/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>386899
I don't think it counts for much.

>>386423
>DPRK hasn't overthrown any royalty
When Japan invaded Korea, the emperor of Japan forced the monarchy to sign a treaty stating
>His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes the complete and permanent cession to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea

The Korean monarchy ended in 1910, before any Communist countries even established themselves as a state. By the time the Soviet Union even existed, there was only a Japanese monarchy to overthrow, which did happen in WW2.

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making to rationalize your love for the DPRK, but it's cringe and not monarchist in nature. Communism and Monarchism contradict each other, in ideology and material conditions.

>>387064
>I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making to rationalize your love for the DPRK
While I have studied the DPRK constitution as well as the sovereignty & acknowledged that the SPA is recognized as the highest power, a few practices have not gone unnoticed from my pov about the DPRK.

>but it's cringe and not monarchist in nature
What I deem to be monarchist in nature is not simply whether they have crowns or how many luxuries or so and so.

I see Monarchy wherever there is leadership and pre-eminence ascribed to one person. & also adhere to Filmer's maxim, that a father and a king may be all one as explained >>371851 here.

& likewise like Aristotle remarked >>371854 here
>For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule.

As well as Gryffith Williams remark,
>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.

DPRK has vindicated these ideals.
As seen >>386413 here & garnered a sort of royal virtue in deeming their Leaders to be fathers of the country & re-affirming this structure in the bond of father and son as their Leaders thus far have been father and son & dubbed their country to be a large family, to which I referenced Gryffith Williams – these are ideals I deem essential to royalism like how all bees have a royal bond or rather a familial bond to the queen bee, royalism is an imitation of this and in its highest manifestation wants to make the kingdom a great family and its royal subjects like kin rather than strangers or friends by association of the state… the state is understood to be a strong bond with this aim in mind.

Monarchy being focused with the state of one, the DPRK's assertion for single-mindedness and being of one mind and unity, also speaks to great depths to monarchist ideals that are solely concerned with oneness or singularity (as well as harmony, that Bodin ascribes to bringing many diverse elements together and called harmony partial to royal governance). This aspiration towards oneness I think is best fulfilled with one persona as Hobbes described his Leviathan to be a corporation of One Person, but also Dante Alighieri remarks–
>But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity.

Until the DPRK cuts off the political dynasty, stops modeling their party after a great family, & stops referring to their leaders as fathers in this fashion – then I'll see no pretense to look at the DPRK or hold any love or sympathy, but these are what make DPRK exceptional to the royalist mentality.

If you erased everything you knew about royalism as is conventional in people's minds & about socialism and the nature of monarchy, then re-analyzed it from my standpoint you'd see why DPRK draws my attention DESPITE being red and socialist and a workers' party state.

To add more salt to the wounds.

I would even add that DPRK the socialist workers' state has demonstrated this further than royalty themselves are able to.

Royalist circles are full of tocquevillist snobs (crypto-oligarchists) & constitutionalists who would rear their head in disgust at the pursuit of royalism I recently described. & have many elements inhibiting perfection thereof from within.

They would call it tyranny or despotism.

Revolutionaries don't have the same baggage imo.

States form and dissolve regardless of these factions.
I would go on about the DPRK, but I don't want to annoy anyone

That is enough clowning around.
honk honk
idk I hope everyone is hyped for Grace art soon.

Pikmin is a video game I like & monarchypilled.

It teaches the importance of one for all, all for one.

Pikmin is also about leadership.

Who commands like a sovereign w/ rightful commands by blowing a whistle.

Pikmin cast in water are like sheep without a shepherd & drown unless Olimar saves them.

inb4 leftypol makes pikmin the ultimate socialist video game

Jean Bodin
>As for the right of coining money, it is of the same nature as law, and only he who has the power to make law can regulate the coinage. That is readily evident from the Greek, Latin, and French terms, for the word nummus [in Latin] is from the Greek word nomos, and [the French] loi (law) is at the root of aloi (alloy), the first letter of which is dropped by those who speak precisely. Indeed, after law itself, there is nothing of greater consequence than the title, value, and measure of coins, as we have shown in a separate treatise, and in every well-ordered state, it is the sovereign prince alone who has this power.

Thomas Hobbes
>And the Right of Distribution of Them – The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongs in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign power…. And this they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own.

>All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness, but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General: Who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land… And though a People coming into possession of a land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as of the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour.

Dante Alighieri
>And I urge you not only to rise up to meet him, but to stand in reverent awe before his presence, ye who drink of his streams, and sail upon his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores and the summits of the mountains that are his; ye who enjoy all public rights and possess all private property by the bond of his law, and no otherwise. Be ye not like the ignorant, deceiving your own selves, after the manner of them that dream, and say in their hearts, We have no Lord.

King James VI & I
>It is evident by the rolles of our Chancellery (which contain our eldest and fundamental Laws) that the King is Dominus omnium bonorum [Lord of all goods], and Dominus directus totius Dominii [Direct lord of the whole dominion (that is, property)], the whole subjects being but his vassals, and from him holding all their lands as their overlord.

From An Appeal to Caesar
wherein gold & silver is proved to be the King Majesty's royal commodity
by Thomas Violet
>The Gold and Silver of the Nation, either Foreign coin, or Ingot, or the current Coin of the Kingdom, is the Soul of the Militia, and so all wise men know it, that those that command the Gold and Silver of the Kingdom, either Coin, or Bullion, to have it free at their disposal, to be Judges of the conveniency and inconveniency, or to hinder, or to give leave to transport Gold and Silver at their pleasure, is the great Wheel of the State, a most Royal Prerogative inherent in Your Majesty, Your Heirs and Successors, (and none other whomsoever, but by Your Majesty's License, and cannot be parted with to any Persons, but by Your Majesty most especial Grant;) your Majesty, and your Privy Councel being by the Law the only proper Judges

Alexander Hamilton
>"Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper."

Jean Bodin continued
<Of course each man was ruler of his family and had the right of life and death not only over the slaves but also over his wives and children, as Caesar himself testified. Justinian, in addition to many others, erred in alleging, in the chapter on a father's power, that no people had so much power over their sons as the Romans had, for it is evident from Aristotle and the Mosaic Law that the custom is also common to the Persians and the Hebrews. The ancients understood that such was the love of the parents toward their sons that even if they wished very much to abuse their power, they could not. Moreover, nothing was a more potent cause of virtue and reverence in children toward their parents than this patriarchal power.

