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

/siberia/ - Off-topic

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

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

File: 1673057454026-0.png (147.93 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 6 alunya 1.png)

File: 1673057454026-1.png (150.97 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 6 alunya 2.png)

File: 1673057454026-2.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

 No.356251[Last 50 Posts]

By the invitation of Cat Alunya


File: 1673057759278-0.png (1.21 MB, 2600x1992, Grace pik 4.png)

Previous Royal Colony threads


File: 1673064111220-0.png (125.27 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 6.png)

File: 1673064111220-1.png (149.83 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 3.png)

File: 1673064111220-2.png (136.81 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 2.png)

File: 1673064111220-3.png (1.21 MB, 2600x1992, Grace pik 4.png)

New Grace pics


File: 1673064190262-0.png (363.99 KB, 500x500, GraceTradeOffer.png)

File: 1673064190262-1.png (158.29 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 1.png)

File: 1673064190262-2.png (176.98 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 5.png)

File: 1673064190262-3.png (540.9 KB, 1500x1500, Grace cookie no blush.png)


File: 1673065058258-0.png (1.62 MB, 3100x3100, Grace icup ball.png)

File: 1673065058258-1.png (256.83 KB, 1302x1550, grace smile flip.png)

File: 1673065058258-2.png (77.87 KB, 1302x1550, Grace icup smile.png)


File: 1673065121127-0.jpg (129.32 KB, 792x446, Grace stonks.jpg)

File: 1673065121127-1.png (141.59 KB, 851x900, 1666814326383.png)

File: 1673065121127-3.png (31.52 KB, 269x143, 122.png)


File: 1673065266012-0.png (728.36 KB, 3000x3000, Grace popcorn 2.png)

File: 1673065266012-1.png (728.1 KB, 3000x3000, Grace popcorn 1.png)

File: 1673065266012-2.png (779.27 KB, 2000x2000, grace pizza hut laptop.png)


File: 1673065351638-0.png (807.6 KB, 3000x3000, Grace mic wink.png)

File: 1673065351639-1.png (1.37 MB, 3000x3000, Grace mic icup.png)

File: 1673065351639-3.png (248.93 KB, 1014x1108, 166717112297189628.png)


File: 1673065459848-0.png (730.25 KB, 2439x3600, Grace no line.png)

File: 1673065459848-1.png (270.79 KB, 676x869, Grace VR 14.png)

File: 1673065459848-2.png (179.32 KB, 679x667, Grace VR 10.png)

File: 1673065459848-3.png (97.95 KB, 420x464, Grace VR 5.png)


File: 1673065568867-0.png (285.65 KB, 794x838, Grace VR 7.png)

File: 1673065568867-1.png (217.37 KB, 631x753, Grace VR 12.png)

File: 1673065568867-2.png (132.35 KB, 512x512, grace ex grrr.png)

File: 1673065568867-3.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)


File: 1673065724019-0.png (607.06 KB, 1328x968, Grace icup 3D 3.png)

File: 1673065724019-1.png (640.27 KB, 1328x968, Grace icup 3D 1.png)

File: 1673065724019-2.jpg (289.85 KB, 1920x1080, Grace Louis XIV.jpg)

File: 1673065724019-3.jpg (265.73 KB, 1920x1080, Grace w Louis XIV.jpg)


File: 1673065835963-0.png (4.34 KB, 257x324, Grace MC preview.png)

File: 1673065835963-3.png (1.79 KB, 64x64, Grace alunya 4.png)



File: 1673066172377-0.png (1.05 MB, 3000x3000, Grace 03.png)

File: 1673066172377-1.png (1.4 MB, 3000x3000, Grace7.png)

File: 1673066172377-2.png (1.61 MB, 3000x3000, grace5.png)


File: 1673066243089-0.png (357.79 KB, 1189x1104, Grace 03 crop.png)

File: 1673066243089-1.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

File: 1673066243089-2.png (151.67 KB, 600x557, Grace Smile crop.png)

File: 1673066243089-3.png (173.93 KB, 649x588, Grace vomits crop.png)


File: 1673066343228-0.png (212.19 KB, 600x912, 1638614534178.png)

File: 1673066343228-1.jpg (243.67 KB, 1708x2048, 1643679542925-0.jpg)

File: 1673066343228-2.jpg (48.4 KB, 607x405, 1643379309143-0.jpg)

File: 1673066343228-3.png (156.07 KB, 600x912, Grace joker cosplay.png)


File: 1673066529359-0.png (1.09 MB, 1522x1100, 14 lichess.png)

File: 1673066529359-1.png (4.66 MB, 4150x3000, Grace leftypol org.png)

File: 1673066529359-2.png (1.18 MB, 1522x1100, 13 Pandemic2.png)



File: 1673066863226-0.png (1.22 MB, 1024x1024, 1663871218980-1.png)

File: 1673066863226-1.png (1.25 MB, 1024x1024, 1663871218980-3.png)

File: 1673066863226-2.jpg (79.56 KB, 1280x1280, Grace chan pic.jpg)

File: 1673066863226-3.png (169.04 KB, 1316x1339, Grace sad 01.png)




Don't stop, we need more pictures!


Especially more Grace x Alunya content, that's the only thing gives my heart sweets and is the only reason I am continuing living!


File: 1673093796056-0.png (31.52 KB, 269x143, 122.png)

There will be 6 more pics soon.

couple pics are expensive
anyone else could draw fan art or comm said art







File: 1673251092844-0.png (893.37 KB, 1200x1848, Grace standing 01.png)

First new image is here


File: 1673251383522.png (512.97 KB, 1184x836, ClipboardImage.png)

>flashbacks to the diaperfag days of 8chan


I changed my mind, we don't need more images.


File: 1673252743601-0.png (176.98 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 5.png)

File: 1673252743601-1.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

That's not a new image.
This >>357118 is old /abdl/ stuff.


But speaking of new images, here is a new one


why are you posting an angry dog each post


also gib source on the tickling pic/full pic


go to /tkr/


File: 1673257576204-0.png (132.35 KB, 512x512, grace ex grrr.png)

File: 1673257576204-1.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

because i am angry


why are you. cmon.


While Grace-chan is very cute when upset, I do not like it when she is not happy.


i dont care and stop acting smug


kill yourself


File: 1673452179286.png (3.04 MB, 2392x4100, grace_tyrannophile.png)

da phuc is ein tyrannophile?



That was a joke in my early days in 2018.
I was always humored w/ how Hobbes referred to tyrannophobia & I inverted it and said tyrannophile.


leftypol adores graceposting b/c it is anti-imperialism.
so anons give critical support to yours truly.


stop being a heckin' tyrannophobic chinlet


I really adore Hobbes for it.
Only Hobbes really has this opinion.
You will find nobody like him.

>And because the name of Tyranny, signifies nothing more, nor less, than the name of Sovereignty, be it in one, or many men, saving that they that use the former word, are understood to be angry with them they call Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a Toleration of hatred of Commonwealth in general, and another evil seed, not differing much from the former.


It is music to my ears.
b/c I find nothing more annoying–
than hearing tyrant this & tyrant that.
& those who get into namecalling & abuse it.
I love to see them defanged, their venom & seditions null.


but grace-chan, monarchism is even more globally irrelevant than socialism


File: 1673594948854-0.jpg (6.11 MB, 3552x2664, dr fauci.jpg)

"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 [Dr. Fauci] to tell him what he ought to do…" -Xenophon, Cyropaedia


File: 1673640456238-0.png (2.22 MB, 3419x3096, Grace recites.png)


File: 1673669647613-1.png (112.95 KB, 768x479, 1672794910780.png)



File: 1673757031450.jpg (49.11 KB, 474x421, th-2777780482.jpg)

This is now an assassination thread.


File: 1673757240123-0.jpg (106.17 KB, 474x669, Oh dukes!.jpg)



File: 1673761319778.png (137.44 KB, 317x240, ClipboardImage.png)

Your prize, sir.


You know how in weddings they throw the flowers into the crowd?


File: 1673769496457-0.png (212.19 KB, 600x912, 1638614534178.png)

File: 1673769496457-1.gif (5.06 MB, 498x280, ongezellig-zoom.gif)

File: 1673769496457-2.jpg (11.04 KB, 198x254, mymy.jpg)

This is now a Mymy from Ongezellig appreciation thread.
Grace's eyes in this pic kinda remind me of Mymy.
My performance will be so awe-inspiring, I'll finally be promoted to class representative! Or, in other words… ABSOLUTE EMPRESS OVER THE SERVING UNTERMENSCH–
Sounds like something Grace would say.


File: 1673778878618-0.jpg (785.43 KB, 4096x3492, FSSLRDcXwAY4du7.jpg)

File: 1673778878618-1.jpg (150.83 KB, 972x952, FR3a4dyXMAAxHF7.jpg)

File: 1673778878618-2.png (42.44 KB, 500x250, 2973111 - SoyBooru.png)

File: 1673778878618-3.png (1.96 MB, 1920x1080, 412412414121.png)


what are your thoughts on prince harry and his latest book?


I'm not a monarchist b/c of the Windsors.
I focus on the Monarch or the heir apparent more than the rest.
& like many people here testify
drama like this & the press is not what I like about monarchy

>prince harry

Harry fell for the brown gf meme.
Royalty get a cult of personalty
& race is a part of it, like it or not.
It's the truth nobody wants to say.

>his latest book

A few points on Monarchy ached me.
Harry drew out from under the rug this:
>1. He admits the Royal Family fears being abolished.
>2. He focuses on the cost of the Monarchy: the Royal Family responds to this srsly.
>3. "But no one wants to hear a prince argue for the existence of monarchy."
#2 is an r/monarchism-tier dilemma imo & I'd disagree w/ #3.


>I'm not a monarchist
cool, same


File: 1673792278441-1.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

I like King James VI & I.
He argues for Monarchy.

I am an e-monarkiddie.
Make no mistake, anon.


File: 1673792866391-0.png (151.67 KB, 600x557, Grace Smile crop.png)

File: 1673792866391-1.png (1.96 MB, 1920x1080, 412412414121.png)

>I am an e-monarkiddie.
I've been one since 2014.



File: 1673941760562.gif (19.98 KB, 600x450, story179.gif)


File: 1674023114615-1.jpg (163.27 KB, 1036x1280, alphachan cosplay pig.jpg)

Someday a cosplayer should cosplay Grace.
I know Alpha-chan has a cosplay.


File: 1674041780616.png (12.54 KB, 561x109, ClipboardImage.png)

found one


File: 1674043529469.png (219.67 KB, 389x337, knock knock.png)


File: 1674059857166-0.png (807.6 KB, 3000x3000, Grace mic wink.png)

This anon is so aggro'd.
Guillotine posts wherever I go.


That's just how Anarchist express their loves Grace-chan. They can be such silly tsunderes sometimes, what with their Propaganda of Deed nonsense


who's the cosplayer? purely out of interest


File: 1674064437499.png (158.39 KB, 1193x538, ClipboardImage.png)

hey high-supreme queen grace
I know you're a Caligula fangirl but I think I found the perfect flash game for you, about caesar.




show ending


File: 1674065689129-0.png (357.79 KB, 1189x1104, Grace 03 crop.png)

File: 1674065689129-1.jpg (112.9 KB, 824x387, ending.jpg)


File: 1674065909580.png (306.48 KB, 1289x723, ClipboardImage.png)

definitely better than mine


<King James VI & I: Mystery of State / Mystical Reverence
>That which concerns the mystery of the King's power, is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and take away the mystical reverence, that belongs unto them–

>Encroach not upon the Prerogative of the Crown: if there fall out a question that concerns my Prerogative or mystery of State, deal not with it, till you consult with the King or his Councell, or both: for they are transcendent matters, and must not be with over-rash willfulness; for so you may wound the King–

>I conclude then this point touching the power of Kings, with this Axiome of Divinity, That as to dispute what God may do, is Blasphemy; but quid vult Deus, that Divines may lawfully, and do ordinarily dispute and discuss; for to dispute A Posse ad Esse is both against Logic and Divinity; So is it sedition in Subjects, to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power; But just Kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear to all my doings, and rule my actions according to my Laws.

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

<& contrast this w/ US President Joe Biden.

<w/ small stroke of his pen, he claims to build the economy & provide millions of jobs.

Those who hold those in pre-eminence generally don't weigh their conscience against them. As a modern phenomenon, the right libertarians & the Free Market. Or, /pol/ & Hitler. –A problem w/ e-monarchists I notice is they are eager to discuss when to kill the Monarch, but this isn't really a mark of pre-eminence to discuss at every instance when to kill and subject the Monarch… which I think shows a big problem w/ other monarkiddies, since they unlike the right libertarians or the Hitlerists don't uphold Monarchy to the same esteem as say the Free Marketeers or Hitlerists do. Nobody who fervently believes in their cause does this.

Royalty cannot really do what Joe Biden does. I blame it squarely on the rejection of monarchical sovereignty.


File: 1674313759724-0.png (270.79 KB, 676x869, Grace VR 14.png)

File: 1674313759724-1.png (1.29 MB, 1185x586, 1670565299212.png)

Aristotle says for a pre-eminent Monarchy:
>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 [(like term limit or party coalitions)]
>is in the relation of the whole to a part
>he should have the supreme power
>that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always

This reminds me of a Sovereign Monarch.

Thomas Hobbes, I think, refers to it as a state of awe
<Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24" (There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24)

<and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their Agreement constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.

<Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all.


I do not understand what itch this scratches for you tbqh but it weirds me out


within 10 or so days
there will be 6 new Grace pics


File: 1674648134538.png (371.51 KB, 638x613, ClipboardImage.png)

grace after seeing her family executed


File: 1674649527641-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

Grace looks like Scout from TF2 wearing a wig
or action figures


built for netorare


What does that mean?


he wanna be cucked.


So, he wants to date Grace only to watch her get fucked by someone else?


File: 1674694500973.png (213.58 KB, 800x686, former head of state.png)

Cute pair.


I would watch alunya and grace holding hands, just that, nothing more.


File: 1674701377753-0.png (385.49 KB, 700x372, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1674701377753-1.png (414.53 KB, 700x372, ClipboardImage.png)

grace just has habsburg jaw from being inbred


I would watch alunya killing grace, just that, nothing less.

the virgin nazi vs the CHAD CHARLES II


Where did these edgy 12 years old haters come from?


'ate 'apitalism
'ate 'eirarchy
'ate 'onarchy
simple as


Have you read up on your Roman history yet grace?




File: 1674748661545-0.jpg (578.88 KB, 4080x3060, 20230126_233711 - Copy.jpg)


It's like reverse summerfren syndrome. School started so the smart people are busy, so the dumb ones are dopamine starved and start shitting up the board.


File: 1674749189561.gif (280.67 KB, 250x250, 1Me7GEG.gif)

>mods ban soyjacks and pepes
>doesn't ban whatever this is


> if they ban bad thing why don't they also ban good thing?
It will always remain a mystery.


I think the 12 yos are a tally twice/thrice the age.

Only manchildren would continously obsess over this dead site.


File: 1674764181623-0.png (256.83 KB, 1302x1550, grace smile flip.png)

leftypol hates when /pol/ or soyjak.party raid them
but falls in love when i raid leftypol.org
that for 7 consecutive threads in a row
they have given invitations, rolled the red carpet,
kissed the royal hand and bowed
b/c I am a generous & /kind/ raider.


File: 1674932422843-0.png (86.22 KB, 500x500, pic4 color.png)

<On the danger of border disputes:
>And this is the point for which we oftentimes see wars betwixt neighbour princes, for the subjects of their frontiers, who not well knowing whom to obey, submit themselves sometimes to the one and sometimes to the other: and oftentimes exempting themselves from the obeisance of both two, are ordinarily invaded and preyed upon by both the one and the other. As the country of Walachie having exempted it self from the obeisance of the Polonians, has become subject unto the Turks; and afterwards submitting it self unto the kings of Polonia, paid tribute nevertheless unto the Turk, as I have learned by the letters of Stanislaus Rasdrazetoski sent to the constable of France, bearing date the 17 of August 1553.

