (1.09 MB, 1522x1100, 14 lichess.png)

File: 1656836364975-1.png (44.27 KB, 744x435, maistre bees.png)

Robert Filmer / Directive Power
>The first Father had not only simply power, but power monarchical, as he was a Father, immediately from God. For by the appointment of God, as soon as Adam was created he was monarch of the world, though he had no subjects; for though there could not be actual government until there were subjects, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity: though not in act, yet at least in habit. Adam was a King from his creation: and in the state of innocency he had been governor of his children; for the integrity or excellency of the subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the governor.

>but as for directive power, the condition of human nature requires it, since civil society cannot be imagined without power of government: for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done; yet things indifferent, that depended merely on their free will, might be directed by the power of Adam's command.

Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.

What I think by both communties, – means the State likewise has public servants. That an economic household, with its division of labors and servants, like a chef, tutor for the master's children, and maids, are no less modeled for the City: there's no difference between political (the city) and the household (economic).

>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.

This is why I'm not so "right libertarian" (among many other reasons) or see economics as separate from politics. So I use the term political economy. The economy itself is a kind of governance, and also the State governs through the economy and by these means.

Play a city management game or tycoon and this is all apparent, I guess.

Thomas Hobbes – That a Family is a little City
>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."

Maistre on Sovereignty
>If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people of them by giving them laws, since society exists only through the sovereign.

>There was a people, some sort of civilization, and a sovereign as soon as men came into contact. The word people is a relative term that has no meaning divorced from the idea of sovereignty: for the idea of a people involves that of an aggregation around a common center, and without sovereignty there can be no political unity or cohesion…




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."


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."

Summary of Ramses II's works for his father:
"When the Lord of the Two Lands arose as King, to act as champion of his father, on his first voyage to Thebes, he fashioned statues of his father; King Seti I was he; one in Thebes, another in Memphis, in the temple which he built for them… He repeated the restoration of the monuments of his father… fashioning his statues, giving offerings abiding for his august ka–his house, supplying his altars, upbuilding that which was fallen in the house which he loved… His heart kindly disposed towards him that begat him."


File: 1656837721065-0.mp4 (5.19 MB, 640x360, James coins.mp4)

File: 1656837721065-1.mp4 (7.56 MB, 640x360, James Succession.mp4)

File: 1656837721065-2.mp4 (8.55 MB, 640x360, James Burials.mp4)

File: 1656837721065-3.mp4 (11.84 MB, 640x360, James Equivocator.mp4)





Preface to Counterblaste:

A Counterblaste to Tobacco:

>Because of continued high demand for tobacco in England and negative effects on the economies of the American colonies, the king in 1624 instead created a royal monopoly for the crop. 150 years later, British utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham would cite A Counterblaste to Tobacco as an example of antipathy run wild.

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: 1656839859342-1.mp4 (2.21 MB, 720x404, James I & Jewels.mp4)

File: 1656839859342-2.jpg (155.72 KB, 1170x703, hzTF4952.jpg)

File: 1656839859342-3.mp4 (787.29 KB, 626x360, My Dear Friend.mp4)


'Sup bitch. Ready to abdicate?


File: 1656913889882.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

This is cringe.


Considering how Chuck the First turned out, I don't know that I would want to take lessons in fatherhood from James VI/I.


File: 1657043245811-0.png (471.91 KB, 2000x2000, Grace chan pic.png)

File: 1657043245811-2.jpg (208.49 KB, 2048x1182, Caligula quote.jpg)

Homer's maxim + Darius in the Herodotus Debate
Are the oldest references to Monarchist political thought I know.
Let there be one Ruler, one King
What Darius says in the Herodotus Debate
Every Monarchist should know these by heart
It might seem small and mundane, but I consider them foundational.


I want to pinch her cheeks


File: 1657059597807.jpeg (10.41 KB, 260x194, images (1).jpeg)

is grace is a gamer like the rest of the population in her colony?


Gracefag, your authority is called >>273836


File: 1657061541841.gif (264.72 KB, 512x512, looker.gif)

Same but not the cheeks you're thinking of


What kind of monkey business is this?




File: 1657067603587-0.jpg (3.13 MB, 4500x3000, bastille_grace.jpg)

So Alunya is a girl who likes big butts?


File: 1657068160709-0.png (1.18 MB, 1522x1100, 13 Pandemic2.png)

File: 1657068160710-1.mp4 (2.72 MB, 640x360, Pikmin Main Theme.mp4)

Of course I like video games.


File: 1657075052812.png (2.79 MB, 3408x2800, ClipboardImage.png)

>So Alunya is a girl who likes big butts?
Who doesn't? The sun never sets on Grace's moon?


File: 1657075874649-0.png (936.87 KB, 1350x1500, Junta 03.png)

I am going to sleep.
plus I prefer the version of ur pic
w/o text & mouth closed


Alunya is really cute in this one



File: 1657121491300.png (7.52 KB, 496x79, ClipboardImage.png)

>just found the padded reich diaper thread on 8moe
I don't even know whether to laugh or vomit.


File: 1657127290232.png (173.93 KB, 649x588, Grace vomits crop.png)


File: 1657145157988-0.png (2.22 MB, 3419x3096, Grace recites.png)

File: 1657145157988-1.jpg (91.23 KB, 730x818, worthy.jpg)


I didn't want to see that I didn't need to see that I wish I could forget that.