<Therefore, when they say that they are masters of the laws and of all things, they resemble those kings whom Aristotle calls lords, who, like fathers of families, protect the state as if it were their own property. It is not contrary to nature or to the law of nations that the prince should be master of all things and of laws in the state, only he must duly defend the empire with his arms and his child with his blood, since the father of a family by the law of nations is owner not only of the goods won by him but also of those won by his servants, as well as of his servants

<Even more base is the fact that Jason when interpreting in the presence of King Louis XII a chapter of law well explained by Azo, affirmed recklessly that all things are the property of the prince. This interpretation violates not only the customs and laws of this kingdom but also all the edicts and advices of all the emperors and jurisconsults. All civil actions would be impossible if no one were owner of anything. "To the Kings," said Seneca, "power over all things belongs; to individual citizens, property." And a little later he added, "While under the best king the king holds all within his authority, at the same time the individual men hold possessions as private property." All things in the state belong to Caesar by right of authority, but property is acquired by inheritance

The Places And Matter Of Traffique Depend, As Their Distribution, On The Sovereign
<As the Distribution of Lands at home; so also to assign n what places, and for what commodities, the Subject shall traffique abroad, belongs to the Sovereign

>For if it did belong to private persons to use their own discretion therein, some of them would be drawn for gain, both to furnish the enemy with means to hurt the Commonwealth, and hurt it themselves, by importing such things, as pleasing mens appetites, be nevertheless noxious, or at least unprofitable to them. And therefore it belongs to the Commonwealth, (that is, to the Sovereign only,) to approve, or disapprove both of the places, and matter of foreign Traffique.

We see examples of this often in history, typically in East Asia, when it came to Europeans that were assigned a place for their traffic.

Another example of states involved in the economies:
<In the meantime, to raise money for the reducing of Ireland, the Parliament invited men to bring in money by way of adventure, according to these propositions. 1. That two millions and five hundred thousand acres of land in Ireland, should be assigned to the adventurers, in this proportion: For an adventure of 200l. 1,000 acres in Ulster.

<All according to English measure, and consisting of meadow, arable, and profitable pasture; bogs, woods, and barren mountains, being cast in over and above. 2. A revenue was reserved to the Crown, from one penny to three-pence on every acre. 3. That commissions should be sent by the Parliament, to erect manors, settle wastes, and commons, maintain preaching minsters, create corporations, and regulate plantations.

Other related information from Hobbes. (This was from a thread earlier about the govt & political economy, btw)

<And therefore it belongs to the Commonwealth, (that is to say, to the Sovereign,) to appoint in what manner, all kinds of contract between Subjects, (as buying, selling, exchanging, borrowing, lending, letting, and taking to hire,) are to be made; and by what words, and signs they shall be understood for valid.

Commodity of living
<The commodity of living consists in liberty and wealth. By Liberty I mean, that there be no prohibition without necessity of any thing to any man, which was lawful to him in the law of nature; that is to say, that there should be no restraint of natural liberty, but what is necessary for the good of the Commonwealth; and that well-meaning men may not fall into the danger of laws, as into snares, before they be aware. It appertains also to this liberty, that a man may have commodious passage from place to place, and not be imprisoned or confined with the difficulty of ways, and want of means for transportation of things necessary.

<And for the wealth of people, it consists in three things: the well ordering of trade, procuring of labour, and forbidding the superfluous consuming of food and apparel. All those therefore that are in Sovereign Authority, and have taken upon them the government of people, are bound by the law of nature to make ordinances consisting in the points aforenamed; as being contrary to the law of nature, unnecessarily, either for one's own fancy, to enthrall, or tie men so, as they cannot move without danger; or to suffer them whose maintenance is our benefit, to want anything necessary for them, by our negligence.

Prevention of Idleness
>But for such as have strong bodies, the case is otherwise: they are to be forced to work; and to avoid the excuse of not finding employment, there ought to be such Laws, as may encourage all manner of Arts; as Navigation, Agriculture, Fishing, and all manner of Manufacture that requires labour.

Hobbes also described it as a duty in some respects to deal with the political economy.

>the duty of Commanders in chief, shall be conversant only about those three.

>For the first, those laws will be useful which countenance the arts that improve the increase of the earth, and water, such as husbandry, and fishing.

As for trade wars and sanctions and embargoes.
<it is also a law of nature, That men allow commerce and traffic indifferently to one another. For he that allows that to one man, which he denies to another, declares his hatred to him, to whom he denies; and to declare hatred is war. And upon this title was grounded the great war between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians. For would the Athenians have condescended to suffer the Megareans, their neighbours, to traffic in their ports and markets, that war had not begun.

I think of this in the context of whether to allow trade altogether. Though Hobbes did support a consumption tax in that he considered it fair. I'm thinking this doesn't apply as much to a bit of protectionism.

>For if it did belong to private persons to use their own discretion therein, some of them would be drawn for gain, both to furnish the enemy with means to hurt the Commonwealth

On this pretext, I would say there's a case to outlaw certain things or a protectionist case might be made – or forbid trading with enemy nations or supplying them with weapons. Though Hobbes also warned about monopolies clotting things up or unnecessary snares for public money.

Monopolies And Abuses Of Publicans
>Again, there is sometimes in a Common-wealth, a Disease, which resembleth the Pleurisie; and that is, when the Treasure of the Common-wealth, flowing out of its due course, is gathered together in too much abundance, in one, or a few private men, by Monopolies, or by Farmes of the Publique Revenues; in the same manner as the Blood in a Pleurisie, getting into the Membrane of the breast, breedeth there an Inflammation, accompanied with a Fever, and painfull stitches.

But also warned about inadequacies for public money / taxes. That was evident w/ Charles I.

Want Of Mony
>Hitherto I have named such Diseases of a Common-wealth, as are of the greatest, and most present danger. There be other, not so great; which neverthelesse are not unfit to be observed. As first, the difficulty of raising Mony, for the necessary uses of the Common-wealth; especially in the approach of warre. This difficulty ariseth from the opinion, that every Subject hath of a Propriety in his lands and goods, exclusive of the Soveraigns Right to the use of the same. From whence it commeth to passe, that the Soveraign Power, which foreseeth the necessities and dangers of the Common-wealth, (finding the passage of mony to the publique Treasure obstructed, by the tenacity of the people,) whereas it ought to extend it selfe, to encounter, and prevent such dangers in their beginnings, contracteth it selfe as long as it can, and when it cannot longer, struggles with the people by strategems of Law, to obtain little summes, which not sufficing, he is fain at last violently to open the way for present supply, or Perish; and being put often to these extremities, at last reduceth the people to their due temper; or else the Common-wealth must perish. Insomuch as we may compare this Distemper very aptly to an Ague; wherein, the fleshy parts being congealed, or by venomous matter obstructed; the Veins which by their naturall course empty themselves into the Heart, are not (as they ought to be) supplyed from the Arteries, whereby there succeedeth at first a cold contraction, and trembling of the limbes; and afterwards a hot, and strong endeavour of the Heart, to force a passage for the Bloud; and before it can do that, contenteth it selfe with the small refreshments of such things as coole of a time, till (if Nature be strong enough) it break at last the contumacy of the parts obstructed, and dissipateth the venome into sweat; or (if Nature be too weak) the Patient dyeth.