>Which hath also happened upon the borders of England and Scotland, where some particular men have made themselves great commanders within this twenty or thirty years, against the ancient agreements. For, for to meet with such enterprises, the English and the Scots had of ancient time agreed, That the Batable ground, (that is to say a certain part of the country so called, upon the frontiers of both realms, being five miles long, and two miles broad) should neither be til∣led, built, or dwelt upon; howbeit that it was lawful for both people there to feed their cattle: with charge that if after the sun setting, or before the sun rising, any of their beasts were there found, they should be his that so found them: which was one of the articles agreed upon by the states of Scotland, in the year 1550, and sent to Henry the second the French king, as was by him provided.

Very relatable to the Ukrainian conflict.
Borders have a lot to do w/ the nature of Sovereignty itself.


File: 1674933275790-0.png (80.84 KB, 500x500, 4pic.png)

Self-preservation is the core virtue of modern states.
Like Hobbes tells us,
>Salus Populi (the Peoples Safety) its Businesse
And why corporal punishment was done away with.
In Russia's case
That this is a conflict of self-preservation–
Should be taken seriously.


Is that a new image? It's cute.


Well, >>365130, the pictures showcased >>364257 here will come out soon.




File: 1675102135696-0.png (140.16 KB, 500x500, grace pik 9.png)

File: 1675102135696-1.png (147.3 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 11.png)


File: 1675102278659-0.png (138.48 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 7.png)

File: 1675102278659-1.png (150.62 KB, 500x500, grace pik 10.png)

File: 1675102278659-2.png (132.96 KB, 500x500, grace pik 8.png)

New Grace pics


Amazing! I love her very much!


I want to be the one who saves Grace from the WELL DESERVED revolutionary terror! 💖


File: 1675106681589-0.png (140.16 KB, 500x500, grace pik 9.png)

File: 1675106681589-2.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

Anon deserves to be hung, drawn, and quartered.
On the pretext of high treason!
Grace wants to be the one who saves anon.
So Grace pardons anon! <3
You're welcome. ^_~


>So Grace pardons anon! <3
omg ilu bigly Gracie! 😍


File: 1675121638656-0.png (807.6 KB, 3000x3000, Grace mic wink.png)

>I do not understand what itch this scratches for you
I see myself as keeping the flame alive.
That flame is Absolute Monarchy & the politics of Majesty.


File: 1675179800822-0.png (134.37 KB, 500x500, grace pik 12.png)

File: 1675179800822-1.png (158.78 KB, 500x500, grace pik 14.png)

File: 1675179800822-2.png (160.28 KB, 500x500, grace pik 13.png)


What kind of emotions the last two convey?



File: 1675261943622-1.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)



second picture should be called sheseesyourdick.jpg


File: 1675887777569-0.png (807.6 KB, 3000x3000, Grace mic wink.png)

File: 1675887777569-1.jpg (329.8 KB, 1360x768, KJU new 03.jpg)

File: 1675887777569-2.jpg (322.54 KB, 1360x768, KJU new 02.jpg)

North Korea is based & monarchypilled.
& a proud & decent socialist country.


Ban this reactionary autist already, sick of seeing them.


File: 1675888266068.gif (344.56 KB, 264x519, 1416964934070.gif)

No. Graceposter is an inalienable part of /siberia/.


File: 1675888454468-1.mp4 (2.03 MB, 640x360, Caligula theme.mp4)

<Ban this reactionary autist already, sick of seeing them.
My tyranny over /siberia/ will never end.


holding hands with grace and alunya


Grace and Alunya are important for each other's enrichment and habitat.


how does grace feel about this video


File: 1675890137179-0.png (141.59 KB, 851x900, 1666814326383.png)

File: 1675890137179-1.jpg (97.82 KB, 600x595, 1662649058999116.jpg)

Neofeudalists are the biggest thorn in my side
& they reject majesty / monarchical sovereignty.
I speak a different language when it comes to Monarchy.
I wish it were really that simple w/ monarchist politics.


File: 1675893342107-0.png (138.48 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 7.png)

What /his/ anons or leftists don't understand–
Is my view of monarchy on their terms is "ahistorical".
At least in this context, not confined to these stages of history.
That is, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc.
It's not Monarchy = Feudalism for me.
That doesn't mean I don't also appreciate history–
But when you talk to rightwingers, it's completely different.
How they view Monarchy in relation to these categories.
They view feudalism like ancapism basically.
I'm strongly opposed to the political positions of neofeuds.
Neither do I see everything in the Middle Ages as ideal.
My view of monarchy is the pre-eminence of one person.
For all ages & my politics of Monarchy–
Is that of the Herodotus Debate & 16th century monarchical sovereignty.


File: 1675896537275-0.png (147.3 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 11.png)

File: 1675896537275-1.jpg (428.51 KB, 1109x951, Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

Yours truly has severe fatigue arguing w/ other e-monarkiddies about this & everything else.
Almost enough to retire from being a 24/7 monarchy shill.
So I'll avoid having that conversation & funpost later.


File: 1675896908034.jpg (25.45 KB, 350x490, misakismile.jpg)

before u go give me some books on monarchism, im bored and wanna learn


File: 1675900827515.jpg (210.49 KB, 1024x768, 1641373332514.jpg)

Lol I wrote about Robert Filmer during sixth form and signed up to this academic website so I could see essays about him. Now I get e-mailed whenever a new Filmer essay drops.


i love this


<Jean Bodin: The Analogy of Three Cities with Different Forms of Commonwealth (or State) Mixing together: The Three Forms of State are of Contrary Natures:
>"So as if the mixture of things of diverse and contrary natures, arises a third all together differing form the things so together mixed. But that State which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales differs in deed nothing from a mean popular State (democracy); For if three cites, whereof one of them is governed by a King, and so a Monarchy (One); the second by an Optimacy, and so an Oligarchy (Few); the third by the People, and so a Democracy (Many); should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale (State), and so the chief power and Sovereignty communicated unto all; who is there that can doubt but that that State shall be altogether a State popular (Democracy)? except the Sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the King, then to the Nobility, and afterwards to the People; As in the vacancy of the Roman Kingdom, the King being dead, the Senators ruled by turns: yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonwealth, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all."

<Jean Bodin: Mixed Constitutonalism. An Opinion Not Only Absurd… but Treasonable

>"There are those who say, and have published in writing, that the constituton of France is a mixture of the three pure types, the Parlement representing Oligarchy (few), the Estates-General representing Democracy (many), and the King representing Monarchy (one). But this is an opinion not only absurd but treasonable. It is treasonable to exalt the subjects to be the equals and colleagues of their Sovereign Monarch."

The Supremacy of the Monarch:
Only accountable to the laws of Nature and God.

Jean Bodin
>For both the one and the other hold nothing of themselves, but are to give account of their doings unto the prince, or the people of whom they had the power so to command: whereas the prince or people themselves, in whom the Sovereignty rests, are to give account unto none, but to the immortal God alone.

>In this case it is NOT lawful for any one of the subjects in particular, or all of them in general, to attempt any thing either by way of fact, or of justice against the honour, life, or dignity of the Sovereign: albeit that he had committed all the wickedness, impiety, and cruelty that could be spoken; for as to proceed against him by way of justice, the subject has no such jurisdiction over his Sovereign prince : of whom depends all power and authority to command: and who may not only revoke all the power of his Magistrates; but even in whose presence the power of all Magistrates, Corporations, Colleges, Estates, and Communities cease, as we have said

>Now if it be not lawful for the subject by way of justice to proceed against his prince; the vassal against his lord; nor the slave against his master; and in brief, if it not be lawful, by way and course of justice to proceed against a king, how should it then be lawful to proceed against him by way of fact, or force. For question is not here, what men are able to do by strength and force, but what they ought of right to do: as not whether the subjects have power and strength, but whether they have lawful power to condemn their Sovereign prince. Now the subject is not only guilty of treason of the highest degree, who has slain his Sovereign prince, but even he also which has attempted the same; who has given counsel or consent thereunto; yea if he have concealed the same, or but so much as thought it…

King James VI & I
>As it is a Christian duty in every man, Reddere rationem fideri, and not to be ashamed to give an account his procession before men, and Angels, as oft as occasion shall require: So did I ever hold it a necessity of honour in a just and wise King, though NOT to give an account to his people of his actions, yet clearly to deliver his heart and intention unto them upon every occasion.

Thomas Hobbes
>The OFFICE of the Soveraign, (be it a Monarch, or an Assembly,) consisteth in the end, for which he was trusted with the Soveraign Power, namely the procuration of the Safety Of The People; to which he is obliged by the Law of Nature, and to render an account thereof to God, the Author of that Law, and to none but him

Robert Filmer
>To this it was answered by the Privy Counselors, that Her Majesty had committed them for Causes best known to Her self, and to press Her Highness with this Suit, would but hinder them whose Good is sought: that the House must not call the Queen to account for what she doth of Her Royal Authority: that the Causes for which they are restrained may be High and Dangerous: that Her Majesty liketh no such Questions; neither doth it become the House to search… into such matters. In the 39 Eliz
>the reason why a King cannot be punished, is not because he is excepted from Punishment, or doth not deserve it, but because there is no Superiour to judge him, but God onely, to whom he is reserved.
>Ask Salmasius what a King is, and he will teach us, that a King is he who hath the Supreme Power of the Kingdom, and is accountable to none but God.
>If it be Tyranny for one man to govern arbitrarily, why should it not be far greater Tyranny for a multitude of men to govern without being accountable…?

>The prince need account to no one for what he ordains… "Observe the mouth of the king, and the commandments of the oath of God. Be not hasty to depart from his face, and do not continue in evil work: for he will do all that pleaseth him. And his word is full of power: neither can any man say to him: Why dost thou so?"


File: 1676089476512-1.png (85.18 KB, 560x315, snarling-dog.png)

I only make this known.
B/c I am annoyed at /pol/fags
Because /pol/ spouts Accountability
One bullet for one man
That the Monarch would be in the spotlight–
For them to make accountable
Compared to unaccountable shadow oligarchy elites

I hate it. Another angry Gracepost.
My unpopular opinion: The Monarch wouldn't be accountable to them.
I'll re-assert this maligned doctrine in spite of these people.


File: 1676091492920-0.jpg (129.32 KB, 792x446, Grace stonks.jpg)

Thomas Hobbes: Civil Sovereign is the Head, Source, Root, & Sun
>The Civill Soveraign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, and the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civill Soveraign.


File: 1676330848994-0.png (140.16 KB, 500x500, grace pik 9.png)

File: 1676330848994-1.jpg (36.93 KB, 739x415, 1663375875108267.jpg)

File: 1676330848994-3.mp4 (3.52 MB, 476x360, Augustus.mp4)

The greatest mishap for e-monarchists is this:
Great Man Theorylets tend to be democracy simps:
I know, I know, Thomas Carlyle, by no means, though the Romanticists & the purported Great Men unfortunately cannot fully embrace Monarchy. Esp. when it comes to hereditary monarchy (unfortunately) where they feel compelled to tout the sentiments of Thomas Paine… I partially feel the Great Man Theory is another invention devised to shun Majesty and democratic psych-op. Neither do I like what BAP introduced to this conversation (whose opinions I frankly shun). It disgruntles me for every Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, & lately for them also, Hitler, they are bound to shun the politics of Majesty… & royalists taught to ignore the ancient plea let there be one ruler despite their name monarchist.
Where the Great Man Theory people have this problem, the partisans of Majesty are married to the reign, not rule crowd & Sic Semper Tyrannis traditionalist conservatives (who scream, THUS to ambitious men, but have nothing but praise when it comes to private men who are ambitious) & have a stupid lolbert bug. It is an upside down world: where North Korea has children cartoons repeating Homer's monarchist maxim let there be one ruler & royalists are taught to sing the praises of democracy and to abhor republican dictators & the supreme governance of one person himself as arbitrary and always tyrannical. Forgetting that these titles they lavish came from a dictator named Julius Caesar.


File: 1676331007877.jpg (1.13 MB, 1000x707, louis-thumb.jpg)

>The Monarch wouldn't be accountable to them.
yes they will


File: 1676331339748-0.png (138.48 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 7.png)

It makes me think to myself:
Was I mistaken in royalism and not republicanism?

So long as I am here they won't.


inb4 napoleon x alexander meme


alunya and grace and Kim Jong holding hands


File: 1676359744252.jpg (575.42 KB, 1000x667, gift.jpg)

I know it is not much, but will Grace-chan accept this gift from me? Just for today.


>Just for today
Grace-chan accepts.
unfortunately, I have no Grace valentine pics or cards


File: 1676362994643-0.png (807.6 KB, 3000x3000, Grace mic wink.png)

Grace-chan wishes /siberia/ & /leftypol/ a happy valentines day too
here is a cake for lefty anons & Alunya from Grace
Let them eat cake


Thank you!!


happy valentines grace!


this is the best imgboard in the world. The most talented artists, the most intellectual, muscular proletariat, all here


valentines day is for netorare chads only


File: 1676505525150-0.png (357.79 KB, 1189x1104, Grace 03 crop.png)

File: 1676505525150-1.mp4 (4.89 MB, 1280x720, The Duck Song.mp4)

There will be more art soon.


File: 1676539397276-0.png (77.87 KB, 1302x1550, Grace icup smile.png)

File: 1676539397276-1.jpg (304.52 KB, 1536x894, Dante quote.jpg)

<Dante: Notable Praise of Monarchy from De Monarchia
>Justice is the strongest with the Monarch. For the best structure of the world, it is necessary for Monarchy or Empire to exist.

>Therefore it is better that the human race should be ruled by one than by more, and that the one should be the Monarch, who is a unique Prince. And if it is better, it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And inasmuch as between two things, that which is better will likewise best, between this rule by "one" and this rule by "more", rule by "one" is acceptable to God not only in comparative but in the superlative degree. Wherefore the human race is ordered for the best when ruled by One sovereign.

>In regard to the will, it must first be noted that the worst enemy of Justice is cupidity… When cupidity is removed altogether, nothing remains inimical to Justice… Cupidity is impossible when there is nothing to be desired, for passions cease to exist with the destruction of their objects. Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean, there is nothing for a Monarch to desire… So we conclude that among the mortals the purest subject for the indwelling of Justice is the Monarch.

>Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude towards Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in him can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective… That right love should indwell in the Monarch more than in all men besides itself thus: Everything loved is the more loved the nearer it is to him who loves; men are nearer to the Monarch than other princes; therefore they ought to be most loved by him.

>The Monarch is capable of the highest degree of judgment and Justice, and is therefore perfectly qualified, or especially well qualified to rule. Those two qualities are most befitting a maker and executor of the law.

>Therefore it is established that every good thing is good because it subsists in unity. As concord is a good thing itself, it must subsist in some unity as its proper root, and this proper root must appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord. Now concord is the uniform movement of many wills; and unity of will, which we mean by uniform movement, is the root of concord, or rather concord itself. For just as we should call many clods concordant because all descend toward the centre, and many flames concordant because they ascend together to the circumference, as if they did this voluntarily, so we call many men concordant because they move together by their volition to one end formally present in their wills… All concord depends upon unity in wills; mankind is at its best in concord of a certain king. For just as one man at his best in body and spirit is a concord of a certain kind, and as a household, a city, and a kingdom is likewise a concord, so it is with mankind in its totality. Therefore the human race for its best disposition is dependent on unity in wills. But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity.