File: 1657305423511-0.png (475.62 KB, 762x766, 1657289762621.png)

File: 1657305423511-1.png (913.6 KB, 720x732, 1657261789776.png)

>Concerning multitude, it is the duty of them that are in sovereign authority, to increase the people, in as much as they are governors of mankind under God Almighty, who having created but one man, and one woman, declared that it was his will they should be multiplied and increased afterwards. And seeing this is to be done by ordinances concerning copulation: they are by the law of nature bound to make such ordinances concerning the same, as may tend to the increase of mankind.


File: 1657390085527-0.png (1.61 MB, 3000x3000, grace5.png)

There will be a surprise soon, anons.


File: 1657390489699.gif (647.01 KB, 393x484, excite.gif)



File: 1657393992430-0.png (4.34 KB, 257x324, Grace MC preview.png)

Grace Minecraft skin
Classic + Slim


Full skirt version
Classic + Slim


Grace in Alunya cosplay MC skin
Classic + Slim


There will also be an Alunya skin soon.


very cool, thank you sir


Will these work with Minetest too?


File: 1657475598929-0.png (5.04 KB, 231x306, Rodina MC preview.png)

File: 1657475598929-2.png (1.62 KB, 64x64, Rodina slim.png)

Rodina MC skin
Classic + Slim!


Alunya MC skin
Classic + Slim


Okay gang when do we start a series Grace and the /leftypol/ Catgirls in Minecraft! and join the Dream SMP


*to radicalize the youth


I'm only interested in erp


File: 1657485239375-0.png (1.05 MB, 3000x3000, Grace 03.png)

I would be happy if some anons volunteered to take a group photo.
With the Minecraft skins provided above.


File: 1657569053457-0.png (510.43 KB, 2000x2000, Grace switch icon.png)

>and join the Dream SMP
What is that?


do not erp, erp is bad



File: 1657656817704-0.png (436.51 KB, 2000x2000, grace unhappy look.png)

File: 1657656817704-1.mp4 (6.29 MB, 640x360, Vicar of Bray.mp4)

>while Engels sang German folk-songs or drunkenly recited ‘The Vicar of Bray’

>Engels reciting his favorite poem, “The Vicar of Bray,”Engels reciting his favorite poem, “The Vicar of Bray,”

>The melody of this song would have been instantly recognizable. It is sung to the tune of the famous contemporary comic song “The Vicar of Bray” about the man of the church who changed his allegiance several times during the political and religious convulsions of the 16th and 17th centuries. It first appears in Thomas Walker’s Quaker’s Opera (1728) and is still popular today as a singalong melody in Percy Grainger’s arrangement from the last century. Friedrich Engels, a huge Anglophile, is said to have greatly enjoyed singing it.



Grace-chan anime when?


>Friedrich Engels, a huge Anglophile, is said to have greatly enjoyed singing it.


File: 1657748924376-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

I hate NRx
I hate NRx
I hate NRx




File: 1657754195289.pdf (7.06 MB, 180x255, 1657678505684.pdf)

Does her majesty support filling endorheic basins around the world with water to terraform desert climates?


This is wholeheartedly supported, Shay!

My majesty has personally read your thesis.

When my majesty is universal ruler of the entire world, Shay will be appointed to construct these megaproject terraformations all across the world.

Shay will be a modern-day Pierre Paul Riquet.

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"



Big Grace's Tits


File: 1657812448742-0.mp4 (12.24 MB, 480x360, No More Kings.mp4)

File: 1657812448742-1.mp4 (3.72 MB, 720x404, You'll be Back.mp4)


Needed these for my ERP furta server thanks


File: 1657821743665-0.png (436.51 KB, 2000x2000, grace unhappy look.png)

All I want is a group photo with the skins.


I need a loyal subject to represent Grace
An anon to use the Alunya skin
Another to use the Rodina skin
Then get together on a Minecraft server and take group photos.
Preferably with the classic skins.


File: 1657822988176.jpg (36.31 KB, 622x619, 1648804591451.jpg)

Monarchism is incompatible with leftism. Kys.


File: 1657835377060-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

Nobody in the 17th century called themselves leftists or rightists, silly goose.
Plus I never said I was leftist

<What does Grace chan drink?
>Milk & Water
& plays Nintendo games.


File: 1657845709109-0.png (937.43 KB, 4000x4000, Grace qt.png)

File: 1657845709109-1.png (398.63 KB, 1027x834, alunya pillory.png)


Monarchism is incompatible with not being a nerd. True in the 17th century, true today.


File: 1657925957832-0.mp4 (2.64 MB, 640x360, wolf of wisdom.mp4)

File: 1657925957832-1.mp4 (4.11 MB, 320x240, Good Dog Evil Dog.mp4)


File: 1657982678760-0.png (948.1 KB, 2000x2000, grace1 sketch.png)

I don't consider myself that much of a nerd, tbh.


>see post
>laugh at a monarchist saying this
>read preceding post
>laugh again


File: 1658104019555-0.png (1.94 MB, 3000x3000, cat x girl sketch.png)

Alunya treats Grace like a nerd or dork.


File: 1658189738091-0.jpg (604.98 KB, 1400x1979, E8QxsRcVkAIqtHO.jpg)

File: 1658189738091-1.mp4 (2.97 MB, 640x360, LouisXIV Bossuet.mp4)

"The Prince, as Prince, is not regarded as a private person: he is a public Personage, all the State is in him; the will of all the People is included in his. As all perfection and all strength are united in God, so all the power of individuals is united in the Person of the Prince. What grandeur that a single man should embody so much~"

Only I can be ridiculed as the mother of all modernity by traditionalists, then slandered as a caveman apologist of antiquity by the more progressive constitutionalists.