From a previous thread, an anon mentioned this book & Aristotle briefly.
>There is a book called The Lost Science of Money that delves into the topic early on about the historical dilemma of money being essentially sovereign, or the creation of civic law (what Aristotle called Nomisma)

I'll share another read w/ anons.
An appeal to Caesar
https://archive.org/details/aesarwh00viol/page/n5/mode/2up

Like I said previously.
The reason why Emperors and other rulers have their faces on coins is to signify how they are providers.
It is another means for the State to teach its values, since people should believe whatever provides for them.
So imagine you go to get your daily bread, with money bearing the visage of your Sovereign.

Joseph de Maistre
>Everyone knows the famous line,

<The first king was a fortunate soldier

>This is perhaps one of the falsest claims that has ever been made. Quite the opposite could be said, that

<The first soldier was paid by a king

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)
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 – In this fashion, the Sovereign Monarch breathes life into the land & becomes the progenitor of a people. Great Monarchs have named cities or are revered as founders. Ramses II & Pi-Ramses, Alexander the Great & Alexandria, Romulus & Rome, Constantine & Constantinople, Louis XIV & Versailles, Emp. Peter I & St. Petersburg – their feat of establishing an entire polity itself is a testimony to their power and sovereignty, truly making them in the relation of the whole to the part or the state itself, since they established states.

Most people ardently believe in their politics, because they believe it will provide for them, and that it sustains them.
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.
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 all that was mentioned here.
It's said that every household is under one head.
That anarchist and democratic worldview asserts the conceit of the people to be a body without a head, a family without a father, or sheep without a shepherd–but also to undermine monarchy, to say that such a monarch cannot provide the good life for his subjects.

<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.

<Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth
>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.

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

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

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

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

I am struck at how they are all in agreement on this particularly (connecting the dots).

>>387430
If anyone is wondering what the context is here.
<So that Aristotle… without any probably cause, to have divided the economical government from the political, and a city from a family
&
<Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one
…
They are referencing this passage from Aristotle's Politics.
>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of subjects.
[Side note: Plato treated the difference between household, royal, and political rule as a difference only of degree]
[*That is from Plato Statesman]

It was difficult for me to fully understand at first. When I think of a great household and a city, I like to think of this context as the buildings themselves. A great household has many rooms and a city many buildings, a city having many houses like many rooms, the community of goods fostered in the harmony of these rooms and buildings together (where various industries or departments furnish their common benefit): when a household grows to the extent of a city, procures more rooms for the people of that household by sending them to make more houses – I would think this gradually makes a city. & for a city, like Hobbes says for the procreation of a commonwealth, you have families being sent to form colonies. The sovereignty is retained no matter how spread apart, it is said, & regardless of the size of this whether comparing an ant or an elephant.

>>387091
>Until the DPRK cuts off the political dynasty, stops modeling their party after a great family, & stops referring to their leaders as fathers in this fashion – then I'll see no pretense to look at the DPRK or hold any love or sympathy, but these are what make DPRK exceptional to the royalist mentality.
Idealist nonsense that can be grafted onto any nation and it's leaders.
>omegad, George Bush and and his son were elected president, this is a hecking monarchy
>omegad, Stalin fashions himself the mother of the Soviet Union, and calls Russia his mother, this is a hecking monarchy.
>>387111
>I would even add that DPRK the socialist workers' state has demonstrated this further than royalty themselves are able to.
Yeah, I thought you'd say this. Again, idealism to the umpteempth degree.

<Filmer / Directive Power, the Condition of Human Nature Requires It
>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.

Archibald Kennedy
>There is, in every Family, a Sort of Government without any fixed Rules; and indeed it is impossible, even in a little Family, to form Rules for every Circumstance

>The Study of the Father is for the Good of the Whole

>In short, the whole Affairs of the Family are immediately under the Care or Direction of the Father

>His Majesty, as he is our political Father, his political Prerogative, from the like Circumstances and Reasons, is equally necessary

>And this political Authority has been allowed the supreme Director, in all States, in all Ages, and in all Places; and without it, there would be a Failure of Justice.

Aristotle calls the economic structure of a household to be a monarchy.

As for the political economy:
>from Greek oikonomia ‘household management’, based on oikos ‘house’ + nemein ‘manage’.

Economy is a general term & the relation of the state itself is described as the general to particular or whole to part: so for an economy or irregular system (as Hobbes calls it, for things where the people converse lawfully), it inevitably calls upon standardization or regulation for all these things people have in common to converge. The sovereignty digs a channel for the water from all these irregular streams to meet for the common benefit; the sovereignty directs the political economy for the common good or community of goods & out of necessity this happens for general things such as traffic or commerce to have prosperity, let alone for a marketplace (which is a public space in this sense).

As Jean Bodin describes what is held in common – & public and private have a special relationship to each other from his standpoint. You could say, for instance, that people have a road in common (common in the sense that they all have roads in common – or common in the sense that they all use that road proper) as well as juggles a bit between common and proper & public and private to draw lines in the sand.
The constitution of cities also has a culmination of private and public walkways, but both together make up the body-politic in a sense (even what is held in private, like private buildings, in the grand scheme of things is another building in the city and part of the political layout from a bird's eye view – this is my interpretation).

>But beside the sovereignty of State thus by us set down, as the strong foundation of the whole Commonwealth; many other things besides are of citizens to be had in common among them, as their markets, their churches, their walks, ways, laws, decrees, judgements, voices, customs, theaters, walls, public buildings, common pastures, lands, and treasure; and in brief, rewards, punishments, sutes, and contracts: all which I say are common unto all the citizens together, or by use and profit: or public for every man to use, or both together.

>For otherwise a Commonwealth cannot be so much as imagined, which has in it nothing at all public or common.

Jean Bodin was an ardent defender of private property, but he saw a harmony between public and private, common and proper.

I've seen the debate between the Free Market and Central Planning.

I ultimately see the division of land and property, that conversely forms a market, to be in a way the intention of the State to channel these back for the common good: as numerous households of a city are established to pool together various designs for the city altogether to grow and prosper. As well as the term Central Planning (that I am probably misusing), but I don't see this division of land and whatnot for the economy without some direction or landscaping / planning in mind from the governing authorities. There are laws regulating the cultivation of land itself and what goes where in a city: people also meet to discuss these economic matters, because like previously stated this really does become a political discussion inevitably.

So TL;DR: I don't see the economy itself, let alone the marketplace, to be independent from political authority per say.