>With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gods. If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book, concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for ts own sake and not for the sake of another is free. For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake.

>If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others: in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern according to the Philosopher when he says, "Every household is ruled by its eldest."

>Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father. As "Man and the sun generate man," according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits. Now, human reason apprehends most clearly through philosophy that the entire heaven in all its parts, its movements, and its motors, s controlled by a single motion, the primum moble, and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when n all its movements and motors is controlled by One prince as by one mover, by one law as by one motion. On this account it is manifestly essential for the well-being of the world that there should exist a Monarchy of unified Principality, which men call the Empire. This truth Boethius sighed for in the words, "O race of men how blessed, dd the love which rules the heavens rule like your minds!"

>Monarchy is therefore indispensible to the world, and this truth the Philosopher saw when he said, "Things have no desire to be wrongly ordered; inasmuch as a multitude of Princedoms is wrong, – let there be One Prince."


<Robert Filmer: That the First Kings were Fathers of Families
>It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shows the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Hers to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Supreme Jurisdiction; and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers: And therefore we find, that God told Cain of his Brother Abel, His Desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him. Accordingly, when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus, Be Lord over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee. [Gen. 27. 29.]

>It is confessed, that in the Infancy of the World, the Paternal Government was Monarchical… That the paternal Power cannot be lost… The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God, for the preservation of Mankind… All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly power, there being no other original to be found on any Power whatsoever… Even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood; he is both the King and Father of us all; as God hath exalted the Dignity of Earthly Kings, by communicating to them his own Title, by saying they are gods; so on the other side, he hath been pleased as it were to humble himself, by assuming the Title of a King, to express his Power, and not the Title of any popular Government.

>Father and King are not so diverse; it is confessed, that at first they were all one, for there is confessed Paternum imperium & haereditarium, and this Fatherly Empire, as t was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by Patent, and seizable by an Usurper, as other goods are: and thus every King now is, hath a Paternal Empire, either by inheritance, or by Translation, or Usurpation; so a Father and a King may be all one.

>As long as the first Fathers of Families lived, the name of the Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them: but after a few Descents, when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct, and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir, then the Title of Prince or King was more significant, to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy; by this means it comes to pass, that many a Child, by succeeding a King, hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude, and hath the Title of Pater Patriae.

>It may be demanded what becomes the Right of Fatherhood, in Case the Crown does esheat for want of an Heir? Whether doth it not then Dissolve to the People? The Answer is, It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir: For an Heir there always is. If Adam himself were still living, and now ready to die, it is certain that there is One Man, and but One in the World who is next Heir, although the Knowledge who should be that One Man is quite lost.

>In all Kingdoms or Commonwealths in the World, whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People, or but the true Heir of such a Father, or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation, or by Election of the Nobles, or of the People, or by any other way whatsoever; or whether some Few or a Multitude Govern the Commonwealth: Yet still the Authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all these, is the only Right and natural Authority of a Supreme Father. There is, and always shall be continued to the end of the World, a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude, although by the secret Will of God, many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it.

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

>According to that of Aristotle, A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government.

<Dante on Aeneas as father of the Roman People

>That the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king; and Titius Livus, illustrious writer of Roman deeds, confirms this testimony in the first part of his volume which begins with the capture of Troy. So great was the nobleness of this man, our ancestor most invincible and most pious, nobleness not only of his own considerable virtue, but that of his progenitors and consorts, which was transferred to him by hereditary right, that I cannot unfold it in detail, "I can but trace the main outlines of truth."

>He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and her empire.

<Giambattista Vico's New Science on Pater Familias

>Axioms 67-76, and particularly the corollary to 69, show us that fathers in the family state must have exercised monarchical power which was subject to God alone. This power extended over the persons and property of their children, and to a greater extent over those of the family servants, famuli, who had sought refuge on their lands. This made them the first monarchs of the world. (We must interpret the Bible as referring to such men when it calls them patriarchs, which means "ruling fathers".) Throughout the Roman republic, their monarchical rights were guaranteed by the Law of the Twelve Tables, which says, "The family father shall have the right of life and death over his children". And it adds that "Whatever a son acquires, he acquires for his father".


<Jean Bodin on Fatherly Monarchy
>"The best Prince is the best Father."

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

<Thomas Hobbes on Fatherly Monarchy

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

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

<King James VI & I briefly on Fatherly Monarchy

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

<Bossuet on Fatherly Monarchy

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

<Aristotle on Fatherly Monarchy

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

>"The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus –father of Gods and men – because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son."


"The Household / Family well ordered is the true image of the Commonwealth." -Jean Bodin

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

"Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of Despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in Despotism." -Friedrich Nietzche

"A family being nothing else but a small Kingdom, wherein the paterfamilias had Regal power… and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family." -Gryffith Williams

"For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations." -Aristotle

"The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head." -Aristotle

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

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


File: 1676544879237-0.png (270.79 KB, 676x869, Grace VR 14.png)

"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

<Bossuet on the Royal Bond / Hereditary State

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

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

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


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

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


File: 1676549195426-0.png (212.19 KB, 600x912, 1638614534178.png)

File: 1676549195426-1.jpg (208.49 KB, 2048x1182, Caligula quote.jpg)

Grace-chan will snuggle & whisper to her Alunya fumo:
Let there be One ruler, One Grace like I tell anons here
Does this every night before sleeping.
& Grace STOMPS & KICKS the fumo at times
Venting b/c democracyfags, constitutionalists, & libertarians anger Grace
& b/c Alunya is an anarchist & far leftist catgirl


im scared


File: 1676709898944-0.png (637.32 KB, 495x700, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1676709898944-1.png (2.47 MB, 1600x1600, ClipboardImage.png)

how does grace feel about the emperor of the central African republic Bokassa?


> Grace_soft


>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies,
>Who have no King, by their confusion dies.
This is the people w/o a royal bond
Renounce the partisanships & be a familial State.
All the State revealed, One Person.
No confusion, no political parties, no anarchy.
Monarchy will be our Manifestation.

<Hesiod: The Wisdom of Kingship

>All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. he addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeases the parties with soft words.

<Bossuet: Peace, Bliss, Happiness under Monarchy

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

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

<Caesar, Earth's greatest good!

<Caesar, Heav'n's chiefest care!


File: 1676779696935-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

File: 1676779696935-1.mp4 (4.63 MB, 640x360, We Need a Despot.mp4)



File: 1676981978971-0.png (168.41 KB, 365x684, Grace_icup_3D pic.png)

File: 1676981978971-2.png (187.78 KB, 500x512, grace_3D_crop.png)

File: 1676981978971-3.png (114.21 KB, 453x480, Grace VR salute crop.png)


File: 1676982602495-0.png (176.07 KB, 1092x1145, Grace sad crop 02.png)

File: 1676982602495-1.png (140.48 KB, 1092x1145, Grace sad crop 01.png)


Why is she sad?



Did you run someone over???


File: 1677175554122.gif (803.78 KB, 500x281, happy saku.gif)

Cheer up!!


holding hands with grace to cheer her up


Anon wants to hold Grace-chan's hands.
I'm not sure what would cheer Grace up.


What will cheer up Grace?
if lefty anons made more Grace video montages.
Like >>356292
but no bullying!

>No matter what I do

>All I think about is you

<Even when I'm with my boo

<You know I'm crazy over you


How do I make videos like that on GNU/Linux?


You could use a browser-based editor.
Like Kapwing video editor or anything else.


File: 1677433563426-0.png (151.67 KB, 600x557, Grace Smile crop.png)

File: 1677433563426-1.jpg (52.67 KB, 358x480, FmB3Cg_XwAIzkK7.jpg)

Grace reaching out to an anon.
It may not be a perfect system, but it's still the best one there is.
w/ a picture of Charles II of Spain, ofc


File: 1677434303855-0.png (1.31 MB, 1820x1723, d8556e5d0f80.png)

Alunya hug Grace


If anons want to help me brainstorm Grace pic ideas, I will listen.


Thomas Hobbes: The Causes of Rebellion:
<The things that dispose to rebellion. Discontent, pretence, and hope of success
>To dispose men to sedition three things concur. The first is Discontent; for as long as a man thinketh himself well, and that the present government standeth not in his way to hinder his proceeding from well to better; it is impossible for him to desire the change thereof. The second is Pretence of right; for though a man be discontent, yet if in his own opinion there be no just cause of stirring against, or resisting the government established, nor any pretence to justify his resistance, and to procure aid, he will never show it. The third is Hope of success; for it were madness to attempt without hope, when to fail is to die the death of a traitor. Without these three: discontent, pretence, and hope, there can be no rebellion; and when the same are all together, there wanteth nothing thereto, but a man of credit to set up the standard, and to blow the trumpet.

Two Sorts of Discontent
>And as for discontent, it is of two sorts: for it consisteth either in bodily pain present or expected, or else in trouble of the mind (which is the general division of pleasure and pain, Part I. chap. VII, sect. 9). The presence of bodily pain disposeth not to sedition; the fear of it doth. As for example: when a great multitude, or heap of people, have concurred to a crime worthy of death, they join together, and take arms to defend themselves for fear thereof. So also the fear of want, or in present want the fear of arrests and imprisonment, dispose to sedition. And therefore great exactions, though the right thereof be acknowledged, have caused great seditions. As in the time of Henry VII. the seditions of the Cornish men that refused to pay a subsidy, and, under the conduct of the Lord Audley, gave the King battle upon Blackheath; and that of the northern people, who in the same king’s time, for demanding a subsidy granted in parliament, murdered the Earl of Northumberland in his house.

>Thirdly, the other sort of discontent which troubleth the mind of them who otherwise live at ease, without fear of want, or danger of violence, ariseth only from a sense of their want of that power, and that honour and testimony thereof, which they think is due unto them. For all joy and grief of mind consisting (as hath been said, Part I. chap. IX, sect. 21) in a contention for precedence to them with whom they compare themselves; such men must needs take it ill, and be grieved with the state, as find themselves postponed to those in honour, whom they think they excel in virtue and ability to govern. And this is it for which they think themselves regarded but as slaves.

>Now seeing freedom cannot stand together with subjection, liberty in a commonwealth is nothing but government and rule, which because it cannot be divided, men must expect in common; and that can be no where but in the popular state, or democracy. And Aristotle saith well (lib. 6, cap. 2 of his Politics), The ground or intention of a democracy, is liberty; which he confirmeth in these words: For men ordinarily say this: that no man can partake of liberty, but only in a popular commonwealth. Whosoever therefore in a monarchical estate, where the sovereign power is absolutely in one man, claimeth liberty, claimeth (if the hardest construction should be made thereof) either to have the sovereignty in his turn, or to be colleague with him that hath it, or to have the monarchy changed into a democracy

Noteworthy: discontent of liberty, covertly a plea for more honours
>But if the same be construed (with pardon of that unskilful expression) according to the intention of him that claimeth, then doth he thereby claim no more but this, that the sovereign should take notice of his ability and deserving, and put him into employment and place of subordinate government, rather than others that deserve less. And as one claimeth, so doth another, every man esteeming his own desert greatest. Amongst all those that pretend to, or are ambitious of such honour, a few only can be served, unless it be in a democracy; the rest therefore must be discontent. And so much of the first thing that disposeth to rebellion, namely, discontent, consisting in fear and ambition.

<[Semi-relevant, from a previous chapter]

<[The subjection of them who institute a commonwealth amongst themselves, is no less absolute, than the subjection of servants. And therein they are in equal estate; but the hope of those is greater than the hope of these. For he that subjecteth himself uncompelled, thinketh there is reason he should be better used, than he that doth it upon compulsion; and coming in freely, calleth himself, though in subjection, a FREEMAN; whereby it appeareth, that liberty is not any exemption from subjection and obedience to the sovereign power, but a state of better hope than theirs, that have been subjected by force and conquest. And this was the reason, that the name that signifieth children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifieth freemen. And yet in Rome, nothing at that time was so obnoxious to the power of others, as children in the family of their fathers. For both the state had power over their life without consent of their fathers; and the father might kill his son by his own authority, without any warrant from the state.]

<[Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest. A freeman therefore may expect employments of honour, rather than a servant. And this is all that can be understood by the liberty of the subject. For in all other senses, liberty is the state of him that is not subject.]

On Pretence of Right
>The second thing that disposeth to rebellion, is Pretence of right. And that is when men have an opinion, or pretend to have an opinion: that in certain cases they may lawfully resist him or them that have the sovereign power, or deprive him or them of the means to execute the same. Of which pretences there be six special cases. One is, when the command is against their conscience, and they believe it is unlawful for a subject at the command of the sovereign power to do any action, which he thinketh in his own conscience not lawful for him to do, or to omit any action, which he thinketh not lawful for him to omit. Another is, when the command is against the laws, and they think the sovereign power in such sort obliged to his own laws, as the subject is; and that when he performeth not his duty, they may resist his power. A third is, when they receive commands from some man or men, and a supersedeas to the same from others, and think the authority is equal, as if the sovereign power were divided. A fourth is, when they are commanded to contribute their persons or money to the public service, and think they have a propriety in the same distinct from the dominion of the sovereign power; and that therefore they are not bound to contribute their goods and persons, no more than every man shall of himself think fit. A fifth, when the commands seem hurtful to the people; and they think, every one of them, that the opinion and sense of the people is the same with the opinion of himself, and those that consent with him; calling by the name of people, any multitude of his own faction. The sixth is, when the commands are grievous; and they account him that commandeth grievous things, a tyrant; and tyrannicide, that is, the killing of a tyrant, not only lawful, but also laudable.

>The fifth opinion: that the people is a distinct body from him or them that have the sovereignty over them, is an error already confuted, Part II. chap. XXI, sect. 11, where it is showed, that when men say: the people rebelleth, it is to be understood of those particular persons only, and not of the whole nation. And when the people claimeth any thing otherwise than by the voice of the sovereign power, it is not the claim of the people, but only of those particular men, that claim in their own persons; and this error ariseth from the equivocation of the word people.

>Besides discontent, to the disposing of a man to rebellion, and pretence, there is required, in the third place, hope of success, which consisteth in four points:

Four Dispositions for the Hope of Successful Rebellion:
<1. That the discontented have mutual intelligence;
<2. That they have sufficient number;
<3. That they have arms;
<4. That they agree upon a head.

<The Anatomy of Hopeful Rebellion

>For these four must concur to the making of one body of rebellion, in which intelligence is the life, number the limbs, arms the strength, and a head the unity, by which they are directed to one and the same action.

<Authors of Rebellion

>The authors of rebellion, that is, the men that breed these dispositions to rebel in others, of necessity must have in them these three qualities:

<1. To be discontented themselves;

<2. To be men of mean judgment and capacity;
<3. To be eloquent men or good orators.

>And as for their discontent, from whence it may proceed, hath been already declared. And for the second and third, I am to show now, first, how they may stand together; for it seemeth a contradiction, to place small judgment and great eloquence, or, as they call it, powerful speaking, in the same man: and then in what manner they both concur to dispose other men to sedition.

>It was noted by Sallust, that in Catiline (who was author of the greatest sedition that ever was in Rome) there was Eloquentiæ satis, sapientiæ parum; eloquence sufficient, but little wisdom. And perhaps this was said of Catiline, as he was Catiline: but it was true of him as an author of sedition. For the conjunction of these two qualities made him not Catiline, but seditious

>And that it may be understood, how want of wisdom, and store of eloquence, may stand together, we are to consider, what it is we call wisdom, and what eloquence. And therefore I shall here again remember some things that have been said already, Part I. chap. V, VI. It is manifest that wisdom consisteth in knowledge. Now of knowledge there are two kinds; whereof the one is the remembrance of such things, as we have conceived by our senses, and of the order in which they follow one another. And this knowledge is called experience; and the wisdom that proceedeth from it, is that ability to conjecture by the present, of what is past, and to come, which men call prudence.