>"the will of all the People is included in his"
crazy how the "will of all the People" was to live in huts and perform subsistence farming while he lived in a palace and never did any work. those People are really generous, aren't they :^)


File: 1658190444929-0.png (642.62 KB, 1800x1800, Grace disdain look.png)

This quote by Mussolini triggers me.
1st, I don't take De Maistre as my high priest either.
2nd, "Blind acceptance of church authority can never return".
Mussolini, have you read Bodin or Hobbes?

Jean Bodin
>"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."

>"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"

>everyone all over has to meet the standards of Western European cosmopolitian lifestyles or else
Shush, 1st worldist.


File: 1658191401706-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

File: 1658191401706-1.jpg (1.85 MB, 5671x2734, Bossuet Part 9.jpg)

Not only are they entitled to have a palace, but it is their pride to see a great Monarchy demonstrate their power and glory through the palace.

As the collective strength deluges into One Person, this is the expectation that Stately majesty be seen.


GPT-3 post + capitalizing random words like a pseud


File: 1658192750892-1.mp4 (10.01 MB, 492x360, Babel 01.mp4)

File: 1658192750892-2.mp4 (4.01 MB, 492x360, Babel 02.mp4)

File: 1658192750892-3.mp4 (14.7 MB, 492x360, Babel 03.mp4)

I want the royal palace to be so STATELY and MAJESTIC, so large it'd make Nimrod blush.

It would be the center of political life.


File: 1658192879133-0.png (400.05 KB, 1800x1800, Grace sketch laugh.png)

It will be a palace economy, anon.


File: 1658193310148-0.png (268.71 KB, 1000x1000, Grace 21.png)

File: 1658193310148-1.jpg (591.43 KB, 1536x966, 00dLIvdUE.jpg large.jpg)

Where else will we begin to have a monarchical household rule than the royal palace?

"My old home the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth

"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

It isn't only the residence, but a political statement and true expression of royal monarchy.


File: 1658194004524-0.png (436.51 KB, 2000x2000, grace unhappy look.png)

File: 1658194004524-1.jpg (77.62 KB, 700x495, beehive-clipart-008.jpg)

Look at bees.
To have royal monarchy without a royal palace is like bees without a hive.


File: 1658202390885.mp4 (11.33 MB, 544x304, Pi-Ramses Capital.mp4)

Pi-Ramesses, meaning "House of Ramesses was the new capital built by the Nineteenth Dynasty Pharaoh Ramesses II


File: 1658202817686-0.jpg (315.12 KB, 800x1230, Nicolae_Ceaușescu.jpg)

>The Palace of the Parliament, also known as the Republic's House (Casa Republicii) or People's House/People's Palace (Casa Poporului)

>The Palace was ordered by Nicolae Ceaușescu

>As of 2020, the Palace of the Parliament is valued at €4 billion, making it the most expensive administrative building in the world.

Also, for US Presidents, the White House is another testimony of how the State models itself after a household rule, except for the democratic principles – they have term limits and take "their turn in being governed" as opposed to a perpetual rule.


File: 1658203924446-0.png (1.4 MB, 3000x3000, Grace7.png)

File: 1658203924446-1.jpg (171.23 KB, 1280x720, rome myth.jpg)

The City of Rome was founded by Romulus

Who was raised by a dog.

The first King of Rome, in this instance, was like the pre-eminent person who founded the State, but more BEAST than God.


We should feed Gracefag's posts into an AI to create an AI Monarch who will rule forever




File: 1658257011880-1.jpg (16.45 KB, 175x256, A135g.jpg)

>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).


>The subject is the establishment of public lighting and a guard under the orders of a police lieutenant (1667) intended to put an end to the insecurity which reigned in the city of Paris after nightfall. The first lieutenant of police is particularly famous: Nicolas de La Reynie, who was in charge for thirty years between 1667 and 1697. Finally, let us specify that there is some hesitation as to the date of the event mentioned: the state Boileau-Racine of the inscription gives the date of 1665 and the engraving of the "Massé album" that of 1662. A medal on the subject bears the date of 1669: URBIS SECURITAS ET NITOR (security and cleanliness of the city ). Finally, let us add that the 2004-2007 restoration brought to light an underlying inscription: SAFETY AND CLEANING OF THE CITY OF PARIS


File: 1658257519782.jpg (182.32 KB, 589x600, A192g.jpg)

>The soldiers stride towards the scene in the background where attacks are painted symbolizing the insecurity that reigned in Paris after dark. They carry lances, and the first of them tends a lantern, which is an allusion to the public lighting established in the streets of Paris under the authority of Gabriel Nicolas de La Reynie, first lieutenant of police (1667) ; the cobblestone clearly visible in the foreground no doubt evokes La Reynie's action to have the muddy streets of the capital cleaned and paved; the new pavement of Paris gave rise to a medal entitled: URBS NOVO LAPIDE STRATA MDCLXIX (the city of Paris paved with nine, 1669).


File: 1658258015559-1.jpg (70.06 KB, 228x600, A178g.jpg)

File: 1658258015559-2.jpg (67.39 KB, 306x600, A179p.jpg)

>Around 1670, Louis XIV had decided to build a hotel which would house officers wounded in battle or who had fallen into poverty. The edict establishing the Hôtel Royal des Invalides dates from April 1674. The composition presents Royal Wisdom (symbolized by Minerva) and Royal Piety as being at the origin of the creation of the Invalides.

>Minerva personifies Royal Wisdom, which is also at the origin of the project for the Hôtel Royal des 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 bird's eye view of the building quite close to the painting in the Hall of Mirrors (only the foreground differs). Let us add that the architectural plan is a traditional attribute of Magnificence which is undoubtedly also mentioned here: the word is even used in the text of the Mercure galant of December 1684.