& that's why I use the term political economy.

The economy itself is a general term for all the households constituting a city: what is a city but a bundle of houses? The nature of the economy is in the boundary of the polis or political.

The same fashion we talk about the economy is to an extent like how it was with political terms like Commonwealth (a term synonymous with Republic or State) – that referred to the common good.

>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

We don't build a city without houses or begin to speak of the economy without a view of the body-politic.

<Thomas Hobbes
>Which is so evident, that even Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in a public pleading, attributes all Propriety to the Law Civil, "Let the Civil Law," says he, "be once abandoned, or but negligently guarded, (not to say oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive from his Ancestor, or leave to his Children." And again; "Take away the Civil Law, and no man knows what is his own, and what another man's."

<Jean Bodin
<But the greatest inconvenience is, that in taking away these words of Mine, and Thine, they ruin the foundation of all Commonwealths, the which were chiefly established, to yield unto every man that which is in his own

Filmer calls for a directive power & I insist likewise that it is not without governance that we see commerce and prosperity; shelves are not organized & filled with bread, without a bread-giver / Lord, who provides us w/ the scheme.

As Dante Alighieri says again,
<And I urge you not only to rise up to meet him, but to stand in reverent awe before his presence, ye who drink of his streams, and sail upon his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores and the summits of the mountains that are his; ye who enjoy all public rights and possess all private property by the bond of his law, and no otherwise

<Be ye not like the ignorant, deceiving your own selves, after the manner of them that dream, and say in their hearts, 'We have no Lord'.

>>387775
>Idealist nonsense that can be grafted onto any nation and it's leaders.
All kinds of leaders are simply limited monarchs (w/o a monarchy).

I also thought you and anticipated you'd post Stalin.

DPRK / WPK goes a step further than Stalin & those political dynasties.

It is very deliberate & I wouldn't be surprised if not instituted to a degree that their intention has a bit of perpetuity. (In that I think WPK will continue this practice of having the offspring of Kim Il Sung be leaders). That's fundamentally the difference I see between them and Stalin (& even for the political dynasties that lacked perpertuity, that simply took their turn in being governed – it doesn't seem to be the same in WPK). B/c oligarchies for instance can also have dynasties that take their turn in being governed – as for the clintons or bushes, they weren't there in a row… a crucial step is when this particular family is exceptional and is perpetually re-instated again and again with the intent I described.

When the government models itself itself this way, it is the case.

To magnify any person to such an extent is a monarchist maneuver, albeit painted red.

With Stalin or Mao, it was temporary.

With Kim Il Sung, it has a perpetual aim.

You might say that this is bullshit.

But w/ DPRK, this is the case that they have a perpetuity.

For they call Kim Il Sung to be the eternal person of DPRK.

& what better way to copy and paste Kim Il Sung perpetually throughout the ages than to let his offspring take the leadership role? That is the intent. Until someone else or some other family takes their turn in the spotlight, then I'll hand it to you, anon. – The trademark is, however, that this particular family has a perpetual aim and an especial place.

Now, it might be said to the contrary, that even in monarchies different dynasties succeed, but the aim of one dynasty is always to continue as if perpetual & not be replaced.

Monarchists have a saying for this, The King Never Dies.

This is going to anger both monarchists & leftists.

As it is very trite and all
w/ these leaders being described as monarchs
I know, I know

Comparing the Mao posters & Leviathan.

SAME ENERGY

Except w/ the Leviathan, I suppose, there is a bond as One Person.

& a popular sovereignty (though a monarchy).

In defense of Mao, I guess you could say that this is rather by association than a bond by him, & his person is employed to an extent to the true sovereign democracy of the PRC.

The whole republicanism vs royalism antagonism wasn't always a thing and is a recent innovation (by recent, I mean by a few centuries). As Bodin himself wrote his book titled The Six Books of the Republic or Les Six Livres de la République – Republic wasn't always a term offensive to monarchists… it simply meant the State rather than the form of State (meaning, monarchy could be a kind of republic or state among the other kinds of state such as democracy or oligarchy). And Commonwealth was a variation of it. Kingdom was simply there by association, but it wasn't innately opposed to republic in that way until contemporarily in these last few centuries. & that was despite notions of popular sovereignty versus any other case for the Monarch's pre-eminence or majesty or sovereignty

I post the clown face Grace
b/c I know I sound politically illerate

What would Monarchy or Royalism be going forward?

Whether it is fated for extinction or to conform to a new superstructure.

& the downfall of monarchies–

Will there be new dynasties from politicians – will they stand in majesty.

Or w/o a Western-style crown, w/o the veneer of Christianity or w/ Christianity.

This is what I anticipate.

>>356251
Why the fuck is this thread so popular? Wtf is going on?

I could talk at length about perpetual power & sovereignty.

& what it means for Monarchy.

But tbh I want to forfeit this conversation.

>>387830
Hey graceanon you might've gotten this question already, but what's your opinion about Saudi Arabia? Their kings don't rule like a typical strongman Hobbesian leviathan and instead rule as a collective with hundreds of other saudi princes, also the clergy there is extremely powerful since KSA was originally a semi-theocracy. What's the western monarchist opinion about this

>>387831
When i listen to neo-monarchists like Yarvin they always imagine the king as this all powerful CEO who ruled with dictats like Jupiter, but arguably the strongest monarchy today (KSA) functioned more like an oligarchy than an absolutist regime. But i also heard some monarchists telling me that this is precisely why the Saudi monarchy is actually a hollow power/a paper tiger that will collapses the moment oil money stops, since they're not an actual monarchy

>>387831
>Their kings don't rule like a typical strongman
The nature of sovereignty doesn't always mean ruling like a strongman, contrary to what most people think.

>and instead rule as a collective with hundreds of other saudi princes
Saudi princes under the House of Saud.
That's still the majesty of one family rather than other families, tbh.
Yes, there are numerous princes there, but what I consider more oligarchic is the Malaysian royalty who take their turns being the king of them all together: whereas the Saudi King is there perpertual, no term limits, & only the House of Saud (I think it's safe to say).
There may be many princes, but isn't there one Saudi king?
Whereas take something like the HRE, there are numerous kings, for instance, with different families taking their turns – but the House of Saud it seems to be one family – like Jean Bodin talked about certain big families being like a state in themselves for his talking point about a family being the true image of a commonwealth after all.

>also the clergy there is extremely powerful
The clergy was also extremely powerful in Western monarchies.

In fact, Bodin ranks the clergy right after the sovereign monarch (& even this is enough for Bodin to be deemed anti-clerical by traditionalists, believe it or not).
>The next unto the King himself, who out of the number of citizens, going far before the rest should follow the holy order of the clergy: next unto the sacred order of the clergy, the Senate:

>>387832
Idk, I considered Saudi Arabia to be a monarchy.
I'm not sure where other monarchists disagree, but I haven't studied Saudi Arabia at length & settled with them being a monarchy at face value.