>This being so, it is manifest presently, that the author of sedition, whosoever he be, must not be prudent. For if he consider and take his experiences aright, concerning the success which they have had, who have been the movers and authors of sedition, either in this or any other state, he shall find that of one man that hath thereby advanced himself to honour, twenty have come to a reproachful end

>The other kind of knowledge is the remembrance of the names or appellations of things, and how every thing is called, which is, in matters of common conversation, a remembrance of pacts and covenants of men made amongst themselves, concerning how to be understood of one another. And this kind of knowledge is generally called science, and the conclusions thereof truth. But when men remember not how things are named, by general agreement, but either mistake and misname things, or name them aright by chance, they are not said to have science, but opinion; and the conclusions thence proceeding are uncertain, and for the most part erroneous

>Now that science in particular from which proceed the true and evident conclusions of what is right and wrong, and what is good and hurtful to the being and well-being of mankind, the Latins call sapientia, and we by the general name of wisdom. For generally, not he that hath skill in geometry, or any other science speculative, but only he that understandeth what conduceth to the good and government of the people, is called a wise man. Now that no author of sedition can be wise in this acceptation of the word, is sufficiently proved, in that it hath been already demonstrated, that no pretence of sedition can be right or just; and therefore the authors of sedition must be ignorant of the right of state, that is to say, unwise.

>It is required therefore in an author of sedition, that he think right, that which is wrong; and profitable, that which is pernicious; and consequently that there be in him sapientiæ parum, little wisdom

>Eloquence is nothing else but the power of winning belief of what we say; and to that end we must have aid from the passions of the hearer. Now to demonstration and teaching of the truth, there are required long deductions, and great attention, which is unpleasant to the hearer; therefore they which seek not truth, but belief, must take another way, and not only derive what they would have to be believed, from somewhat believed already, but also by aggravations and extenuations make good and bad, right and wrong, appear great or less, according as it shall serve their turns. And such is the power of eloquence, as many times a man is made to believe thereby, that he sensibly feeleth smart and damage, when he feeleth none, and to enter into rage and indignation, without any other cause, than what is in the words and passion of the speaker.

>This considered, together with the business that he hath to do, who is the author of rebellion, (viz.) to make men believe that their rebellion is just, their discontents grounded upon great injuries, and their hopes great; there needeth no more to prove, there can be no author of rebellion, that is not an eloquent and powerful speaker, and withal (as hath been said before) a man of little wisdom. For the faculty of speaking powerfully, consisteth in a habit gotten of putting together passionate words, and applying them to the present passions of the hearer.


<Rebellion, a condition of war
>because the nature of this offence, consists in renouncing of subjection; which is a relapse into the condition of war, commonly called Rebellion; and they that so offend, suffer not as Subjects, but as Enemies. For Rebellion, is but war renewed.

<Hurt To Revolted Subjects Is Done By Right Of War, Not By Way Of Punishment

>Lastly, Harme inflicted upon one that is a declared enemy, fals not under the name of Punishment: Because seeing they were either never subject to the Law, and therefore cannot transgresse it; or having been subject to it, and professing to be no longer so, by consequence deny they can transgresse it, all the Harmes that can be done them, must be taken as acts of Hostility. But in declared Hostility, all infliction of evill is lawfull. From whence it followeth, that if a subject shall by fact, or word, wittingly, and deliberatly deny the authority of the Representative of the Common-wealth, (whatsoever penalty hath been formerly ordained for Treason,) he may lawfully be made to suffer whatsoever the Representative will: For in denying subjection, he denyes such Punishment as by the Law hath been ordained; and therefore suffers as an enemy of the Common-wealth; that is, according to the will of the Representative. For the Punishments set down in the Law, are to Subjects, not to Enemies; such as are they, that having been by their own act Subjects, deliberately revolting, deny the Soveraign Power.

<The Punishment Of Innocent Subjects Is Contrary To The Law Of Nature

>All Punishments of Innocent subjects, be they great or little, are against the Law of Nature; For Punishment is only of Transgression of the Law, and therefore there can be no Punishment of the Innocent. It is therefore a violation, First, of that Law of Nature, which forbiddeth all men, in their Revenges, to look at any thing but some future good: For there can arrive no good to the Common-wealth, by Punishing the Innocent. Secondly, of that, which forbiddeth Ingratitude: For seeing all Soveraign Power, is originally given by the consent of every one of the Subjects, to the end they should as long as they are obedient, be protected thereby; the Punishment of the Innocent, is a rendring of Evill for Good. And thirdly, of the Law that commandeth Equity; that is to say, an equall distribution of Justice; which in Punishing the Innocent is not observed.

<But The Harme Done To Innocents In War, Not So

>But the Infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the Common-wealth, and without violation of any former Covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature. For all men that are not Subjects, are either Enemies, or else they have ceased from being so, by some precedent covenants. But against Enemies, whom the Common-wealth judgeth capable to do them hurt, it is lawfull by the originall Right of Nature to make warre; wherein the Sword Judgeth not, nor doth the Victor make distinction of Nocent and Innocent, as to the time past; nor has other respect of mercy, than as it conduceth to the good of his own People. And upon this ground it is, that also in Subjects, who deliberatly deny the Authority of the Common-wealth established, the vengeance is lawfully extended

<Attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion

>And for the other instance of attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion; it is manifest, that though the event follow, yet because it cannot reasonably be expected, but rather the contrary; and because by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt thereof is against reason. Justice therefore, that is to say, Keeping of Covenant is the Rule of Reason, by which we are forbidden to do anything destructive to our own life; and consequently a Law of Nature.

<Hobbes' Warning to Rebels, On Their Sovereignty Attained: Be careful not to boast or plant the seeds of more pretences

<There is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified
>One reason whereof (which I have not there mentioned) is this, That they will all of them justify the War, by which their Power was at first gotten, and whereon (as they think) their Right dependeth, and not on the Possession. As if, for example, the Right of the Kings of England did depend on the goodnesse of the cause of William the Conquerour, and upon their lineall, and directest Descent from him; by which means, there would perhaps be no tie of the Subjects obedience to their Soveraign at this day in all the world: wherein whilest they needlessely think to justify themselves, they justify all the successefull Rebellions that Ambition shall at any time raise against them, and their Successors. Therefore I put down for one of the most effectuall seeds of the Death of any State, that the Conquerours require not onely a Submission of mens actions to them for the future, but also an Approbation of all their actions past; when there is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified.

<Dissolution Of Common-wealths Proceedeth From Imperfect Institution

>Though nothing can be immortall, which mortals make; yet, if men had the use of reason they pretend to, their Common-wealths might be secured, at least, from perishing by internall diseases. For by the nature of their Institution, they are designed to live, as long as Man-kind, or as the Lawes of Nature, or as Justice it selfe, which gives them life. Therefore when they come to be dissolved, not by externall violence, but intestine disorder, the fault is not in men, as they are the Matter; but as they are the Makers, and orderers of them.
>For men, as they become at last weary of irregular justling, and hewing one another, and desire with all their hearts, to conforme themselves into one firme and lasting edifice; so for want, both of the art of making fit Laws, to square their actions by, and also of humility, and patience, to suffer the rude and combersome points of their present greatnesse to be taken off, they cannot without the help of a very able Architect, be compiled, into any other than a crazy building, such as hardly lasting out their own time, must assuredly fall upon the heads of their posterity.
>Amongst the Infirmities therefore of a Common-wealth, I will reckon in the first place, those that arise from an Imperfect Institution, and resemble the diseases of a naturall body, which proceed from a Defectuous Procreation.

<Liberty Of Disputing Against Soveraign Power

>To which may be added, the Liberty of Disputing against absolute Power, by pretenders to Politicall Prudence; which though bred for the most part in the Lees of the people; yet animated by False Doctrines, are perpetually medling with the Fundamentall Lawes, to the molestation of the Common-wealth; like the little Wormes, which Physicians call Ascarides.

<Excessive Greatnesse Of A Town, Multitude Of Corporations

>Another infirmity of a Common-wealth, is the immoderate greatnesse of a Town, when it is able to furnish out of its own Circuit, the number, and expence of a great Army: As also the great number of Corporations; which are as it were many lesser Common-wealths in the bowels of a greater, like wormes in the entrayles of a naturall man.

<From Behemoth

>It seems not only by this, but also by many examples in history, that there can hardly arise a long or dangerous rebellion, that has not some such overgrown city with an army or two in its belly to foment it.


>Nay more; those great capital cities, when rebellion is upon pretence of grievances, must needs be of the rebel party: because the grievances are but taxes, to which citizens, that is, merchants, whose profession is their private gain, are naturally mortal enemies; their only glory being to grow excessively rich by the wisdom of buying and selling.


>But they are said to be of all callings the most benefical to the commonwealth, by setting the poorer sort of people on work.


>That is to say, by making poor people sell their labour to them at their own prices; so that poor people, for the most part, might get a better living by working in Bridewell, than by spinning, weaving, and other such labour as they can do; saving that by working slightly they may help themselves a little, to the disgrace of our manufacture. And as most commonly they are the first encouragers of rebellion, presuming of their strength; so also are they, for the most part, the first to repent, deceived by them that command their strength.

<Two Great Virtues

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


>This that you say looks, methinks, like an advice to the King, to let them alone till he have gotten ready money enough to levy and maintain a sufficient army, and then to fall upon them and destroy them.


>God forbid that so horrible, unchristian, and inhuman a design should ever enter into the King’s heart. I would have him have money enough readily to raise an army able to suppress any rebellion, and to take from his enemies all hope of success, that they may not dare to trouble him in the reformation of the Universities; but to put none to death without the actual committing such crimes as are already made capital by the laws.

Rebel Intelligentsia / Universities [providing mutual intelligence for hopeful rebellion?]
<The core of rebellion, as you have seen by this, and read of other rebellions, are the Universities; which nevertheless are not to be cast away, but to be better disciplined: that is to say, that the politics there taught be made to be, as true politics should be, such as are fit to make men know


File: 1677500029461-0.mp4 (64.97 MB, 426x240, How to Stop a Riot.mp4)

File: 1677500029461-1.jpg (175.44 KB, 1280x786, ClCZAJpUYAA40ar.jpg)

File: 1677500029461-2.png (7.64 MB, 5984x4121, 1658148613867-0.png)

I can think of a few examples related to this.
Vid related, 58 seconds in: It reminds me of the anatomy of rebellion.
Front & rear echelon, team leader, gas officers, arrest officers.

<For these four must concur to the making of one body of rebellion, in which intelligence is the life, number the limbs, arms the strength, and a head the unity, by which they are directed to one and the same action.

Glowie spies / Crowd control tactics, the intelligence.
The front & back echelons, the limbs.
Gas officers, the strength / weapons.
The team leader, the head.

While the author or leader of rebellion is said to be a good orator, but not too prudent or wise: what I think matters more in this interpretation is more that the leaders command. Like the video suggests, it's they aim for the violent participants.

<A Court of Counsellors is rather to be compared with the head, or one Counsellor, whose only Counsell (if of any one alone) the chief Ruler makes use of in matters of greatest moment: for the office of the head is to counsell, as the soules is to command

<It is therefore necessary to the defence of the City, First, that there be some who may as near as may be, search into, and discover the counsels and motions of all those who may prejudice it. For discoverers to Ministers of State, are like the beames of the Sunne to the humane soule, and we may more truly say in vision politicall, than naturall, that the sensible, and intelligible Species of outward things, not well considered by others, are by the ayre transported to the soule, (that is to say to them who have the Supreme Authority) and therefore are they no lesse necessary to the preservation of the State, than the rayes of the light are to the conservation of man; or if they be compared to Spiders webs, which extended on all sides by the finest threds, doe warn them, keeping in their small holds, of all outward motions; They who bear Rule can no more know what is necessary to be commanded for the defence of their Subjects without Spies, than those Spiders can when they shall goe forth, and whether they shall repair, without the motion of those threads.

For the author of rebellion, the intelligence is partially from their doctrines and cohorts employed to gather information, who work like the senses for him. The leader of a rebellion who blows the trumpet or screams into a microphone helps give the crowd a soul or direction, but it has to be communicated in short terms or repetition for the multitude to follow. In conjecture, the leaders are maybe the first actors and that's why the target them, so they cannot be imitated – this way the crowd returns to particular judgments rather than coalescing in unity and is easier to disperse.

This WrathOfGnon quote aches me.
B/c I think kings would have killed for better non-lethal crowd control.
Like he says,
<You know the pretence of the Long Parliament’s rebellion was salus populi
They anticipate a lethal response, in the sense that he think right, that which is wrong
<It is required therefore in an author of sedition, that he think right, that which is wrong; and profitable, that which is pernicious;
This way there is a cause to usurp the pretense of salus populi & like Hobbes suggests conflate the multitude with the whole people. Esp. if this happens at a symbol of the State like a palace or gives them their own martyrs.

Another thing I noted is that Jean Bodin states that it's healthy for a Monarchy to appoint magistrates and officials long-term, but healthy for democracies and oligarchies more short-term.
<I believe that for the protection of a popular and aristocratic rule this office might be granted for a short time, as seemed best to Aristotle. But I should think that in a kingdom a different opinion might prevail.
Jean Bodin also noted that for Monarchies, a frequent change of officials flexes / frustrates / ripples the power of the Monarchy. So it's bad for monarchies to play leapfrog:
Rebels augment their strength by introducing weaknesses for the State itself. So that the State might destroy itself and have more imperfections: anti-monarchy rebels will readily assassinate magistrates / officials to re-create this effect or weakness in Monarchy and artificially impose a frequency in officials (that Bodin says is good for democracy / oligarchy, but bad for and frustrates Monarchy and prompts the Monarch more and more to flex his power and make decisions that could backfire and bring more sedition in the parties for whom the Monarch chooses again and again).

Another possible way to fade away their hope of rebellion is to appease their discontent or successfully co-opt the rebellion. That might be worse for rebels b/c with their leaders seduced away and discontent brushed aside and pretenses vanishing, they are taken under the wing.
<But if the same be construed (with pardon of that unskilful expression) according to the intention of him that claimeth, then doth he thereby claim no more but this, that the sovereign should take notice of his ability and deserving, and put him into employment and place of subordinate government, rather than others that deserve less.
This could be advice, but it could also lead to more imperfections for the institution and pretenses w/ concessions.
Pic related.
<Never trust a social democrat
It's worse for the rebellion maybe if Grace sits next to Alunya, but Grace might suffer imperfections for it.


More OC soon.