>The soldiers seen on the right are the beneficiaries of royal piety: soldiers whom “long service, or the misfortunes of war, had rendered useless” and who were “constrained to seek in the charity of the people, a relief to their miseries” (Mercure galant December 1684). The soldier in the foreground is kneeling with his arms crossed on his chest in deep gratitude; one wonders if he wears a bandage on his left arm or if it is simply the white fabric of his shirt; the one in the background receives the military order of Saint-Lazare of Jerusalem (according to the Mercure galant , but this identification is questioned by Virginie Bar [2003] who writes that the cross of Saint-Lazare “was not white, as is the case here, but purple and green, edged in gold. In fact it seems that the painter represented some decoration which was logically identified with that of Saint-Lazare which, before the creation of the order of Saint-Louis [1693], rewarded the merit of soldiers”). The preparatory drawing kept at the Louvre Museum (inv. 29759) is very close to the description of the Mercure galant (1684) where it is written that Piety gives “the order of S. Lazare to officers” and “money to soldiers”.


File: 1658258495525-1.jpg (18.83 KB, 169x256, A172g.jpg)

File: 1658258495525-2.jpg (20.88 KB, 204x256, A168g.jpg)

File: 1658258495525-3.jpg (13.76 KB, 239x256, A170p.jpg)

>The king is painted on his throne, his feet resting on a red cushion; his right hand rests on the tiller of the government and at the same time points to the Harpyes pursued by Minerva; in his left hand he holds the golden key to the casket of the royal treasury which he hands to Loyalty (this key was added by Charles Le Brun at the very last moment: it does not appear in the box kept in the museum of Louvre, inventory 29950). Fidelity shows the sovereign the books of accounts; suppliant France is on her knees before him; the king is dressed in armor and the fleur-delysed blue mantle. François Charpentier (1684) summarizes 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”.

>The Harpyes are painted as emaciated old women with bat wings carrying bags and vases of gold coins. In the cartoon preparing the composition, Charles Le Brun represented them placing their clawed hands on the allegory of France, to signify that they were bleeding the kingdom by their prevarications; the Harpyes designate the partisans who were responsible for levying taxes for the benefit of the state but using them in passing. Their flight is undoubtedly an allusion to the court of justice of November 1661 to which the date of "1662" in the inscription certainly alludes; the Mercure galant of December 1684 specifies that the Harpyes appear "the accounts that were made to be rendered to those who had plundered the finances of which they had had the handling" (with each new reign a chamber of justice was responsible for making " give back" to the partisans to satisfy public opinion).

>The allegory of Fidelity is painted near the king with the attributes of an account book which she shows to the sovereign, a ruler, a dog and the casket of the royal treasure surmounted by bags of gold coins. The dog is the attribute of Fidelity in Iconology because “experience shows every day that it is the most faithful of animals”. This allegory is certainly an allusion to the reform of the management of finances carried out by Colbert, who had account books established for the king with the receipts opposite the expenditure so that he could himself have control of the expenditure of the monarchy (this is symbolized by the golden key held by the king according to Pierre Rainssant [1687]: "The king holds a golden key, to make it known that he himself wants to be the dispenser of his treasures "); Claude III Nivelon (around 1698) moreover indicated that Fidelity "represents the minister [Colbert] to whom has since been entrusted the care and economy of these treasures [of the monarchy]". Colbert wanted to highlight his absolute loyalty to the King of France.




File: 1658259736960-1.jpg (12.27 KB, 134x256, A139g.jpg)

File: 1658259736960-2.png (38.87 KB, 777x338, guard incident.png)

>The allegory of France holds the design of the pyramid that Pope Alexander VII had erected at the request of Louis XIV to make reparation for the attack committed in Rome by his Corsican guards against the retinue of the Duke of Créqui, Ambassador of France . The incident took place in August 1662: Louis XIV, in retaliation, immediately occupied Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, which forced the pope to sign a peace agreement in Pisa on February 12, 1664. In addition to the erection of the pyramid, the pope's nephew, Cardinal Chigi, came to apologize to the King of France during a solemn audience which took place at the Château de Fontainebleau on July 28, 1664 (which justifies the date added to the inscription in his state Boileau- Root). The city of Rome is painted tilted in front of France with its she-wolf in a very humble posture, her back rounded, her ears lowered.

>The city of Rome is painted bowing to France. She wears a helmet decorated with the Roman wolf, a large red dress and a shield on which is inscribed the emblem of ancient Rome: S[enatus] P[opulus] Q[ue] R[omanus] (the senate and the people Roman). The Roman wolf snuggles at the feet of France, ears lowered, tongue sticking out. A figure with an expression of sadness on his face is visible behind the allegory of Rome: perhaps an allegory of sadness, that of the pope, of Rome or of the Corsicans "forever excluded from the custody of the pope" (Rainssant 1687) .