Speaking of Hobbes, the succession doesn't really contradict his input on how it would be for a Sovereign Monarchy.

<Hobbes / Elective Kings
>And first, concerning an Elective King, whose power is limited to his life, as it is in many places of Christendome at this day; or to certaine Yeares or Moneths, as the Dictators power amongst the Romans;

>If he have Right to appoint his Successor, he is no more Elective but Hereditary.

The Saudi Arabians had this also in their law.
>The King chooses the Heir Apparent and relieves him of his duties by Royal order.
— Chapter 2, Article 5(c) of the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia.

It's true, that this system changed, but the King still nominates the candidates for his succession.
>Under the Allegiance Institution Law, the King nominates up to three candidates for the position of Crown Prince. The Allegiance Council then selects one of them as Crown Prince

Elective kings were viewed usually as limited monarchs from the perspective of Hobbes, who simply have the use of power under the authority of the true sovereign power. Though this wasn't always the case (I don't think). I might have to dig in my screencaps folder or re-read a little.

Saudi Arabia is a good example of how one big family can be like a state in itself: the state there is like a great household.

Like previously mentioned >>387430 here
In states this sentiment continues with public servants – the servants of state are called public servants like servants of a household. And bureaucracies / deparments are like divisions of servants, in the same vein that a master might have various rooms for various kinds of servants, like a room for his chefs, his maids, the tutors for his children, and so on – I heard that Yarvin wanted to make a CEO privately owned government to more accurately resemble a company for a more effective government, as if states in themselves weren't already arranged in this fashion.

I don't read NRx or Moldbug very much, but that's where I sorta criticize him (if it's true).

<Hobbes / A corporation be declared one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of a commonwealth or city
>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.

The Saudis have much of the land in their control that I don't think they need to worry about taxes as much – the KSA has a few corporate taxes, but hardly any because of all their wealth.

Pic related notes–
Whatever a son acquires, he acquires for his father
In a way, ants serve their ant queen and bring everything back to the colony to nourish for them.

The reason ants and bees are call royal animals is because like Aristotle says.

<Aristotle / Of the same blood, suckled by the same milk
>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']

The same case is for the House of Saud and Saudi Arabia. I see this as a very monarchic strain.

Christianity appeals to the same maxim.

The Eucharist, for example, is all about the Kingship of Christ and being of his flesh and blood.

The bread 🍞 is like the flesh [or blood, in Aristotle's context]

The wine 🩸 is to be suckled with the same milk. (well, blood).

By this blood relationship, Christians are a kind of great family in the Kingdom of Christ or his body-politic the Church called the Body of Christ. This is how Christian fraternity is understood as brothers and sisters and servants of Christ, imo, & illustrates a royal bond.

>>387866
I understand the concept of kingly governments arising from a unified ethnic corpus, but why the need for a king then? To use theopolitickal language, before the Kingship of Christ we have the Kingship of Israel and Judah, and further before that we have the Kingless people of Israel, who still identifies as a corpus via the uniting bonds of Judaism yet they don't feel the need to ascribe sovereignity to the State a'la Bodin. Rather there is no state, only the Jewish People, who in times of crisis will rally behind a Judge whose sovereignity is derived from the people. I think i prefer this mode of government since it provides both basis for communal solidarity like what Aristotle mentioned while still maintaining a decentralized and egalitarian society.
Sorry for rambling lol its just your Christian metaphor pique my interest

>>387868
<Aristotle / The gods have a king
>Wherefore men say that the gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the gods, but their ways of life to be like their own.

I don't have a great depth of knowledge here.

Though Aristotle says, that a household is under one head and a family also.

>Rather there is no state, only the Jewish People
I'll add two things.
1st, it is said, that there can be no such thing as a people without a state.
2nd, Hobbes did noted, that the Jews had an especial covenant with God as their King.
I think also & among others described Moses and prophets as sovereigns.
I'd have to ruminate on this, but–
Bossuet's Politics Drawn From Holy Scripture is a good recommendation for that view of Christian monarchy.
As for there being no people without a state, Hobbes, for example, doesn't see there being any body of the people before the institution of commonwealth. (And I think Bossuet also added this). It is the institution of the State that makes The People and breathes life into them like Adam was made from soil and had life breathed into him.
Bossuet notes,
>To imagine now, with M. Jurieu, in the people considered to be in this condition, a sovereignty, which is already a species of government, is to insist on a government before all government, and to contradict oneself. Far from the people being sovereign in this condition, there is not even a people in this state. There may be families, as ill-governed as they are ill-secured; there may well be a troop, a mass of people, a confused multitude; but there can be no people, because people supposes something which already brings together some regulated conduct and some establshed law – something which happens only to those who have already begun to leave this unhappy condition, that is to say, that of anarchy.

& Maistre says,
>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.

This might be dogmatic to assert in the presence of stateless societies and anthropology, but I'll leave it there.

I feel sovereignty supercedes notions of centralization and decentralization. As Bodin calls the HRE (that contemporaries call the most decentralized thing in history) to simply be a state oligarchy.

Maybe a hyper decentralized and egalitarian people is a kind of state democracy, idk.

I'd say that the word decentralized implies it was centralized before.

I've said before that I dislike the terms decentralization and centralization.

Charles Maurras, a royalist & advocate for decentralization (who say royalism as a means to decentralization) also said that although he considered decentralization a great thing the word has a steel harsh tone.

Imo, you could have a sovereignty w/ what people see as decentralization.

Though what advocates want is really a bunch of independent bodies by association, but not by any bond or state.

Hobbes and Bossuet described this as numerous families and independent bodies like infinite little kingdoms (like people describe for the HRE) though even these could have something in common as a bond.

It could simply be said that North Korea is a military democracy with a military strongman.

In the same vein that Marx & Engels looked at the maxim:
Let there be one ruler, one king

Seeing this famous monarchist maxim as purely a military quote and nothing political.

& said that kings back then were one among many other kings and were military generals and so and so in their anthropology and in no way monarchic in political structure. Also stating no way like a modern prince by which I assume is meant a sovereign prince or the political state of there being one person in majesty or any emphasis on one person politically.

Though North Korea definitely has that monarchic strain or tendency not only in military affairs, but also political / party affairs: with an emphasis on the oneness of the persona that strays from this analysis. It could be that North Korea is a modern state and this is residue of modernity, but I think there is something to it.

Engels & Marx sort of remind me of BAP's analysis, who also stated that kings by no means should govern and should be relegated to military affairs and that's the problem.