Samuel Johnson has a well known saying:
>How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?
It is somewhat related to what Hobbes says.
<that the name that signifieth children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifieth freemen. And yet in Rome, nothing at that time was so obnoxious to the power of others, as children in the family of their fathers.
<Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest
In the context that children in the family were obnoxious to the power of others, the context I think Hobbes means is the children of the master were obnoxious to the family servants or maids: b/c the father prefers his children.
Though this is another instance where Hobbes differs from Aristotle: b/c Aristotle is famous for telling Alexander to treat his his own like a father as they were his children and to treat foreigners like a master as his servants. Hobbes says both children and servants are in full subjection.
Hobbes somewhat changed his opinion about democracy and freedom in his earlier work and later in Leviathan said that the subjects are no more free in Monarchies than in Democracies.
>From the same books, they that live under a Monarch conceive an opinion, that the Subjects in a Popular Common-wealth enjoy Liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all Slaves. I say, they that live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion; not they that live under a Popular Government; for they find no such matter.
>In sum, I cannot imagine, how anything can be more prejudicial to a Monarchy, than the allowing of such books to be publicly read, without present applying such correctives of discreet Masters, as are fit to take away their Venom.
& also–
>The Liberty, whereof there is so frequent, and honourable mention, in the Histories, and Philosophy of the Ancient Greeks, and Romans, and in the writings, and discourse of those that from them have received all their learning in the Politiques, is not the Liberty of Particular men; but the Liberty of the Common-wealth
>The Athenians, and Romanes, were free; that is, free Common-wealths: not that any particular men had the Liberty to resist their own Representative; but that their Representative had the Liberty to resist, or invade other people. There is written on the Turrets of the city of Luca in great characters at this day, the word LIBERTAS; yet no man can thence inferre, that a particular man has more Liberty, or Immunitie from the service of the Commonwealth there, than in Constantinople. Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchicall, or Popular, the Freedome is still the same.
>But it is an easy thing, for men to be deceived, by the specious name of Liberty
>And because the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under Monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politiques,(lib.6.cap.2) “In democracy, Liberty is to be supposed: for ’tis commonly held, that no man is Free in any other Government.” And as Aristotle; so Cicero, and other Writers have grounded their Civill doctrine, on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate Monarchy
Though Robert Filmer briefly rebuked Hobbes for this; I think Filmer mentioned that popular states do have that kind of freedom (Hobbes did share that opinion earlier in Elements of Law, his earlier work, but not in Leviathan, his later work, I think).

<The Multitude vs the People

>Alunya: *peaceful protesting* Do you hear the people sing–singing a song of angry men!
<Grace: *on balcony w/ microphone* The People? I AM the People!
Hobbes notes.
<In the last place, it's a great hindrance to Civill Government, especially Monarchicall, that men distinguish not enough between a People and a Multitude. The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are Citizens, that is to say, Subjects. In a Democraty, and Aristocraty, the Citizens are the Multitude, but the Court is the People. And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seeme a Paradox) the King is the People.
>The common sort of men, and others who little consider these truthes, do alwayes speak of a great number of men, as of the People, that is to say, the City; they say that the City hath rebelled against the King (which is impossible) and that the People will, and nill, what murmuring and discontented Subjects would have, or would not have, under pretence of the People, stirring up the Citizens against the City, that is to say, the Multitude against the People.


>Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job
>Where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. “There is nothing,” saith he, “on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid.
<Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride

Once the Sword of Commonwealth hits the Rebellion: it is fair game.
The full strength of the Sovereign has to be hurled: to subdue or kill the Rebellion.
queues oblivion combat music
>Grace vs Alunya
<Leviathan vs Behemoth


File: 1677578484627-1.jpg (486.29 KB, 1333x2000, 677527-1491387908.jpg)

Monarchia Triumphans
>Behold your King then thousands more tall
>In Grace, Power, Virtues, higher than you all
>When Kingship, Persons, Virtues thus you see
>All meet in one, happy's that Monarchy
>Not Solomon in Glory may compare


Kill yourself


Wonderful, I love her


holding hands with grace to cheer her up after a nasty bout of food poisoning


Vendi, vidi, vici. Latinum Americanum linga Posadism est. Rega Grace parvus est. Posadism setllarium nova. Ad Stellaris commilitones.

Also Grace is Lesbian for Alyuna. Yuri is good for the soul.


File: 1677587720224-0.png (125.61 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 01.png)

File: 1677587720224-1.png (124.79 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 06.png)

File: 1677587720224-2.png (144.54 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 05.png)


File: 1677587755381-0.png (164.18 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 03.png)

File: 1677587755381-1.png (124.76 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 04.png)

File: 1677587755381-2.png (152.01 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 02.png)


she looks so sad in the last ones.


We failed to protect her smile.


I've let her down, like everybody in my life


File: 1677602949769-1.mp4 (6.6 MB, 720x404, comie track9.mp4)

>Alunya: Holy fucking shit! I want to simp for that anime monarch avatar so goddamn bad. Everytime I go to /siberia/ and see the royal anime girl saying anything at all I get massively /yuri/ just by her presence


File: 1677603036862-1.jpg (479.35 KB, 1187x1600, Fj4BzywXoAEXV0Y.jpg)

It is okay, anon.
I will wipe your tears away.


File: 1677603124963.mp3 (72.87 KB, grace.mp3)


File: 1677658156071-0.png (141.59 KB, 851x900, 1666814326383.png)

>vid related is when anti-grace & pro-grace anons meet
& Graceposter is the duck


Why is graceposter enclosed with the anti-grace anons?


I cannot tell what's happening in the video.


New Grace art inc.
in a month likely + an edit shortly.

Grace Frogger challenge.
Grace-chan Frogger highscore: 14100 <- Sega Genesis / Kega Fusion
Any anon is invited to beat this high score.
Requirements: Sega Genesis Frogger.
to emulate, you can find & download SBWin to convert Genesis roms to .bin
& use Kega Fusion for emulation


the small dig wants to sexo the duc


File: 1678200809537-2.png (144.54 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 05.png)

Alunya in a Grace cosplay.


Whether man is or isn't a political animal is a difficult question for me: I look between political nature and political artifice a lot. Natural examples like natural fathers or queen ants or queen bees. Sometimes political artifice. Most people readily accept the former.

It can be tedious. Aristotle says that men are political animals ranked among bees and ants: while /leftypol/ probably agrees, there's also muh hoooooman nature meme and /pol/fags themselves say that they're not like those Chinese bugmen they say who are like ants – /pol/ will likely also make the case for man being a political animal, them saying that about the Chinese stands in stark contrast to men being ranked among the zoon politikon such as ants and bees. Where man goes, states will follow. I've seen them call Aristotle the first totalitarian b/c of this

>When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the [completed] nature is the end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end of the best.

>Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either above humanity, or below it; he is the tribeless, lawless, hearthless one – to whom Homer denounces–the outcast who is a lover of war; he may be compared to an unprotected piece in a game of draughts.

>Now the reason why man is more of a political animal than bees or any gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere sound is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedent and inexpedient, and likewise the just and unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.

>Thus the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they are no longer the same, but only that they have the same name. 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.


I have read Hobbes' objections to Aristotle.

De Cive

We see all countries though they be at peace with their neighbours, yet guarding their Frontiers with armed men, their Townes with Walls and ports, and keeping constant watches. To what purpose is all this, if there be no feare of the neighbouring power? Wee see even in well−governed States, where there are lawes and punishments appointed for offendors, yet particular men travell not without their Sword by their sides, for their defences, neither sleep they without shutting not only their doores against their fellow Subjects, but also their Trunks and Coffers for feare of domestiques. Can men give a clearer testimony of the distrust they have each of other, and all, of all?

The mutuall fear. It is objected: It is so improbable that men should grow into civill Societies out of fear, that if they had been afraid, they would not have endur'd each others looks: They Presume, I believe, that to fear is nothing else than to be affrighted: I comprehend in this word Fear, a certain foresight of future evill; neither doe I conceive flight the sole property of fear, but to distrust, suspect, take heed, provide so that they may not fear, is also incident to the fearfull. They who go to Sleep, shut their Dores; they who Travell carry their Swords with them, because they fear Theives. Kingdomes guard their Coasts and Frontiers with Forts, and Castles; Cities are compact with Walls, and all for fear of neighbouring Kingdomes and Townes; even the strongest Armies, and most accomplisht for Fight, yet sometimes Parly for Peace, as fearing each others Power, and lest they might be overcome. It is through fear that men secure themselves, by flight indeed, and in corners, if they think they cannot escape otherwise, but for the most part by Armes, and Defensive Weapons; whence it happens, that daring to come forth, they know each others Spirits; but then, if they fight, Civill Society ariseth from the Victory, if they agree, from their Agreement.

It hath been objected by some: If a Sonne kill his Father, doth he him no injury? I have answered, That a Sonne cannot be understood to be at any time in the State of Nature, as being under the Power and command of them to whom he ownes his protection as soon as ever he is born, namely either his Fathers, or his Mothers, or his that nourisht him.

Some object that this principle being admitted, it would needs follow, not onely that all men were wicked (which perhaps though it seeme hard, yet we must yield to, since it is so clearly declar'd by holy writ) but also wicked by nature (which cannot be granted without impiety). But this, that men are evill by nature, followes not from this principle;

For though the wicked were fewer than the righteous, yet because we cannot distinguish them, there is a necessity of suspecting, heeding, anticipating, subjugating, selfe−defending, ever incident to the most honest, and fairest condition'd

Much lesse do's it follow that those who are wicked are so by nature, for though from nature, that is from their first birth, as they are meerly sensible Creatures, they have this disposition, that immediately as much as in them lies, they desire and doe whatsoever is best pleasing to them, that either through feare they fly from, or through hardnesse repell those dangers which approach them, yet are they not for this reason to be accounted wicked; for the affections of the minde which arise onely from the lower parts of the soule are not wicked themselves, but the actions thence proceeding may be so sometimes, as when they are either offensive, or against duty. Unlesse you give Children all they aske for, they are peevish, and cry, I and strike their parents sometimes, and all this they have from nature, yet are they free from guilt, neither may we properly call them wicked; first, because they cannot hurt; next, because wanting the free use of reason they are exempted from all duty; these when they come to riper yeares having acquired power whereby they may doe hurt, if they shall continue to doe the same things, then truly they both begin to be, and are properly accounted wicked; In so much as a wicked man is almost the same thing with a childe growne strong and sturdy, or a man of a childish disposition; and malice the same with a defect of reason in that age, when nature ought to be better governed through good education and experience. Unlesse therefore we will say that men are naturally evill, because they receive not their education and use of reason from nature, we must needs acknowledge that men may derive desire, feare, anger, and other passions from nature, and yet not impute the evill effects of those unto nature.

Born fit. Since we now see actually a constituted Society among men, and none living out of it, since we discern all desirous of congresse, and mutuall correspondence, it may seeme a wonderfull kind of stupidity, to lay in the very threshold of this Doctrine, such a stumbling block before the Readers, as to deny Man to be born fit for Society: Therefore I must more plainly say, That it is true indeed, that to Man, by nature, or as Man, that is, as soone as he is born, Solitude is an enemy; for Infants have need of others to help them to live, and those of riper years to help them to live well, wherefore I deny not that men (even nature compelling) desire to come together.

But civill Societies are not mere Meetings, but Bonds, to the making whereof, Faith and Compacts are necessary: The Vertue whereof to Children, and Fooles, and the profit whereof to those who have not yet tasted the miseries which accompany its defects, is altogether unknown; whence it happens, that those, because they know not what Society is, cannot enter into it; these, because ignorant of the benefit it brings, care not for it. Manifest therefore it is, that all men, because they are born in Infancy, are born unapt for Society. Many also (perhaps most men) either through defect of minde, or want of education remain unfit during the whole course of their lives; yet have Infants, as well as those of riper years, an humane nature; wherefore Man is made fit for Society not by Nature, but by Education:

Furthermore, although Man were born in such a condition as to desire it, it followes not, that he therefore were Born fit to enter into it; for it is one thing to desire, another to be in capacity fit for what we desire; for even they, who through their pride, will not stoop to equal conditions, without which there can be no Society, do yet desire it.

The greatest part of those men who have written ought concerning Commonwealths, either suppose, or require us, or beg of us to believe, That Man is a Creature born fit for Society: The Greeks call him Zoon politikon, and on this foundation they so build up the Doctrine of Civil Society, as if for the preservation of Peace, and the Government of Man−kind there were nothing else necessary, than that Men should agree to make certain Covenants and Conditions together, which themselves should then call Laws. Which Axiom, though received by most, is yet certainly False, and an Errour proceeding from our too slight contemplation of Humane Nature; for they who shall more narrowly look into the Causes for which Men come together, and delight in each others company, shall easily find that this happens not because naturally it could happen no otherwise, but by Accident: For if by nature one Man should Love another (that is) as Man, there could no reason be return'd why every Man should not equally Love every Man, as being equally Man, or why he should rather frequent those whose Society affords him Honour or Profit.

We doe not therefore by nature seek Society for its own sake, but that we may receive some Honour or Profit from it; these we desire Primarily, that Secondarily: How by what advice Men do meet, will be best known by observing those things which they doe when they are met: For if they meet for Traffique, it's plain every man regards not his Fellow, but his Businesse; if to discharge some Office, a certain Market−friendship is begotten, which hath more of Jealousie in it than True love, and whence Factions sometimes may arise, but Good will never; if for Pleasure, and Recreation of mind, every man is wont to please himself most with those things which stirre up laughter, whence he may (according to the nature of that which is Ridiculous) by comparison of another mans Defects and Infirmities, passe the more currant in his owne opinion; and although this be sometimes innocent, and without offence; yet it is manifest they are not so much delighted with the Society, as their own Vain glory.

But if it so happen, that being met, they passe their time in relating some Stories, and one of them begins to tell one which concernes himselfe; instantly every one of the rest most greedily desires to speak of himself too; if one relate some wonder, the rest will tell you miracles, if they have them, if not, they'l fein them: Lastly, that I may say somewhat of them who pretend to be wiser than others; if they meet to talk of Philosophy, look how many men, so many would be esteem'd Masters, or else they not only love not their fellowes, but even persecute them with hatred: So clear is it by experience to all men who a little more narrowly consider Humane affaires, that all free congress ariseth either from mutual poverty, or from vain glory, whence the parties met, endeavour to carry with them either some benefit, or to leave behind them that same eudokimein, some esteem and honour with those, with whom they have been conversant: The same is also collected by reason out of the definitions themselves, of Will, Good, Honour, Profitable. For when we voluntarily contract Society, in all manner of Society we look after the object of the Will, i.e. that, which every one of those, who gather together, propounds to himselfe for good; now whatsoever seemes good, is pleasant, and relates either to the senses, or the mind, but all the mindes pleasure is either Glory, (or to have a good opinion of ones selfe) or referres to Glory in the end; the rest are Sensuall, or conducing to sensuality, which may be all comprehended under the word Conveniencies.

All Society therefore is either for Gain, or for Glory; (i.e.) not so much for love of our Fellowes, as for love of our Selves: but no society can be great, or lasting, which begins from Vain Glory; because that Glory is like Honour, if all men have it, no man hath it, for they consist in comparison and precellence; neither doth the society of others advance any whit the cause of my glorying in my selfe; for every man must account himself, such as he can make himself, without the help of others.

But though the benefits of this life may be much farthered by mutuall help, since yet those may be better attain'd to by Dominion, than by the society of others: I hope no body will doubt but that men would much more greedily be carryed by Nature, if all fear were removed, to obtain Dominion, than to gaine Society. We must therefore resolve, that the Originall of all great, and lasting Societies, consisted not in the mutuall good will men had towards each other, but in the mutuall fear they had of each other.

Aristotle reckons among those animals which he calls Political, not man only, but diverse others; as the Ant, the Bee, which though they be destitute of reason, by which they may contract, and submit to government, notwithstanding by consenting, (that is to say) ensuing, or eschewing the same things, they so direct their actions to a common end, that their meetings are not obnoxious unto any seditions. Yet their gathering together [is not] a civil government, and therefore those animals not to be termed political, because their government is only a consent, or many wills concurring in one object, not (as is necessary in civil government) one will. It is very true that in those creatures, living only by sense and appetite, their consent of minds is so durable [long-lasting; w/o complaint or revolts], as [because] there is no need of any thing more to secure it, and (by consequence) to preserve peace among them, than barely their natural inclination.

But among men the case is otherwise.
1st. For first among them there is a contestation of honour and preferment; among beasts [such as ants or bees] there is none: whence hatred and envy, out of which arise sedition and war, is among men; among beasts no such matter.

2nd. Next, the natural appetite of Bees, and the like creatures, is conformable, and they desire the common good which among them differs not from their private; but man scarce esteems any thing good which hath not somewhat of eminence in the enjoyment, more than that which others doe possess.