File: 1658259845032.jpg (42.05 KB, 750x491, EcyNGuuWsAA50KT.jpg)


File: 1658260369860-0.jpg (110.92 KB, 600x373, A143g.jpg)

File: 1658260369860-1.jpg (132.75 KB, 600x506, A142g.jpg)

File: 1658260369860-2.jpg (115.03 KB, 411x600, A144g.jpg)

>The composition evokes the prohibition of duels and the severity of the punishment incurred, confirmed by the edicts of September 1651 then of August 1679. Louis XIV was of course not the first to legislate in this direction and we know the pitiless firmness of Cardinal de Richelieu. The date corresponding to the subject is very fluctuating. That of 1662 appears for the first time in the engravings made under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Massé before 1752; it corresponds to a medal reproduced in the Histoire Métallique of 1702 (but not in the "complete" publication of 1723). Let us add that Father Claude-François Ménestrier reproduces a medal on the “Abolition of duels” which bears the date of 1658

>The duel is represented by two men fighting: they each have a sword and one grips his opponent's hair, the other his tunic. The right arm of the right one is seized by the allegory of Justice. The fate that awaits them is represented by the figure in the background on the right, hands tied behind his back, who is led to prison by a figure armed with an axe, a probable allegory of the Punishment.


Justice is recognizable by her two attributes: the scales she carries unstable in the crook of her elbow; the sword with which she threatens two duelists. With her right hand she grasps the wrist of one of the two men, a real taking possession that will lead to the punishment represented in the background (on the right) of the composition. This indeed evokes the prohibition of duels and the severity of the punishment incurred. The king thus reaffirms this foundation of the State which is the “monopoly of legitimate violence”. François Charpentier (1684) underlined that “duel is without question one of the most dangerous plagues of the state, and our kings have long since tried to purge France of it. But this stubborn monster has never been well tamed. His defeat was reserved for the wisdom of the king, and the salutary severity with which he irreversibly punished the duelists

>According to François Charpentier (1684), it was "the salutary severity with which he irreversibly punished the duelists" that enabled Louis XIV to "abolish this crime" by "closing all avenues to the hope of impunity ". As Virginie Bar (2003) suggested, it is probably an allegory of the Punishment, which is represented by a man with a stern expression, holding an ax in his right hand, who seizes by the hair and pushes towards a prison a culprit, whose hands are tied behind his back. Recall that the ax in the middle of the bundle of lictors was the symbol of the right to apply capital punishment for the magistrates of ancient Rome.


makes sense


File: 1658261268321-0.jpg (375.73 KB, 1400x972, 08-514758.jpg)

File: 1658261268321-1.jpg (8.18 KB, 210x120, c8p.jpg)

File: 1658261268321-2.jpg (8.05 KB, 128x256, A145p.jpg)

File: 1658261268321-3.jpg (52.07 KB, 357x600, A146p.jpg)

The Pre-eminence of France recognized by Spain, 1662
>The allegory of Spain bows before that of France in reparation for a diplomatic incident: when the Swedish ambassador entered the English court in October 1661, the Spanish ambassador, the Baron de Vatteville, had succeeded in having his carriage pass in front of that of France, not hesitating to kill several members of the retinue of the French ambassador, the Comte d'Estrades. It was customary for France to take precedence over other European nations. Louis XIV reacted immediately: Vatteville was dismissed and the Marquis de Fuentès, who had come to France as the King of Spain's extraordinary ambassador, presented Philippe IV's apologies to Louis XIV for this affair on March 24, 1662 at the Louvre. It is these "apologies from Spain" which justify the date of the inscription which appears in the Boileau-Racine statement.

>The allegory of France is painted from the front: she wears a plumed helmet surmounted by the rooster, symbol of France, and decorated with a crown of fleur-de-lis; she is dressed in a blue fleur-de-lysé coat; his left hand is resting on the axe, elbow out, in a gesture of authority; she holds a scepter in her right hand, which rests on a shield adorned with three golden fleur-de-lis. France faces Spain, which recognizes its preeminence and apologizes to it for the violent dispute over precedence between the ambassadors of France and Spain which took place in London in October 1661. A preparatory drawing kept in the Louvre (inv. 29854) shows that Charles Le Brun had first planned to represent Louis XIV alongside France.

>Spain is painted in front of France, slightly tilted; she wears a red tunic with gold brocade and a plumed helmet adorned with a crown of clover; she has her left hand on her chest to mark the sincerity of the apologies she presents to France for the behavior of her ambassador: when the Swedish ambassador entered the English court in October 1661, the Spanish ambassador, Baron de Vatteville, managed to get his carriage past that of France, not hesitating to kill several members of the retinue of the French ambassador, the Comte d'Estrades. It was customary for France to take precedence over other European nations (“by an immemorial possession” wrote François Charpentier in 1684). Louis XIV reacted immediately: Vatteville was dismissed and the Marquis de Fuentès, who had come to France as the King of Spain's extraordinary ambassador, presented Philippe IV's apologies to Louis XIV for this affair on March 24, 1662 at the Louvre. Spain points with her left hand to her lion, which lies down obediently at the feet of France, its tail between its legs; according to François Charpentier (1684), this means that “the pride of this nation had been obliged to bend in this encounter”.


Pre eminence in King Lear–
King Lear
Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower:
For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,
The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;
By all the operation of the orbs
From whom we do exist, and cease to be;
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,

I do invest you jointly with my power,
[and] Pre eminence, and all the large effects
That troop with majesty. Ourself, by monthly course,
With reservation of an hundred knights,
By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode
Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain
The name, and all the additions to a king;
The sway, revenue, execution of the rest,
Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm,
This coronet part betwixt you.


File: 1658272755274-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

Bodin's Anti-Regicide Remarks
>But when I perceived on every side that subjects were arming themselves against their princes; that books were being brought out openly, like firebands to set Commonweals ablaze, in which we are taught that princes sent by providence to the human race must be thrust out of their kingdoms under the pretense of tyranny, and that kings must be chosen not by their lineage, but by the will of the people; and finally that these doctrines were weakening the foundations not only of this realm only but of all states, then I denied that it was the function of a good man or of a good citizen to offer violence to his prince for any reason, however great a tyrant he might be; and contended that it was necessary to leave this punishment to God, and to other princes. And I have supported this by divine and human laws and authorities, and most of all by reason which compel assent.