Though personally I feel leftists have such a prejudice and bias against any kind of monarchy or tendency towards the majesty of one person in political affairs that they will always push it at an arm's length away like a knee-jerk reaction. That's leftoids being leftoids.

Footnote
>Like the Greek basileus, so also the Aztec military chief has been made out to be a modern prince. The reports of the Spaniards, which were at first misinterpretations and exaggerations, and later actual lies, were submitted for the first time to historical criticism by Morgan. He proves that the Mexicans were at the middle stage of barbarism, though more advanced than the New Mexican Pueblo Indians, and that their constitution, so far as it can be recognized in the distorted reports, corresponded to this stage: a confederacy of three tribes, which had subjugated a number of other tribes and exacted tribute from them, and which was governed by a federal council and a federal military leader, out of whom the Spaniards made an “emperor.”

Engels
<In the Iliad, Agamemnon, the ruler of men, does not appear as the supreme king of the Greeks, but as supreme commander of a federal army before a besieged town. It is to this supremacy of command that Odysseus, after disputes had broken out among the Greeks, refers in a famous passage: “Evil is the rule of many; let one be commander,” etc. (The favorite line about the scepter is a later addition.)

Marx
>Odysseus is here not giving a lecture on a form of government, but demanding obedience to the supreme commander in war. Since they are appearing before Troy only as an army, the proceedings in the agora secure to the Greeks all necessary democracy. When Achilles speaks of presents – that is, the division of the booty – he always leaves the division, not to Agamemnon or any other basileus, but to the “sons of the Achacans,” that is, the people. Such epithets as “descended from Zeus,” “nourished by Zeus,” prove nothing, for every gens is descended from a god, that of the leader of the tribe being already descended from a “superior” god, in this case Zeus. Even those without personal freedom, such as the swineherd Eumaecus and others, are “divine” (dioi and theioi), and that too in the Odyssey, which is much later than the Iliad; and again in the Odyssey the name Heros is given to the herald Mulius as well as to the blind bard Demodocus. Since, in short, council and assembly of the people function together with the basileus, the word basileia, which Greek writers employ to denote the so called Homeric kingship (chief command in the army being the principal characteristic of the office), only means – military democracy.

Engels
<In addition to his military functions, the basileus also held those of priest and judge, the latter not clearly defined, the former exercised in his capacity as supreme representative of the tribe or confederacy of tribes. There is never any mention of civil administrative powers; he seems, however, to be a member of the council ex officio. It is there fore quite correct etymologically to translate basileus as king, since king (kuning) is derived from kuni, kunne, and means head of a gens. But the old Greek basileus does not correspond in any way to the present meaning of the word king

>Thus in the Greek constitution of the heroic age we see the old gentile order as still a living force. But we also see the beginnings of its disintegration: father right, with transmission of the property to the children, by which accumulation of wealth within the family was favored and the family itself became a power as against the gens; reaction of the inequality of wealth on the constitution by the formation of the first rudiments of hereditary nobility and monarchy; slavery, at first only of prisoners of war, but already preparing the way for the enslavement of fellow members of the tribe and even of the gens…

>Only one thing was wanting: an institution which not only secured the newly acquired riches of individuals against the communistic traditions of the gentile order, which not only sanctified the private property formerly so little valued, and declared this sanctification to be the highest purpose of all human society; but an institution which set the seal of general social recognition on each new method of acquiring property and thus amassing wealth at continually increasing speed; an institution which perpetuated, not only this growing cleavage of society into classes, but also the right of the possessing class to exploit the non possessing, and the rule of the former over the latter.

<And this institution came. The State was invented

Now obviously, devoted royalists think otherwise in many ways.

Imo, this is an instance where it depends on who you ask and their answer speaks a great length about themselves. b/c you ask royalists and their project their values as much as leftists will.

Though it is conceded that some kings were army captains, but Jean Bodin definitely saw a royal power in indigenous peoples.

Jean Bodin
>Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be.

<But the Indians are not surprised that the kingdom of the French, unlimited by narrow swamps and extending far and wide, has flourished through incredibly glorious deeds for twelve hundred years.

Jean Bodin
>"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines… And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty."

My reasoning, however, despite all this, for thinking of that monarchist maxim of let there be one ruler, one king – as being political is because ancient people also saw it under political connotations, & I'm always fond to cite what Suetonius believed Caligula said and that was entirely political.


<'''Caligula / Let there be one lord, one king!
>Chancing to overhear some kings, who had come to Rome to pay respects to him, disputing at dinner about the nobility of their descent, he cried:
>Let there be One lord, One king!
>And he came near assuming a crown at once and changing the semblance of a principate into the form of a monarchy.

The connotation here I see as political.

I also strongly reject BAPism for my part. Seeing royal monarchy involved in political and military affairs – knowing the adage that a king is a household ruler and so a political ruler also, by virtue of all previously said about political and economical being no different. And Bodin also says, that as it is important to have one person for military affairs, so also political life.

<Jean Bodin / Obeying one commander in war, one sovereign prince in commonweal
>There are thousand such like examples, which do show us the necessity to have one head or commander, not only in war (where there is greatest danger) but also to obey one sovereign prince in a Commonweal: for even as n army is ill led, and most commonly defeated that has many Generals; even so is a Commonwealth that has many lords, either by division, or a diversity of opinions, or by the diminution of power given to many, or by the difficulty there is to agree and resolve upon any thing, or for that the subjects know not whom to obey, or the discovery of matters which should be kept secret, or through altogether.

I also appeal to Aristotle (it doesn't sit well next to what I said earlier, since Aristotle did call it an erroneous opinion), but he noted that a kingly rule is like a household rule & that the kingly rule of a city is like a household management – & imo according to the testimony of others coincidentally against Aristotle, I also think that means it's a political rule. That's where I reject BAP and think of monarchy politically. & on that same basis, DPRK and their rhetoric about their country being a house and KJU their father makes me feel it is more political than people want to let on.

DPRK does say that the people are masters. Still, masters.

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

The citizens in particular swear to obey the people in general as masters.

I want to think this is the people as masters & KJU is seen as the manifestation of the people / WPK, explaining all that majesty they ascribe to KJU and ther need to unite with him. The WPK being like a house or family under one head.

As for bees and ants.
I like using them to illustrate a blood relationship or royal bond.
Though Plato says this cannot be for humans.
>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.
Royal monarchy has this aspiration and tries to illustrate the state as if every were kin or the king as father and progenitor of the people.
Nationalists have a similar tendency, but more democratic & they seem more authentic: but with racial purity, it also feels like binding the people to the ideal of one personification. Giving a whole people traits that one person would have.

This comparison between royalists & nationalists I'll lay to rest.

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

There are anti-nationalist royalists also.