3rd. Thirdly, those creatures which are void of reason, see no defect, or think they see none, in the administration of their Commonweales; but in a multitude of men there are many who supposing themselves wiser than others, endeavour to innovate, and diverse Innovators innovate diverse ways, which is a mere distraction, and civil war.

4th. Fourthly, these brute creatures, howsoever they may have the use of their voice to signify their affections to each other, yet want they that same art of words which is necessarily required to those motions in the mind, whereby good is represented to it as being better, and evil as worse than in truth it is; But the tongue of man is a trumpet of war, and sedition; and it is reported of Pericles, that he sometimes by his elegant speeches thundered, and lightened, and confounded whole Greece itself.

5th. Fifthly, they cannot distinguish between injury and harm; Thence it happens that as long as it is well with them, they blame not their fellowes: But those men are of most trouble to the Republique, who have most leisure to be idle; for they use not to contend for publique places before they have gotten the victory over hunger, and cold.

Last of all, the consent of those brutall creatures is naturall, that of men by compact only, (that is to say) artificial; it is therefore no matter of wonder if somewhat more be needful for men to the end they may live in peace. Wherefore consent, or contracted society, without some common power whereby particular men may be ruled through fear of punishment, doth not suffice to make up that security which is requisite to the exercise of natural justice.


Elements of Law
But contrary hereunto may be objected, the experience we have of certain living creatures irrational, that nevertheless continually live in such good order and government, for their common benefit, and are so free from sedition and war amongst themselves, that for peace, profit, and defence, nothing more can be imaginable. And the experience we have in this, is in that little creature the bee, which is therefore reckoned amongst animalia politica. Why therefore may not men, that foresee the benefit of concord, continually maintain the same without compulsion, as well as they?

1st. To which I answer, that amongst other living creatures, there is no question of precedence in their own species, nor strife about honour or acknowledgment of one another’s wisdom, as there is amongst men; from whence arise envy and hatred of one towards another, and from thence sedition and war.

2nd. Secondly, those living creatures aim every one at peace and food common to them all; men aim at dominion, superiority, and private wealth, which are distinct in every man, and breed contention.

3rd. Thirdly, those living creatures that are without reason, have not learning enough to espy, or to think they espy, any defect in the government; and therefore are contented therewith; but in a multitude of men, there are always some that think themselves wiser than the rest, and strive to alter what they think. amiss; and diverse of them strive to alter diverse ways; and that causeth war.

4th. Fourthly, they want speech, and are therefore unable to instigate one another to faction, which men want not.

5th. Fifthly, they have no conception of right and wrong, but only of pleasure and pain, and therefore also no censure of one another, nor of their commander, as long as they are themselves at ease; whereas men that make themselves judges of right and wrong, are then least at quiet, when they are most at ease.

6th. Lastly, natural concord, such as is amongst those creatures, is the work of God by the way of nature; but concord amongst men is artificial, and by way of covenant. And therefore no wonder if such irrational creatures, as govern themselves in multitude, do it much more firmly than mankind, that do it by arbitrary institution.

Why Certain Creatures Without Reason, Or Speech,
Do Neverthelesse Live In Society, Without Any Coercive Power

It is true, that certain living creatures, as Bees, and Ants, live sociably one with another, (which are therefore by Aristotle numbred amongst Politicall creatures;) and yet have no other direction, than their particular judgements and appetites; nor speech, whereby one of them can signifie to another, what he thinks expedient for the common benefit: and therefore some man may perhaps desire to know, why Man-kind cannot do the same. To which I answer,

1st. First, that men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity, which these creatures are not; and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, Envy and Hatred, and finally Warre; but amongst these not so.

2nd. Secondly, that amongst these creatures, the Common good differeth not from the Private; and being by nature enclined to their private, they procure thereby the common benefit. But man, whose Joy consisteth in comparing himselfe with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent.

3rd. Thirdly, that these creatures, having not (as man) the use of reason, do not see, nor think they see any fault, in the administration of their common businesse: whereas amongst men, there are very many, that thinke themselves wiser, and abler to govern the Publique, better than the rest; and these strive to reforme and innovate, one this way, another that way; and thereby bring it into Distraction and Civill warre.

4th. Fourthly, that these creatures, though they have some use of voice, in making knowne to one another their desires, and other affections; yet they want that art of words, by which some men can represent to others, that which is Good, in the likenesse of Evill; and Evill, in the likenesse of Good; and augment, or diminish the apparent greatnesse of Good and Evill; discontenting men, and troubling their Peace at their pleasure.

5th. Fiftly, irrationall creatures cannot distinguish betweene Injury, and Dammage; and therefore as long as they be at ease, they are not offended with their fellowes: whereas Man is then most troublesome, when he is most at ease: for then it is that he loves to shew his Wisdome, and controule the Actions of them that governe the Common-wealth.

6th. Lastly, the agreement of these creatures is Naturall; that of men, is by Covenant only, which is Artificiall: and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their Agreement constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.


File: 1678402572086-0.jpg (238.02 KB, 562x591, robert_filmer.jpg)

Robert Filmer on Hobbes' Leviathan & De Cive


With no small Content I read Mr. Hobbes' Book De Cive, and his Leviathan, about the Rights of Sovereignty, which no man, that I know, hath so amply and judiciously handled: I consent with him about the Rights of exercising Government, but I cannot agree to his means of acquiring it. It may seem strange I should praise his Building, and yet mislike his Foundation; but so it is, his Jus Naturae, and his Regnum Institutivum, will not down with me: they appear full of Contradiction and Impossibilities; a few short Notes about them, I here offer, wishing he would consider, whether his Building would not stand firmer upon the Principles of Regnum Patrimoniale (as he calls it) both according to Scripture and Reason. Since he confesseth, the Father, being before the institution of a Commonwealth, was Originally an Absolute Sovereign, with power of Life and Death, and that a great Family, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, is a little Monarchy. If, according to the order of Nature, he had handled Paternal Government before that by Institution, there would have been little liberty left in the Subjects of the Family to consent to Institution of Government.

In his pleading the cause o f the people, he arms them with a very large commission of array; which is, a right in nature for every man, to war against every man when he please: and also a right for all the people to govern. This latter point, although he affirm in words, yet by consequence he denies, as to me it seemeth.

He saith a representative may be of all, or but of a part of the people. If it be o f all he terms it a democracy, which is the government of the people. But how can such a commonwealth be generated? for if every man covenant with every man, who shall be left to be the representative? if all must be representatives, who will remain to covenant? for he that is sovereign makes no covenant by his doctrine. It is not all that will come together, that makes the democracy, but all that have power by covenant; thus his democracy by institution fails.

The same may be said of a democracy by acquisition; for if all be conquerors, who shall covenant for life and liberty? and if all be not conquerors, how can it be a democracy by conquest?

A paternal democracy I am confident he will not affirm, so that in conclusion the poor people are deprived of their government, if there can be no democracy by his principles.

Next, if a representative aristocratical of a part of the people be free from covenanting, then that whole assembly (call it what you will) though it be never so great, is in the state of nature, and every one of that assembly hath a right not only to kill any of the subjects that they meet with in the streets, but also they all have a natural right to cut one another’s throats, even while they sit together in council by his principles. In this miserable condition of war is his representative aristocratical by institution.

A commonwealth by conquest he teacheth, is, then acquired, when the vanquished to avoid present death covenanteth that so long as his life, and the liberty of his body is allowed him, the victor shall have the use of it, at his pleasure: here I would know how the liberty of the vanquished can be allowed, if the victor have the use of it at pleasure, or how is it possible for the victor to perform his covenant, except he could always stand by every particular man to protect his life and liberty?

In his review and conclusion he resolves, that an ordinary subject hath liberty to submit, when the means of his life is within the guards and garrisons of the enemy. It seems hereby that the rights of sovereignty by institution may be forfeited, for the subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a conqueror, except his former subjection be forfeited for want of protection.

If his conqueror be in the state of nature, when he conquers he hath a right without any covenant made with the conquered: if conquest be defined to be the acquiring of right of sovereignty by victory, why is it said the right is acquired in the peoples’ submission, by which they contract with the victor, promising obedience for life and liberty? hath not every one in the state of nature a right to sovereignty, before conquest, which only puts him in possession of his right?

If his conqueror be not in the state of nature, but a subject by covenant, how can he get a right of sovereignty by conquest when neither he himself hath right to conquer, nor subjects a liberty to submit? since a former contract lawfully made cannot lawfully be broken by them.

I wish the title of the book had not been of a commonwealth, but of a weal public, or commonweal, which is the true word carefully observed by our translator of Bodin de Republica into English: many ignorant men are apt by the name of commonwealth to understand a popular government, wherein wealth and all things shall be common, tending to the levelling community in the state of pure nature.


Observations on Mr. Hobbes' Leviathan: Or his Artificial Man – A Commonwealth
Robert Filmer–
If God created only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman; and if by generation from them two as parts of them all mankind be propagated: if also God gave to Adam not only the dominion over the woman and the children that should issue from them, but also over the whole earth to subdue it, and over all the creatures on it, so that as long as Adam lived no man could claim or enjoy anything but by donation, assignation, or permission from him; I wonder how the right of nature can be imagined by Mr. Hobbes, which he saith, page 64, is a liberty for each man to use his own power as he will him self for preservation of his own life; a condition of war of everyone against everyone; a right of every man to everything, even to one another’s body, especially since himself affirms, page 178, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord with power over him of life and death.

Mr. Hobbes confesseth and believes it was never generally so, that there was such a jus naturae; and i f not generally, then not at all, for one exception bars all i f he mark it w ell; whereas he imagines such a right o f nature may be now practised in America, he confesseth a government there o f families, which government how small or brutish soever (as he calls it) is sufficient to destroy his jus naturale.

I cannot understand how this right of nature can be conceived with out imagining a company of men at the very first to have been all created together without any dependency one of another, or as mushrooms {fungorum more) they all on a sudden were sprung out of the earth without any obligation one to another, as Mr. Hobbes’s words are in his book De Cive, chapter 8, section 3: the scripture teacheth us otherwise, that all men came by succession, and generation from one man: we must not deny the truth of the history of the creation.

It is not to be thought that God would create man in a condition worse than any beasts, as if he made men to no other end by nature but to destroy one another, a right for the Father to destroy or eat his children, and for children to do the like by their parents, is worse than cannibals. This horrid condition of pure nature when Mr. Hobbes was charged with, his refuge was to answer, that no son can be understood to be in this state of nature: which is all one with denying his own principle, for if men be not free-born, it is not possible for him to assign and prove any other time for them to claim a right of nature to liberty, if not at their birth.

But if it be allowed (which is yet most false) that a company of men were at first without a common power to keep them in awe; I do not see why such a condition must be called a state of war of all men against all men: indeed if such a multitude of men should be created as the earth could not well nourish, there might be cause for men to destroy one another rather than perish for want of food; but God was no such uyghard in the creation, and there being plenty of sustenance and room for all men, there is no cause or use of war till men be hindered in the preservation of life, so that there is no absolute necessity of war in the state of pure nature; it is the right of nature for every man to live in peace, that so he may tend the preservation of his life, which whilst he is in actual war he cannot do. War of itself as it is war preserves no man’s life, it only helps us to preserve and obtain the means to live: if every man tend the right of preserving life, which may be done in peace, there is no cause of war.

But admit the state of nature were the state of war; let us see what help Mr. Hobbes hath for it. It is a principle of his, that ‘the law of nature is a rule found out by reason’ (I do think it is given by God, page 64, ‘forbidding a man to do that which is destructive to his life, and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved’ : If the right of nature be a liberty for a man to do anything he thinks fit to preserve his life, then in the first place nature must teach him that life is to be preserved, and so consequently forbids to do that which may destroy or take away the means of life, or to omit that by which it may be preserved: and thus the right of nature and the law of nature will be all one: for I think Mr. Hobbes will not say the right of nature is a liberty for a man to destroy his own life. The law of nature might better have been said to consist in a command to preserve or not to omit the means of preserving life, than in a prohibition to destroy, or to omit it.

Another principle I meet with, page 65. ‘If other men will not lay down their right as well as he, then there is no reason for any to divest himself of his': hence it follows that if all the men in the world do not agree, no commonwealth can be established, it is a thing impossible for all the men in the world every man with every man to covenant to lay down their right. Nay it is not possible to be done in the smallest kingdom, though all men should spend their whole lives in nothing else but in running up and down to covenant.

Right may be laid aside but not transferred, for page 65, ‘he that renounceth or passeth away his right, giveth not to any other man a right which he had not before, and reserves a right in himself against all those with whom he doth not covenant’

Page 87. ‘The only way to erect a common power or a common wealth, is for men to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices to one will; which is to appoint one man or an assembly of men to bear their person, to submit their wills to his will: this is a real unity of them all in one person, made by covenant of every man with every man, as if every man should say to every man, I authorize, and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions. This done, the multitude so united in one person, is called a commonwealth.

To authorize and give up his right of governing himself, to confer all his power and strength, and to submit his will to another, is to lay down his right of resisting: for if right of nature be a liberty to use power for preservation of life, laying down of that power must be a relinquishing of power to preserve or defend life, otherwise a man relinquisheth nothing.

To reduce all the wills of an assembly by plurality of voices to one will, is not a proper speech, for it is not a plurality but a totality of voices which makes an assembly be of one will, otherwise it is but the one will of a major part of the assembly, the negative voice of any one hinders the being of the one will of the assembly, there is nothing more destructive to the true nature of a lawful assembly, than to allow a major part to prevail when the whole only hath right. For a man to give up his right to one that never covenants to protect, is a great folly, since it is neither ‘in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, nor can he hope for any other good, by standing out of the way, that the other may enjoy his own original right without hindrance from him by reason of so much diminution of impediments’, page 66.

The liberty, saith Mr. Hobbes, whereof there is so frequent and honourable mention in the histories and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and in the writings and discourse of those that from them have received all their learning in the politics, is not the liberty of particular men, but the liberty of the commonwealth. Whether a commonwealth be monarchical or popular, the freedom is still the same. Here I find Mr. Hobbes is much mistaken: for the liberty of the Athenians and Romans was a liberty only to be found in popular estates, and not in monarchies. This is clear by Aristotle, who calls a city a community of freemen, meaning every particular citizen to be free. Not that every particular man had a liberty to resist his governor or do what he list, but a liberty only for particular men, to govern and to be governed by turns: this was a liberty not to be found in hereditary monarchies: so Tacitus mentioning the several governments of Rome, joins the consulship and liberty to be brought in by Brutus, because by the annual election of Consuls, particular citizens came in their course to govern and to be governed. This may be confirmed by the complaint of our author, which followeth:
Hobbes Complaint–
>‘It is an easy thing for men to be deceived by the specious name of liberty: and for want of judgment to distinguish, mistake that for their private inheritance or birthright which is the right of the public only: and when the same error is confirmed by the authority of men in reputation for their writings on this subject, it is no wonder if it produce sedition and change o f government. In the western parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the institution and right of commonwealths from Aristotle and Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romans, that living under popular estates, derived those rights not from the principles of nature, but transcribed them into their books out of the practice of their own commonwealths, which were popular. And because the Athenians were taught (to keep them from desire of changing their government) that they were freemen, and all that lived under monarchy slaves: therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politics. In democracy liberty is to be supposed, for it is commonly held that no man is free in any other government. So Cicero and other writers grounded their civil doctrine on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate monarchy, at first, by them that having deposed their sovereign, shared amongst them the sovereignty of Rome. And by reading of these Greek and Latin authors, men from their childhood have gotten a habit (under a false show of liberty) of favouring tumults, and of licentious controlling the actions of their sovereigns.’