>But if it be so that the soldier which had only broken the vine truncheon of his Captain, beating him by right or wrong, was by the law of arms to be put to death: then what punishment deserves the son which lays hand upon his father?

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


File: 1658275312773-0.jpg (52.48 KB, 505x406, 41028.jpg)

File: 1658275312773-1.jpg (421.97 KB, 1300x960, claudius-.jpg)


>One must not however label as evidence of tyranny the executions, banishments, confiscations, and other deeds of violence that mark a restoration [or transition] in a commonwealth. Such changes are necessarily violent, as was illustrated by what happened at the establishment of the Triumvirate in Rome, and at the election of many of the Emperors. It is not proper, either, to call Cosimo de Medici a tyrant for building a citadel, surrounding himself with foreign guards, and taxing his subjects heavily for their upkeep, after the assassination of Alessandro, Duke of Florence. Such medicine was necessary to a commonwealth ravaged by so many seditions and insurrections, and for a licentious and unruly populace, everlastingly plotting against the new duke, though he was accounted one of the wisest and most virtuous princes of his age.

>Not only is the subject guilty of high reason who kills his prince, but so also is he who has merely attempted it, counselled it, wished it or even considered it… We read that the most holy doctors that the Jews ever knew, those who were known as the Essenes or experts in the law of God, held that Sovereign princes, of whatever character, should be regarded by their subjects as sacred and inviolable, and given of God. One cannot doubt that David, king and prophet, was informed by the spirit of God if ever man was, having always before his eyes the law of God. It was he who said, "Slander not the Prince, nor speak evil of the magistrate." Nothing is more insisted on in the Holy Writ than the wickedness of compassing the death of the prince, or any responsible magistrate, or even making any attempt against their life or honour, even though, adds the Scripture, they be evil men.

>O how many Tyrants should there be, if it should be lawful for Subjects to kill Tyrants? How many good and innocent Princes should be as Tyrants perished by the conspiracy of their subjects against them? He that should of his subjects but exact subsidies, should be then, as the vulgar people esteem him, a Tyrant: He that should rule and command contrary to the good licking of the people, should be a Tyrant: He that should keep strong guard and garrisons for the safety of his person, should be a Tyrant: He that should put to death traitors and conspirators against his State, should be also counted a Tyrant. How should good Princes be assured of their lives, if under colour of Tyranny they might be slain by their subjects, by whom they ought to be defended?

>And in this, the princes much deceive themselves [and namely they which give reward to them that have slain Tyrants, to make them a way unto the sovereignty]. For they shall never assure themselves of their own lives, if they severely punish not the conspirators against their own prince and murderers of him, although he was never so great a Tyrant. As most wisely did Severus the emperour, who put to death all them which had any part in the murder of the emperour Pertinax: which was the cause (as says Herodian) that there was no man which durst attempt his life. So also Vitelliu the emperour put to death all the murderers and conspirators against Galba, who had presented requests signed with their own hands unto the emperour Otho, to have had of him reward for their disloyalty. And Theophilus emperour of Constantinople caused them all to be called together, who had made his father emperour, after they had slain Leo the Armenian, as if he would have well recompensed them for so great a turn: who being come together with many other, who though not partakers of the murder, were yet desirous to be partakers of the reward; he caused them altogether to be slain. And that more is, the emperour Domitian put to death Epaphroditus, Nero his servant, and secretary to the state, for having helped Nero to kill himself, who most instantly requested him so to do, being thereby delievered from the executioner's hands, and cruel exemplary death. And these things we read not only Tyrants, but even good kings also to have done, not so much in regard of their own safety, as of the dignity of them who were slain. As David did unto him who in hope of reward brought him his father in law's head cut off, but slain by his enemies. And Alexander the Great caused cruelly to be put to death him who had murdered king Darius, abhorring the subject which durst to lay hand upon his king: although Alexander himself by lawful war sought after his life and state, as being his lawful enemy.

The same, I'll add, happened to a notable conspirator against Caligula, Cassius Chaerea.


That applies to sovereign princes, but not those rulers who aren't sovereigns.


>this is why utopia will never happen
Maybe the real revolutionary action is to embrace this rather than reject it:
Hereditary Monarchy
It embraces the reproductive system and becomes central to the State. Every man will have sympathy because it makes birth, marriage, and funeral a public event, sharing the lifestory with everyone.
It doesn't take a revolution or drastic shift in public opinion to make this happen: all the monarch must do is reproduce.
Revisionism or distrust in the successor are kept more at bay because the Monarch can pick his favorite offspring to succeed and the onus is more on them to follow in their parent's footsteps than against it, and plus they are more trustworthy because every right they have came from their hereditary parent so there's a big incentive not to undermine their predecessor too much for their own plans to lead and won't stray away from the utopia.
Whereas in party coalitions and your regimes, the successor from another faction is always looking to kick down the sand castle his predecessors built to further legitimize their own, so it's like a regime change over and over again because they take their turns in being governed and have a big incentive to discredit the other to take their turn with the wheel of State.
Look at how Khrushchev denounced Stalin and how US Presidents dismantle each other with executive orders and blame their predecessor, for example.

Does 2nd pic related deserve that blood red color when they are at best spiritual successors?