>>387883
Hesiod mentions in his praise of kings some political things, like deciding between opposing claims and him being glorified alone.
I see a monarchist tendency strongly there
As for civil administration, Bodin reckons that it was the prerogative and will of the prince.
>That every man should be master of his own house, (as saith Homer) to the end that he may be a law unto his family.
&
>Of the first kind are the kings who once upon a time without any laws governed empires most justly by prerogative. Such the kings of ancient Greeks are said to have been before Lycurgus and Draco, that is, before any laws had been made binding. Such, also, the ancients remember the rule of the kings in Italy. At that time no laws were promulgated by kings or by private citizens, but the whole state and the rights ot citizens depended upon the will of the prince. The Latins were governed by the royal power, as Pomponius wrote, without any definite system of laws. Josephus inferred that Moses was the most ancient legislator, because Homer, in his long work, never used the word "law." Although afterwards statutes were introduced, yet they were bought forward by private citizens, not by kings; until somewhat late the princes were not willing to be bound by these regulations. Indeed, not even when the kings were driven from the city did the consuls allow their own authority and power to be limited legally.

>For right certain it is, the first Commonweales were by sovereign power governed without law, the princes word, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman Commonweale to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the historiographer, in his second book against Appian, desirous to show the most honourable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever writ laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written, never used this word. A good argument that the first Commonweals used not but Commissioners, considering that an officer cannot be established without an express law (as we hae said) to give him his ordinary charge, and limited to a certain time

>So Ulysses, whose kingdom was contained within the rock of Ithaca, is of Homer as well called a King, as Agamemnon: for a great kingdom (as saith Cassiodorus) is no other thing than a great Commonweale, under the government of one chief soueraign: wherefore if of three families, one of the chief of the families hath sovereign power over the other two, or two of them together over the third, or all three jointly and at once exercise power and authority over the people of the three families; it shall as well be called a Commonwealth, as if it in itself comprehended an infinite multitude of citizens.

I realize that Caligula as an authority might not be enough to vindicate my case, since Caligula was centuries after the Greek heroic age, neither the case w/ Aristotle about a household since as is said there was no property or state instituted. I will still maintain that this maxim of Homer is a monarchist maxim politically.

What Aristotle mentions here is partially related to Hobbes on the corporation.
>For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people be- comes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have an things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them. Further, those who have any complaint to bring against the magistrates say, ‘Let the people be judges’; the people are too happy to accept the invitation; and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution.

Hobbes, obviously, disagreed with Aristotle: like earlier, stating that body-politic made policy and not policy body-politic, as well as a corporation of one person by popular sovereignty to make all kinds of states (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy). He also asserted the rule of men.

The reasoning for why an absolute power can be found in Jean Bodin's Easy Method for the Comprehension of History – he goes at length there & also in the Six Books. It has always been a controversial and finicky position. However, Bodin also responds to Plato that it was not best for the magistrate to have such power (but I think makes an exception for the sovereign to out of necessity have an absolute power, since he reasons that there would be a power above laws if there is one to change / amend and rescind laws) –and for Aristotle on the example of a pre-eminent Monarch who himself is a law and w/o need of laws, Bodin says,
>Wherefore Aristotle is deceived, in deeming the Commonwealth then to be happy, when it shall chance to have a prince of so great virtue and wisdom, as that he both can and will with greatest equity, govern his subjects without laws. For why, the law is not made for the prince, but for the subjects in general, and especially for the magistrates.
Here it is meant that it's better to govern with laws from Bodin despite what he says about an absolute power.
It is confusing, but being a monarchist of my ilk is full of controversy and fairly heterodox among others (for absolute power, for 3 pure forms rather than a mixed state, for sovereignty indivisible). Many people misread the politics of absolute monarchy understood here to be strongmen, but Jean Bodin and Hobbes recommended assemblies and parliaments and sovereignty itself was in a way the bare necessity of power rather than accumulating it all without appointing magistrates and others or dividing the lands).

I need to nap, anons.
for real this time

I want to return to funposting.
I don't want to abuse my welcome on leftypol
or else lose my royal favor w/ the lefty community
Grace-chan walks on thin ice

>>387931
omg they saved the queen bee

>>387931
cute video

are you actually a monarchist or just memeing?

>>388026
All the reading, effortposts, time & resources thrown at Grace pics was all a big honking meme the entire time.
7 threads in a row & talking about monarchy was all a meme. I'm a leftist like you pretending to be a monarchist. It was all a larp, smh.

>>387931
>>388023
A far less dramatic version of this Hunter x Hunter scene. (spoilers btw)

>>388237
>It was all a larp, smh
Liar

Since anons like it when I talk about Majesty, I will tell you more about Majesty.

Words like Pre-eminence & Sovereignty are synonymous w/ Majesty.

<Jean Bodin / Majesty
<Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth [La Souveraineté est la puissance absoluë & perpetuelle d’une République], which the Latins call Majestas; the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; and the Italians segniora, a word they use for private persons as well as for those who have full control of the state, while the Hebrews call it tomech shévet – that is the highest power of command.

>As for the title of Majesty itself, it sufficiently appears, that it only belongs to him that is a sovereign prince: so that for him that hath no sovereignty to usurp the same, were a very absurd thing: but to arrogate unto himself the addition of most excellent and sacred majesty, is much more absurd the one being a point of lightnes, and the other of impiety: for what more can we give unto the most mighty and immortal God, if we take from him that which is proper unto himself? And albeit that in ancient time neither emperors nor kings used these so great addition or titles: yet the German princes nevertheless have oft times given the title of Sacred Majesty unto the kings of France; aswell as unto their emperor. As I remember my self to have seen the letters of the princes of the empire, written unto the king, for the deliverance of countie Mansfeld, then prisoner in France: wherein there was sixe times V. S. M. that is to say, Vestra, Sacra, Majestas, or Your Sacred Majesty an addition proper unto God, apart from all worldly princes. As for other princes which are not soueraignes some use the addition of His Highnesse, as the dukes of Loraine, Sauoy, Mantua, Ferrara, and Florence: some of Excellency, as the princes of the confines; or else of Serenitie, as the duke of Venice.

<Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness.

>For so here it behoveth first to define what Majesty or Sovereignty is, which neither lawyer nor political philosopher hath yet defined: although it be the principal and most necessary point for the understanding of the nature of a Commonweal. And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power: it rest to be declared, what is to be understood by the name of a most high and perpetual power.

<We have said that this power ought to be perpetual, for that it may bee, that that absolute power over the subject may be given to one or many, for a short or certain time, which expired, they are no more than subjects themselves: so that whilest they are in their puissant authority, they cannot call themselves Sovereign princes, seeing that they are but men put in trust, and keepers of this sovereign power, until it shall please the people or the prince that gave it them to recall it

>Who always remained ceased thereof.