Page 102. ‘Dominion paternal not attained by generation but by contract’ , which is ‘the child’s consent, either express or by other sufficient arguments declared’. How a child can express consent, or by other sufficient arguments declare it before it comes to the age of discretion I understand not, yet all men grant it is due before consent can be given: and I take it Mr. Hobbes is of the same mind, page 249, where he teacheth that ‘Abraham’s children were bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for God’s law: which they could not be but in virtue of the obedience they owed to their parents’ ; they owed, not that they covenanted to give. Also where he saith, page 121, the ‘Father and master being before the institution of commonweals absolute sovereigns in their own families’, how can it be said that either children or servants were in the state of jus naturae till the institutions of commonweals? It is said by M r. Hobbes in his book De Cive, chapter 9, section 7, ‘the mother originally hath the government o f her children, and from her the Father derives his right, because she brings forth and first nourisheth them’. But we know that God at the creation gave the sovereignty to the man over the woman, as being the nobler and principal agent in generation. As to the objection, that ‘it is not known who is the Father to the son but by the discovery of the mother, and that he is his son whom the mother will, and therefore he is the mother’s’. The answer is, that it is not at the will o f the mother to make whom she will the Father, for if the mother be not in possession of a husband, the child is not reckoned to have any Father at all; but if she be in the possession of a man, die child notwithstanding whatsoever the woman discovereth to the contrary is still reputed to be his in whose possession she is. No child naturally and infallibly knows who are his true parents, yet he must obey those that in common reputation are so, otherwise the commandment of honour thy Father and thy mother were in vain, and no child bound to the obedience of it.

It seems Mr. Hobbes is of the mind that there is but one kind of government, and that is monarchy, for he defines a commonwealth to be One Person, and an assembly of men, or real unity of them all in one and the same person, the multitude so united he calls a Commonwealth: this his moulding of a multitude into One Person, is the generation of his great Leviathan, the King of the children of pride page 167. Thus he concludes the person of a commonwealth to be a Monarch

I cannot but wonder Master Hobbes should say, page 112, the consent of a subject to sovereign power is contained in these words, I authorize and do take upon me all his actions, in which there is no restriction at all of his own former natural liberty. Surely here Master Hobbes forgot himself, for before he makes the resignation to go in these words also, ‘I give up my right of governing myself to this man’ : this is a restriction certainly of his own former natural liberty when he gives it away: and if a man allow his sovereign to kill him which Mr. Hobbes seems to confess, how can he reserve a right to defend himself? And if a man have a power and right to kill himself, he doth not authorize and give up his right to his sovereign, if he do not obey him when he commands him to kill himself.

Mr. Hobbes saith, page 112, ‘No man is bound by the words of his submission to kill himself, or any other man: and consequently that the obligation a man may sometimes have upon the command of the sovereign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable office, dependeth not on the words of our submission, but on the intention which is to be understood by the end thereof. When therefore our refusal to obey, frustrates the end for which the sovereignty was ordained, then there is no liberty to refuse: otherwise there is’. If no man be bound by the words of his subjection to kill any other man, then a sovereign may be denied the benefit of war, and be rendered unable to defend his people, and so the end of government frustrated. If the obligation upon the commands of a sovereign to execute a dangerous or dishonourable office, dependeth not on the words of our submission, but on the intention, which is to be understood by the end thereof; no man, by Mr. Hobbes’s rules, is bound but by the words of his submission, the intention of the command binds not, if the words do not: if the intention should bind, it is necessary the sovereign must discover it, and the people must dispute and judge it; which how well it may consist with the rights of sovereignty, Mr. Hobbes may consider: whereas Master Hobbes saith the intention is to be understood by the ends, I take it he means the end by effect, for the end and the intention are one and the same thing; and if he mean the effect, the obedience must go before, and not depend on the understanding of the effect, which can never be, if the obedience do not precede it: in fine, he resolves refusal to obey, may depend upon the judging of what frustrates the end of sovereignty, and what not, of which he cannot mean any other judge but the people.

Mr. Hobbes puts a case by way of question, page 112: ‘A great many men together have already resisted the sovereign power unjustly, or committed some capital crime, for which every one of them expecteth death: whether have they not the liberty then to join together and assist and defend one another’ Certainly they have, for they but defend their lives, which the guilty man may as well do as the innocent: there was indeed injustice in the first breach of their duty, their bearing of arms subsequent to it, though it be to maintain what they have done, is no new unjust act, and if it be only to defend their persons it is not unjust at all.’ The only reason here alleged for the bearing of arms is this: that it is no new unjust act, as if the beginning only of a rebellion were an unjust act, and the continuance of it none at all: no better answer can be given to this case than what the author himself hath delivered in the beginning of the same paragraph in these words: To resist the sword of the commonwealth in defence of another man, guilty or innocent, no man hath liberty: because such liberty takes away from the sovereign the means of protecting us, and is therefore destructive of the very essence of government. Thus he first answers the question, and then afterwards makes it, and gives it a contrary answer; other passages I meet with to the like purpose. He saith, page 66, A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life: the same be said of wounds, chains and imprisonment. Page 69. A covenant to defend myself from force by force is void. Page 68. Right of defending life and means of living can never be abandoned.

These last doctrines are destructive to all government whatsoever, and even to the Leviathan itself: hereby any rogue or villain may murder his sovereign, if the sovereign but offer by force to whip or lay him in the stocks, since whipping may be said to be a wounding, and putting in the stocks an imprisonment: so likewise every man’s goods being means of living, if a man cannot abandon them, no contract among men, be it never so just, can be observed: thus we are at least in as miserable a condition of war as Mr. Hobbes at first by nature found us.


Since anons are talking about Mr. Beast so much.

Hobbes on Public Charity
>And whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unable to maintain themselves by their labour; they ought not to be left to the Charity of private persons; but to be provided for, (as far-forth as the necessities of Nature require,) by the Lawes of the Common-wealth. For as it is Uncharitablenesse in any man, to neglect the impotent; so it is in the Soveraign of a Common-wealth, to expose them to the hazard of such uncertain Charity.

>Benevolence— Desire of good to another, BENEVOLENCE, GOOD WILL, CHARITY. If to man generally, GOOD NATURE.


<Bossuet: Princes are made to be Loved
>Princes are made to be loved… This young prince [Solomon] was not yet known: he showed himself, and won all hearts just by being seen. The throne of the Lord, on which he was seated, brought him to be loved naturally, and made obedience pleasant.

>From this natural attraction of peoples towards their princes the memorable dispute between the people of Judah and the other Israelites over who would best serve the King. "All the men of Israel running together to the king, said to him: Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away, and brought the king and his household over the Jordan, as if it were for them alone to serve him? And the men of Judah answered: Because the king is nearer to me: why art thou angry for this matter? –And the men of Israel answered: I have ten parts in the king more than thou, and David belongeth to me more than thee." …Each side wanted to have the King: each, passionate for him, envied others the glory of possessing him. Sedition would have come about if the Prince–who is indeed a public good–had not given himself equally to all.

>There is a charm for all peoples in the sight of the Prince: and nothing is easier than for him to make himself loved passionately. "In the cheerfulness of the king's countenance is life: and his clemency is like the latter rain." The rain, which comes to refresh an earth dried out by the heat of the day or the summer, is no more aggreeable than a Prince who tempers his authority with mildness; and his face delights everyone when it is serene… Job explains admirably this secret charm of the Prince. "They waited for me as for rain, and they opened their mouth as for a later shower. If at any time I laughed on them, they believed not, and the light of my countenance full not on the earth." After the great heat of a day or of the summer, that is to say after trouble and affliction, these words were consoling; the people were delighted to see him pass by, and happy to receive, preserved it as something precious.

>Let the Prince, then, be easy in distributing mild looks, and in obliging words. "Shall not the dew assuage the heat, so also the good word is better than the gift." And again: "A sweet word multiplies friends, and appeases enemies, and a gracious tongue in a good man aboundeth." One must, nonetheless, join actions to his words. "As clouds, and wind, when no rain followeth, so is the man that boasts, and does not fulfill his promises." …A prince who does good is adored by his people. "All the land… was at rest all the days of Simon, and he sought the good of his nation; and his power and his glory pleased them well all his days." How power is strengthened, when it is thus cherished by the nations!


File: 1678498389768-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

This charm Bossuet speaks of.
I have seen its effects on /leftypol/ & /siberia/.
Grace-chan is cherished and loved.


Grace is made to be loved and holding hands


>soundless video


Is this a good anime?


Probably not


File: 1678556516876-0.png (833.81 KB, 3000x3000, Grace mic OC.png)

File: 1678556516876-1.png (814.83 KB, 3000x3000, Grace wink OC.png)


Is Grace-chan an idol?


File: 1678557897138-0.png (125.61 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 01.png)

<Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch




File: 1678762749400-0.jpg (18.41 KB, 331x442, Grace_02.jpg)

File: 1678762749400-1.jpg (20.11 KB, 640x447, 2earxn5.jpg)

Monarchists w/ muh bees & muh ants

tbh, I have complicated feelings.

I dislike how replacement is justified w/ bees.
hate regicide theories, but most monarchists support them
I see it as a republican / constitutionalist tendency or slippery slope into oligarchism

It does satisfy perpetuity, but frustrates my notions of indivisibility & pre-eminence.
not to be replaced while living or deemed like another part, but their bond

I emphasize the typical notion w/ ants:

Where the queen ant dies, the colony inevitably dies off w/ that queen ant.
this depends on the species of ant

This works w/ the sense of majesty: despair like when you lose the king in chess.

Everything is lost and begins to decay.


I don't think natural examples readily resolve us to monarchy.
I wish it were that easy to do, but it's not


File: 1678767154759-0.png (546.03 KB, 2133x2462, Grace qt blushing 2.png)

File: 1678767154759-1.png (39.12 KB, 444x363, Louis XV speech.png)

<Louis XV speech
>It is only in my person where the sovereign power resides, whose proper character is the spirit of advice, justice and reason; it is to me that my courtiers owe their existence and their authority; the fullness of their authority, which they exercise only in my name, always resides in me and can never be turned against me; To me alone belongs the legislative power without dependency and without division; it is by my authority that the officers of my Court proceed not to the formation, but to the registration, publication and execution of the law […]; public order emanates from me, and the rights and interests of the Nation, of which a separate body from the Monarch is usually made, are necessarily united to mine and rest only in my hands.

<Hobbes / King David

>There was a case put to King David by Nathan, of a rich man that had many sheep, and of a poor man that had but one, which was a tame lamb: the rich man had a stranger in his house, for whose entertainment, to spare his own sheep he took away the poor man’s lamb. Upon this case the King gave judgment, “Surely the man that hath done this shall die.” What think you of this? Was it a royal, or tyrannical judgment?

>[…] I will not contradict the canons of the Church of England, which acknowledge the King of England within his own dominions hath the same rights, which the good Kings of Israel had in theirs; nor deny King David to have been one of those good Kings. But to punish with death without a precedent law, will seem but a harsh proceeding with us, who unwillingly hear of arbitrary laws, much less of arbitrary punishments, unless we were sure that all our Kings would be as good as David.

>I cite not this precedent of King David, as approving the breach of the great charter, or justifying the punishment with loss of life or member, of every man that shall offend the King; but to show you that before the charter was granted, in all cases where the punishments were not prescribed, it was the King only that could prescribe them; and that no deputed judge could punish an offender but by force of some statute, or by the words of some commission, and not ex officio. They might for a contempt of their courts, because it is a contempt of the King, imprison a man during the King’s pleasure, or fine him to the King according to the greatness of the offence: but all this amounteth to no more, than to leave him to the King’s judgment.


>And to rob a poor man, is a greater Crime, than to rob a rich man; because ’tis to the poor a more sensible damage.


File: 1678865460879.jpg (100.24 KB, 640x640, img.jpg)

I've read all the stuff, I dunno if these are ironic but those texts are all seeming to build a pointless personality cult pointlessly aims for monarchy?¿ with just nothing but all subjectivity waving the ocean as such texts are just using "justice" "god" "family" and so on in a complete abbys, like what is god? A family? A justice? Beyond the subjective meaning you give it.

But… thank you for all the this Grace-Anon, you really make here sweet. And the artworks are way too cute! You are awesome!!! I am sure Alunya will be happy to listen her lover saying all these stuff then Alunya will lean to Grace as Grace will blush and her heart will bump as it never happened before in such intense form, It's so pretty to imagine :3
Grace x Alunya is just too heartwarming… best form of the art…


File: 1678870684526-0.png (31.52 KB, 269x143, 122.png)

> I dunno if these are ironic but those texts
This is all unironic & in earnest.
Some anons think it is ironic
it's not

>pointlessly aims for monarchy?

Let there be one Grace.

>to build a pointless personality cult

Everyone is drawn to a persona.
There is nothing that stands out.
Like the majesty of one person, tbh.

<Alunya will lean to Grace as Grace will blush

Kinda like Alunya is drawn to Grace.


>Everyone is drawn to a persona. There is nothing that stands out. Like the majesty of one person, tbh.

I don't think so, your personality, is just mere complication of your choices you took for the outsider-reflections of things. And many ppl are attracted to monarchy because it made it so somehow, and if the thought of it's contradiction pleases the spirit, it'd believe otherwise, and guillotine will look prettier than a royal family.

>Kinda like Alunya is drawn to Grace.

The spark of love bonds two spirits into everlasting affection, dear Grace-Anon. They both feel that I believe, just their desperate and everyday consuming affections trying it's best and different ways to get out of it's cage to finally unite. *w-
(Also… cute artworks 0//o)


File: 1678873710786-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

Persona is the face.
& you yourself said you wanted to see Grace-chan blush.

>And many ppl are attracted to monarchy because it made it so somehow

Crowds that admire one person b/c one person helps to personify them.
That's how the idiom goes:
X with a human face.
Without a persona, everything feels cold & sterile like the blade of a guillotine itself.


File: 1678874532629.gif (236.95 KB, 500x281, uhh..gif)

>You yourself said you wanted to see Grace-chan blush.

Y-yes I like it… because it gives me imaginations of Alunya and Grace being together and is cute.

>Crowds that admire one person b/c one person helps to personify them. That's how the idiom goes: X with a human face. Without a persona, everything feels cold & sterile like the blade of a guillotine itself.

That's inherently your idea, that can't be same or embraced by everyone. As the monarchy can't make itself pleasing for every soul it consists, and since monarchies adopt capitalist mode of production… Life's just painful for many! Even if you distract them from that with religious,patriotic,persona stuff!
And… If some void creature without a persona lives under my bed… I wouldn't do anything to it and let the creature stay for how long it desires ^^, I dont feel the same as you Grace-Anon, I like the void and bitterness to some scale and my feelings aren't only special to persona.


File: 1678876479872-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

>That's inherently your idea
>that can't be same or embraced by everyone
Idk some leftists are fascinated by the persona more than most royalists themselves. & they make ample use of the persona to embody revolution.
I cannot speak for anarchists.


File: 1678901444069-0.png (814.83 KB, 3000x3000, Grace wink OC.png)

File: 1678901444069-1.jpg (79.17 KB, 749x540, YgsUXMK3.jpg)

File: 1678901444069-2.png (2.64 MB, 3740x2808, 357ddz8me7.png)

Y' know, collectivism & individualism are always opposed.
As paradoxical as it is, what the collective longs for is to be made individual.
What anons like about Alunya & Grace pairing is their harmony & love
despite being sworn enemies
A monarchist like Grace should really hate anarchy and communism.



Collectivism&Individualism stuff are pretty eh anon. Because everything being pleased or valued lies in the individual itself, as collectivism practices something that enforces it's bitterness upon the every individual in the (same form?)