I moved this post to my containment thread
to make an anon happy


File: 1658377958753-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

File: 1658377958753-1.jpg (27.53 KB, 303x335, 1651789183528.jpg)

I wonder how what reception I would get if I spent all this time giving leftist OC and posting lefty reads
Whether the anons would love or hate it for sectarian reasons


Soviet regime & Louis XIV's entire reign both lasted roughly 70 years
It has been roughly 200 years since the birth of Marx
Romanovs had been in Russia for roughly 300 years
The Romanovs primogeniture 116 years from Alexander I
Capets in France roughly 300 years
USA I think 246 years
Bourbons in France 200 years
Joseon Dynasty for roughly 500 years

The legacy often matters most than a particular dynasty longevity. Caligula was only for 4 years, but his name is known for centuries. The Mongol Empire was brief, but split into factions whose influence lasted, like Alexander the Great's legacy.




File: 1658890399536-0.mp4 (14.32 MB, 720x428, Grace MC 02(1).mp4)

File: 1658890399536-1.mp4 (11.88 MB, 720x428, Grace MC 01(1).mp4)


File: 1658984036986-0.png (953.08 KB, 1500x1500, grace angry.png)

File: 1658984036986-1.jpg (203.35 KB, 791x506, 40912747890.jpg)

For the first and only time, I will kaiserpost




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)


cute :3


File: 1660058090458-0.jpg (170.17 KB, 1920x1080, Emperor Mao Grace.jpg)


File: 1660064724972-0.jpg (294.28 KB, 1920x1080, Grace Hall of Mirrors.jpg)

File: 1660064724972-1.jpg (289.85 KB, 1920x1080, Grace Louis XIV.jpg)

File: 1660064724972-2.jpg (429.04 KB, 1920x1080, Grace versailles 01.jpg)


where can I watch the Grace-chan vtuber


he's doing greenscreens in koikatsu or something ?
That's the vibe I get from this since my friend did that.


Starting my day the right way: looking at cute Grace-chan pictures


File: 1660142686018.png (1.62 MB, 3100x3100, Grace icup ball.png)


File: 1660144146286.gif (1.24 MB, 855x475, extreme blush.gif)



>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".
Gracefag you ruined my entire perception of him


File: 1660147121027-1.jpg (428.51 KB, 1109x951, Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

>Gracefag you ruined my entire perception of him
No, that's my re-affirmation that "L'état, c'est moi" is an appropriate phrase to ascribe to Louis XIV.
Bossuet re-affirms it and so did his motto.


The State is Me
By Bossuet
>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 cruellest 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 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 is 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 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.


Extracts from Bossuet

Monarchy is Best
>It is by the sole authority of government that union is established among men. This effect of legitimate command is marked to us by these words, so often repeated in the Scriptures: at the command of Saul, and of the legitimate authority "all Israel went out as one man. All the multitudes as one man, were forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Behold, such is the unity of a people, when each one renouncing his own will, transfers and reunites it to that of the prince and the magistrate. Otherwise there is no union; the people become wanderers, like a flock dispersed. "May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, provide a man that may be over this multitude, and may go out and in before them, and may lead them out, or bring them in; lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd."

>Thus the Sovereign Magistrate has in his hands all the strength of the nation, which submits to, and obeys him. "And they made answer to Joshua, and said: All that thou hast commanded us we will do: and withersoever thou shalt send us we will go. he that shall gainsay thy mouth, and not obey all thy words, that thou shalt command him, let him die; only take thou courage, and do manfullly

>All strength is transferred to the Sovereign Magistrate; every one strengthens him to the prejudice of his own, and renounces his own life in case of disobedience. The people gain by this; for they recover in the Person of the Supreme Magistrate more strength than they yielded for his authority, since they recover in him all the strength of the nation reunited to assist them.

>Thus an individual is at ease from oppression and violence, because in the Person of the Prince he has an invincible defender, and much stronger beyond comparison than all those who may undertake to oppress them.

>Monarchical government is the best. It is also the most opposed to division, which is the essential evil in states, and the most certain cause of their ruin… When states are formed, one seeks for unity, and one is never so unified as under a single leader. In addition one is never stronger, because everything happens in concert.

Bossuet & Absolutism
>Royal authority is absolute… The prince need account to no one for what he ordains… "Observe the mouth of the King, and the commandments of the oath of God. Be not hasty from his face, and do not countinue in an evil work: for he will do all that pleaseth him. And his word is full of power; neither can any man say to him: Why dost thou so? He that keepth the commandment, shall find no evil." …Without this absolute authority, he can neither do good nor suppress evil: his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him; and, in fine, the sole defense of individuals against the public power, must be their innocence… This doctrine is in conformity with the saying of St. Paul: "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good."

>This is what Ecclesiasticus is made to say: "Judge not against a judge." For still stronger reasons [one must not judge] against the sovereign judge who is the King. And the reason which is given is that, "he judgeth according to that which is just." It is not that he is always so judging, but that he is assumed to be so judging: and that no one has the right to judge or review after him.

>One must, then, obey princes as if they were justice itself, without which there is neither order nor justice in affairs… Only God can judge their judgments and their persons… It is for that reason that St. Gregory, Bishop of Tours, said to King Chilperic in a council: "We speak to you, but you listen to us only if you want to. If you do not want to, who will condemn you other than he who has that he was justice itself?" …It follows from this that he who does not want to obey the prince, is not sent to another tribunal; but he is condemned irremissibly to death as an enemy of public peace and of human society… "Whosoever shall refuse to obey all your orders, may he die." It is the people who speak thus to Joshua.