<For as they which lend or pawn unto another man their goods, remain still the lords and owners thereof: so it is also with them, who give unto others power and authority to judge and command, be it for a certain time limited, or so great and long time as shall please them; they themselves nevertheless continuing still ceased of the power and jurisdiction, which the other exercise but by way of loan or borrowing.

>And that is it for which the law saith, That the governor of a country, or lieutenant of a prince, his time once expired, give up his power, as but one put in trust, and therein defended by the power of another. And in that respect there is no difference betwixt the great officer and the lesser:

<For otherwise if the high and absolute power granted by a prince to his lieutenant, should of right be called Sovereignty, he might use the same against his prince, to whom nothing was left but the bare name of a prince, standing but for a cipher: so should the subject command his Sovereign, the servant his master, than which nothing could be more absurd: considering that in all power granted unto magistrates, or private men, the person of the prince is always to be excepted; who never gives so much power unto another, but that he always keeps more unto himself; neither is ever to be thought so deprived of his sovereign power, but that he may take unto himself the examination and deciding of such things as he hath committed unto his magistrates or officers, whether it be by the way of prevention, concurrence, or evocation: from whom he may also take the power given them by virtue of their commission or institution, or suffer them to hold it so long as shall please him.

>These grounds thus laid, as the foundations of Sovereignty, wee conclude, that neither the Roman Dictator, nor the Harmoste of Lacedemonia, nor the Esmynaet of Salonick, nor he whom they cal the Archus of Malta, nor the antient Baily of Florence, (when it was gouerned by a popular state) neither the Regents or Viceroyes of kingdoms, nor any other officers or magistrats whatsoeuer, vnto whom the highest, but yet not the perpetual power, is by the princes or peoples grant commit∣ted, can be accounted to have the same in Sovereignty.

<And albeit that the ancient Dictators had all power given them in best sort that might be (which the ancient Latins called Optima Lege) so that from them it was not lawful to appeal and upon whose creation all offices were suspended; until such time as that the Tribunes were ordained as keepers of the peoples liberty, who continued in their charge notwithstanding the creation of the Dictator, who had free power to oppose themselves against him; so that if appeal were made from the Dictator, the Tribunes might assemble the people, appointing the parties to bring forth the causes of their appeal, & the Dictator to stay his judgement; as when Papirius Cursor the Dictator, condemned Fabius Max the first, to death; and Fabius Max the second had in like manner condemned M•…nutius, both Colonels of the horsemen, for that they had fought with the enemy contrary to the command of the Dictator; they were yet both by appeale and judgement of the people acquitted. For so saith Livy, Then the father of Fabius said, I call upon the Tribunes, and appeal unto the people, which can do more than thy Dictatorship whereunto king Tullus Hostilius gave place. Whereby it appears that the Dictator was neither sovereign prince, nor magistrat, as many have supposed; neither had any thing more than a simple commission for the making of war, the repressing of sedition, the reforming of the state on instituting of new officers.

>So that Sovereignty is not limited either in power, charge, or time certain. And namely the ten commissioners established for the reforming of custom and laws; albeit than they had absolute power, from which there was no appeal to be made, and that all offices were suspended, during the time of their commission; yet had they not for all that any Sovereignty; for their commission being fulfilled, their power also expired; as did that of the Dictators.

<"Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness."

>And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power

From a different author (I forgot his name). Talks briefly about the history of the style Majesty:
<A TRIVIAL circumstance first discovered the effects of this great elevation upon the mind of Charles. In all the publick writs which he issued as king of Spain, he assumed the title of Majesty, and required it from his subjects as a mark of their respect. Before that time, all the monarchs of Europe were satisfied with the appellation of Highness, or Grace; but the vanity of other courts soon led them to imitate the example of the Spanish. The epithet of Majesty is no longer a mark of pre-eminence. The most inconsiderable monarchs in Europe enjoy it, and the arrogance of the greater potentates has invented no higher denomination.

It's true that Majesty or Sovereignty is taken for granted sometimes, but Jean Bodin remarks that Sovereignty is something a big elephant as well as a small bug could have.

>It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants, or these in their turn apart from each other by an interval of space, provided that they are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter has the final and public authority. The former limited and private rule. So, also, it is still the same government, made up of many families, even if the territories and the settlements are far apart, provided only that they are in the guardianship of the same sovereign power: either one rules all; or all, the individuals; or a few, all. From this it comes about that the state is nothing else than a group of families or fraternities subjected to one and the same rule.

>Cicero's definition of the state as a group of men associated for the sake of living well indicates the best objective, indeed, but not the power and the nature of the institution. This definition applies equally well to the assemblies of the Pythagoreans and of men who also come together for the sake of living well, yet they cannot be called states without great confusion of state and association. Furthermore, there are families of villains, no less than of good men, since a villain is no less a man than a good man is. A similar observation must be made about the governments. Who doubts but that every very great empire was established through violence by robbers? The definition of a state offered by us applies to villages, towns, cities, and principalities, however scattered their lands may be, provided that they are controlled by the same authority. The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse, as the elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception. So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars, which was bounded by the same limits as the course of the sun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>387930

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

Despite Bodin's criticism of Aristotle for being deceived to have a prince in so great virtue and wisdom as to govern without laws and be himself a living law, what Aristotle says is an early example (if not the most early) I can point to.
It is called pre-eminence here, but that is a term pretty much to say majesty.
As it can be read here from Aristotle,
>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!

<Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).

idk why Bodin doesn't pay more heed to this (given his notion of an absolute sovereign). Though he describes himself as the first to have discovered the notion of sovereignty in a sense that predecessors have not. A minor difference is that Bodin and others don't count the form of state by its virtues – where Aristotle says tyranny is no such state / constitution – Bodin says that there can be a tyrannical monarchy nevertheless despite whether it is royal or tyrannical. His sovereignty is maintained in neutrality to these virtues, doesn't change as a form of state because of some vice or some virtues. I'm not sure whether it is also the case of body-politic before policy, but that seems to be the case too… though it is described as a fundamental law to uphold the form of state, whatever it might be.

When >>388445 the 2nd video here has the lyrics–
Barely can we suffice
With all our voices
That's a reference to what was described as a pre-eminent Monarchy.
The Sovereign Monarch is held to be in the relation of the whole.
As supreme to them or on par with all the people.
The motto of Louis XIV, for example, Nec Pluribus Impar, also means Not Unequal to Many.
Some people doubt the historiography of whether Louis XIV really said that he was the state, but his motto pretty much confirmed it.

The republican John Milton complained about it in his work The Readie & Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth.
<Whereas a king must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughtie court about him, of vast expence and luxurie, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female

>>388470
Aristotle went on to say,
>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.

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

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

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