Personal Power & Public Person; Majesty in Monarchy
>I do not call majesty that pomp which surrounds kings or that exterior magnificence which dazzles the vulgar. That is but the reflection of majesty and not majesty itself. Majesty is the image of the grandeur of God in the Prince… God is infinite, God is all. The Prince, as Prince, is not regarded as a private person: he is a public personage, all the State is in him; the will of all the People is included in his. As all perfection and all strength are united in God, so all the power of individuals is united in the Person of the Prince. What grandeur that a single man should embody so much!

>The power of God can be felt in a moment from one end of the world to the other: the royal power acts simultaneously throughout the Kingdom. It holds the whole Kingdom in position just as God holds the whole word… If God were to withdraw his hand, the entire world would return to nothing: if authority ceases in the Kingdom, all lapses into confusion… Consider the Prince in his cabinet. From thence flow the commands which coordinate the efforts of magistrates and captains, of citizens and soldiers, of provinces and armies, by land and by sea. It is the image of God, who directs all nature from his throne in the highest heaven.

>Finally, gather together all that we have said, so great and so august, about royal authority. You have seen a great nation united under one man: you have seen his sacred power, paternal and absolute: you have seen that secret reason which directs the Body Politic, enclosed in one head: you have seen the image of God in kings, and you will have the idea of majesty of kingship… God is holiness itself, goodness itself, power itself, reason itself. In these things consists the divine majesty. In their reflection consists the majesty of the Prince… So great is this majesty that its source cannot be found to reside in the prince: it is borrowed from God, who entrusts it to the Prince for the good of his People, to which end it is well that it be restrained by a higher power…


Anarcho-monbol synthesis


Elon Musk tweeted that the State is the largest corporation, not far from the truth.

"And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union." -Hobbes

So like Hobbes says, for his "Artificial Person of the State" is a kind of Monarch itself, being One Personification.

And like Bossuet says, "All Israel went out as one man. All the multitudes as one man, were forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Behold, such is the unity of a people."

I would phrase it differently from Elon Musk, but >>273156 this post is related.


File: 1660149818593-0.png (1.62 MB, 3100x3100, Grace icup ball.png)

File: 1660149818593-1.png (1.35 MB, 1024x576, the_sun_king.png)

I believe Louis XIV did say "L'état, c'est moi"
& I wholeheartedly agree with it.


I was referring to the Alunya cosplay


That bellybutton must be protected and worshiped.


I want to lick her tummy


File: 1660172492427.png (2.42 MB, 1182x770, grace chan DIES.png)

On 21 January 1793, Grace-chan was publicly guillotined at the Place de la Révolution by Alunya-chan, Max Stirner, Punished Bernie, and East German Chuck Sneed


we did it bros, we abolished the state


“Je m’en vais, mais l’État demeurera toujours” (“I’m going, but the State will always remain”)




File: 1660194271516-0.png (1.62 MB, 3100x3100, Grace icup ball.png)

/leftypol/ will lose at icup.


Proud owner of the new Grace-chan daki.


File: 1660200798167-0.png (1.62 MB, 3100x3100, Grace icup ball.png)

File: 1660200798167-2.png (445.68 KB, 1100x600, Jean Bodin on the HRE.png)

I know someone who didn't believe in a mixed State.
Jean Bodin
>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 [rule of the best] can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point…

Bodin claims Herodotus & tries to snatch Plato (despite crediting the mixed state w/ the dignity of antiquity)

>Then I think this–that the type of state of the Romans in the age of Polybius, and much more in the time of Dionysius and Cicero, was entirely popular. When they had driven the kings from the city, the first law about the government proposed by Brutus to the people was this, that annual consuls were to be created by the people. This Livy and Dionysius reported. From this it is evident that all consular authority ought to be sought and asked from the people.

>"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."

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."

>Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities.

>Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written.

Thomas Hobbes
>"For whereas the stile of the antient Roman Common-wealth, was, The Senate, and People of Rome; neither Senate, nor People pretended to the whole Power; which first caused the seditions, of Tiberius Gracchus, Caius Gracchus, Lucius Saturnius, and others; and afterwards the warres between the Senate and the People, under Marius and Sylla; and again under Pompey and Caesar, to the Extinction of their Democraty, and the setting up of Monarchy."

>"The third opinion: that the sovereign power may be divided, is no less an error than the former, as hath been proved, Part II. chap. XX, sect. 15. And if there were a commonwealth, wherein the rights of sovereignty were divided, we must confess with Bodin, Lib. II. chap. I. De Republica, that they are not rightly to be called commonwealths, but the corruption of commonwealths. … And though monarchies stand long, wherein the right of sovereignty hath seemed so divided, because monarchy of itself is a durable kind of government; yet monarchs have been thereby diverse times thrust out of their possession. But the truth is, that the right of sovereignty is such, as he or they that have it, cannot, though they would, give away any part thereof, and retain the rest. As for example: if we should suppose the people of Rome to have had the absolute sovereignty of the Roman state, and to have chosen them a council by the name of the senate, and that to this senate they had given the supreme power of making laws, reserving nevertheless to themselves, in direct and express terms, the whole right and title of sovereignty (which may easily happen amongst them that see not the inseparable connection between the sovereign power and the power of making laws), I say, this grant of the people to the senate is of no effect, and the power of making laws is in the people still… The error concerning mixed [State] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifieth not the concord, but the union of many men.

>"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."


File: 1660200958772-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

>Proud owner of the new Grace-chan daki
Don't you disbelieve in private property?
plus who said you could own that


It's a possession.


That's personal property. Private property definition depending on if liberal or Marxist definition. >>291233



>footballer Grace
very cute


Has Alunya become Grace-chan's #1 Adoring Fan?

We'll see at /icup/

Unique IPs: 51

[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 ]