>What anons like about Alunya & Grace pairing is their harmony & love despite being sworn enemies, a monarchist like Grace should really hate anarchy and communism

Their everlasting and binding love getting ahead of everything they had embraced, they had, and believed… all gone with the sweet winds of love, I like it. Grace-Anon, I wholeheartedly believe that, Grace and Alunya surely have different world views for to make both of them live with their love & their desires in their believed forms, and Alunya and Grace have contradiction of those believes, barrier believes, but the love, is the prettiest thing, what makes all the absurd intreactions between one and one the most pleasing thing to them! It's just heartmoving to imagine how they will react to the love, which lungs, bumps, even more intensely to finally escape their cages and finally for two spirits to be one! What they do in the materiality wont matter anymore, ( but since communism is the doctrine of abolishing every alerting-bitter outsider forces imposed on us *w- and monarchy just being a bitter form of goverment, It's unknown but maybe Grace Chan would change her thoughts… or maybe Alunya?) As all they care and long for becoming indulging in their divine love ^^


File: 1678906957431-0.png (730.25 KB, 2439x3600, Grace no line.png)

I thought about befriending leftypol more.
& visiting their minecraft server.
Though I also keep my respective distance.
idk if it's active anyways. I wish it were.

>I like it. Grace-Anon
It makes my day, anon.
To have /kind/ visitors.


>It makes my day, anon.
It also applies for me too, as I said before, you made a lot of my days dear Grace-Anon, thank you so much for the threads!


Another Alunya cosplay


File: 1679154489596-0.png (1.62 MB, 3100x3100, Grace icup ball.png)

File: 1679154489596-1.png (37.67 KB, 536x600, 1659493761899-0.png)

I hope for another inter-board sports event.
It was so much fun the last /icup/.


File: 1679199870356-0.png (814.83 KB, 3000x3000, Grace wink OC.png)

My final reading list.
I have compiled many others
This will be my very last b/c I want to retire.


You're retiring? From what, Graceposting? Being a monarchist?


Going from being a 24/7 monarchist shill
To being a lazy monarchist shill.
There will still be Grace art & stuff.


Oh… I was saddened thought you will going forever… Glad you will still exist in this lost lands ^^


Add Kierkegaard to your list


new grace art in a bit






<Hobbes / Every Age an Age of Absolutism
>Secondly, they object, That there is no Dominion in the Christian world Absolute; which indeed is not true, for all Monarchies, and other States, are so; for although they, who have the chief Command, do not all those things they would, and what they know profitable to the City, the reason of that is not the defect of Right in them, but the consideration of their Citizens, who busied about their private interest, and careless of what tends to the public, cannot sometimes be drawn to perform their duties without the hazard of the City. Wherefore princes sometimes forbear the exercise of their Right, and prudently remit somewhat of the act, but nothing of their Right.

(Jean Bodin is also of the opinion here).

<Hobbes / As if policy made body-politic & not body-politic policy

>This device therefore of them that will make civil laws first, and then a civil body afterwards, (as if policy made a body politic, and not a body politic made policy) is of no effect.


File: 1679471675246-0.png (125.61 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 01.png)

<Xenophon Cyropaedia

The father of Cyrus, so runs the story, was Cambyses, a king of the Persians, and one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race

<The education of youth

>It is true that he was brought up according to the laws and customs of the Persians, and of these laws it must be noted that while they aim, as laws elsewhere, at the common weal, their guiding principle is far other than that which most nations follow.

>Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. (3) But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object.

<Friend & Enemy distinction: careful not to teach children dangerous things

>Yes, my son, it is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage. And he drew the line between what one should do to one's friends and what to one's enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right to even deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose.

(This is important b/c regicide theories would also use the basis of friend / enemy distinction between a king or tyrant & justify killing their king; though I think that the subjects shouldn't be taught to distinguish their Sovereign as any such enemy–their relation like children & the sovereign monarch their father–if they are taught anyone is an enemy, it is the opponents of their Sovereign & never the Sovereign himself, b/c esp. the monarchy-haters are too apt to abuse this).

>And in teaching these lessons he had also to train the boys to practise them upon one another, just as also in wrestling, the Greeks, they say, teach deception and train the boys to be able to practise it upon one another. When, therefore, some had in this way become expert both in deceiving successfully and in taking unfair advantage and perhaps also not inexpert in avarice, the did not refrain from trying to take an unfair advantage even of their friends.

>In consequence of that, therefore, an ordnance was passed which obtains even unto this day, simply to teach out boys, just as we teach our servants in their relations towards us, to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage; and if they should act contrary to this law, the law requires their punishment, in order that, inured to such habits, they may become more refined members of society.

(All States today do this: they teach their citizens at birth to uphold the values of their State & only a friendly image, & reserves the bad teachings for any enemies, like is said – that they may become more refined members of society)

>But when they came to be as old as you are now, then it seemed to be safe to teach them that also which is lawful towards enemies; for it does not seem likely that you would break away and fun into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect. In the same way we do not discuss sexual matters in the presence of very young boys, lest in case lax discipline should give a free rein to their passions the young might indulge them to excess.

<The ungrateful man & shamelessness: the chief instigator to every kind of baseness

>They reason that the ungrateful man s the most likely to forget his duty to the gods, to his parents, to his fatherland, and his friends. Shamelessness, they hold, treads close on the heels of ingratitude, and thus ingratitude is the ringleader and chief instigator to every kind of baseness. Further, the boys are instructed in temperance and self-restraint, and they find the utmost help towards the attainment of this virtue in the self-respecting behaviour of their elders, shown them day by day. Then they are taught to obey their rulers, and here again nothing is of greater value than the studied obedience to authority manifested by their elders everywhere. Continence in meat and drink is another branch of instruction, and they have no better aid in this than, first, the example of their elders, who never withdraw to satisfy their carnal cravings until those in authority dismiss them, and next, the rule that the boys must take their food, not with their mother but with their master, and not till the governor gives the sign.

<The importance of obedience

>What city could be at rest, lawful, and orderly? What household could be safe? What ship sail home to her haven? And we, to what do we owe our triumph, if not to our obedience? We obeyed; we were ready to follow the call by night and day; we marched behind our leader, ranks that nothing could resist; we left nothing half-done of all we were told to do. If obedience is the one path to win the highest good, remember it is also the one way to preserve it.

>Let us listen to the words of Cyrus. Let us gather round the public buildings and train ourselves, so that we may keep our hold on all we care for, and offer ourselves to Cyrus for his noble ends. Of one thing we may be sure: Cyrus will never put us to any service which can make for his own good and not for ours. Our needs are the same as his [Cyrus], and our foes the same.

>Drovers may certainly be called the rulers of their cattle and horse-breeders the rulers of their studs—all herdsmen, in short, may reasonably be considered the governors of the animals they guard. If, then, we were to believe the evidence of our senses, was it not obvious that flocks and herds were more ready to obey their keepers than men their rulers? Watch the cattle wending their way wherever their herdsmen guide them, see them grazing in the pastures where they are sent and abstaining from forbidden grounds, the fruit of their own bodies they yield to their master to use as he thinks best; nor have we ever seen one flock among them all combining against their guardian, either to disobey him or to refuse him the absolute control of their produce. On the contrary, they are more apt to show hostility against other animals than against the owner who derives advantage from them.

<But with man the rule is converse; men unite against none so readily as against those whom they see attempting to rule over them. (3) As long, therefore, as we followed these reflexions, we could not but conclude that man is by nature fitted to govern all creatures, except his fellow-man.

>But when we came to realise the character of Cyrus the Persian, we were led to a change of mind: here is a man, we said, who won for himself obedience from thousands of his fellows, from cities and tribes innumerable: we must ask ourselves whether the government of men is after all an impossible or even a difficult task, provided one set about it in the right way. Cyrus, we know, found the readiest obedience in his subjects, though some of them dwelt at a distance which it would take days and months to traverse, and among them were men who had never set eyes on him, and for the matter of that could never hope to do so, and yet they were willing to obey him. Cyrus did indeed eclipse all other monarchs, before or since, and I include not only those who have inherited their power, but those who have won empire by their own exertions.

>It is obvious that among this congeries of nations few, if any, could have spoken the same language as himself, or understood one another, but none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: not one of them dared lift hand against him. And yet he was able, at the same time, to inspire them all with so deep a desire to please him and win his favour that all they asked was to be guided by his judgment and his alone.


<Xenophon / A good ruler differs not from a good father
>Gentlemen, this is not the first time I have had occasion to observe that a good ruler differs in no respect from a good father. Even as a father takes thought that blessings may never fail his children, so Cyrus would commend to us the ways by which we can preserve our happiness.

<A ruler's charm

>But we seem to learn also that Cyrus thought it necessary for the ruler not only to surpass his subjects by his own native worth, but also to charm them through deception and artifice.

>At any rate he adopted the Median dress, and persuaded his comrades to do likewise; he thought it concealed any bodily defect, enhancing the beauty and stature of the wearer. The shoe, for instance, was so devised that a sole could be added without notice, and the man would seem taller than he really was. So also Cyrus encouraged the use of ointments to make the eyes more brilliant and pigments to make the skin look fairer. And he trained his courtiers never to spit or blow the nose in public or turn aside to stare at anything; they were to keep the stately air of persons whom nothing can surprise. These were all means to one end; to make it impossible for the subjects to despise their rulers.

<Taming of men

>Thus he moulded the men he considered worthy of command by his own example, by the training he gave them, and by the dignity of his own leadership. But the treatment of those he prepared for slavery was widely different. Not one of them would he incite to any noble toil, he would not even let them carry arms, and he was careful that they should never lack food or drink in any manly sort.

>When the beaters drove the wild creatures into the plain he would allow food to be brought for the servants, but not for the free men; on a march he would lead the slaves to the water-springs as he led the beasts of burden. Or when it was the hour of breakfast he would wait himself till they had taken a snatch of food and stayed their wolfish hunger; and the end of it was they called him their father even as the nobles did, because he cared for them, but the object of his care was to keep them slaves for ever.

>Thus he secured the safety of the Persian empire. He himself, he felt sure, ran no danger from the massages of the conquered people; he saw they had no courage, no unity, and no discipline, and, moreover, not one of them could ever come near him, day or night.

>But there were others whom he knew to be true warriors, who carried arms, and who held by one another, commanders of horse and foot, many of them men of spirit, confident, as he could plainly see, of their own power to rule, men who were in close touch with his own guards, and many of them in constant intercourse with himself; as indeed was essential if he was to make any use of them at all. It was from them that danger was to be feared; and that in a thousand ways. How was he to guard against it?

<He rejected the idea of disarming them; he thought this unjust, and that it would lead to the dissolution of the empire. To refuse them admission into his presence, to show them his distrust, would be, he considered, a declaration of war.

>But there was one method, he felt, worth all the rest, an honourable method and one that would secure his safety absolutely; to win their friendship if he could, and make them more devoted to himself than to each other. I will now endeavour to set forth the methods, so far as I conceive them, by which he gained their love.

>In the first place he never lost an opportunity of showing kindliness wherever he could, convinced that just as it is not easy to love those who hate us, so it is scarcely possible to feel enmity for those who love us and wish us well.

>So long as he had lacked the power to confer benefits by wealth, all he could do then was to show his personal care for his comrades and his soldiers, to labour in their behalf, manifest his joy in their good fortune and his sympathy in their sorrows, and try to win them in that way. But when the time came for the gifts of wealth, he realised that of all the kindnesses between man and man none come with a more natural grace than the gifts of meat and drink.

(This is somewhat notable for a few reasons: 1. The Christian mass also has formally bread & wine. 2. States have state dinners to also show kindness. 3. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar remarks, Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous. – Mark Antony responds, Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous, He is a noble Roman, and well given. – Julius Caesar finally says, Would he were fatter! But I fear him not.)

>Accordingly he arranged that his table should be spread every day for many guests in exactly the same way as for himself; and all that was set before him, after he and his guests had dined, he would send out to his absent friends, in token of affection and remembrance. He would include those who had won his approval by their work on guard, or in attendance on himself, or in any other service, letting them see that no desire to please him could ever escape his eyes.

>He would show the same honour to any servant he wished to praise; and he had all the food for them placed at his own board, believing this would win their fidelity, as it would a dog's.

>Or, if he wished some friend of his to be courted by the people, he would single him out for such gifts; even to this day the world will pay court to those who have dishes sent them from the Great King's table, thinking they must be in high favour at the palace and can get things done for others. But no doubt there was another reason for the pleasure in such gifts, and that was the sheer delicious taste of the royal meats.

<Nor should that surprise us; for if we remember to what a pitch of perfection the other crafts are brought in great communities, we ought to expect the royal dishes to be wonders of finished art.

<Royal excellence in great servants

>Necessarily the man who spends all his time and trouble on the smallest task will do that task the best.

>But when there is work enough for one man to boil the pot, and another to roast the meat, and a third to stew the fish, and a fourth to fry it, while some one else must bake the bread, and not all of it either, for the loaves must be of different kinds, and it will be quite enough if the baker can serve up one kind to perfection—it is obvious, I think, that in this way a far higher standard of excellence will be attained in every branch of the work.

<Royal gifts

>Thus it is easy to see how Cyrus could outdo all competitors in the grace of hospitality, and I will now explain how he came to triumph in all other services.

>Far as he excelled mankind in the scale of his revenues, he excelled them even more in the grandeur of his gifts. It was Cyrus who set the fashion; and we are familiar to this day with the open-handedness of Oriental kings.

>There is no one, indeed, in all the world whose friends are seen to be as wealthy as the friends of the Persian monarch: no one adorns his followers in such splendour of rich attire, no gifts are so well known as his, the bracelets, and the necklaces, and the chargers with the golden bridles. For in that country no one can have such treasures unless the king has given them.

(Do you know how it's said dictators use gifts? The same is said here)

>And of whom but the Great King could it be said that through the splendour of his presents he could steal the hearts of men and turn them to himself, away from brothers, fathers, sons?

<The King's Eyes & The King's Ears

>Indeed, we are led to think that the offices called "the king's eyes" and "the king's ears" came into being through this system of gifts and honours.

>Cyrus' munificence toward all who told him what it was well for him to know set countless people listening with all their ears and watching with all their eyes for news that might be of service to him. Thus there sprang up a host of "king's eyes" and "king's ears," as they were called, known and reputed to be such.

>But it is a mistake to suppose that the king has one chosen "eye." It is little that one man can see or one man hear, and to hand over the office to one single person would be to bid all others go to sleep. Moreover, his subjects would feel they must be on their guard before the man they knew was "the king's eye." The contrary is the case; the king will listen to any man who asserts that he has heard or seen anything that needs attention.

(This was a practice: Tsar Paul I would also have a box for any subject to give tell him about any anything or any injustice – Jean Bodin remarked that this system of boxes in other states was abused & not a good practice, I forgot the details how or what grievances Bodin had).

<The King has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears

>Hence the saying that the king has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears; and hence the fear of uttering anything against his interest since "he is sure to hear," or doing anything that might injure him "since he may be there to see." So far, therefore, from venturing to breathe a syllable against Cyrus, every man felt that he was under the eye and within the hearing of a king who was always present. For this universal feeling towards him I can give no other reason than his resolve to be a benefactor on a most mighty scale.


File: 1679471908338-0.jpg (732.88 KB, 2345x2076, 452_49000 - Copy.jpg)

File: 1679471908338-1.png (146.43 KB, 647x409, 000033.png)

<Royal Shepherd
>Indeed, a saying of his is handed down comparing a good king to a good shepherd—the shepherd must manage his flock by giving them all they need, and the king must satisfy the needs of his cities and his subjects if he is to manage them. We need not wonder, then, that with such opinions his ambition was to excel mankind in courtesy and care.

<Royal Physician

>Moreover, he observed that the majority of mankind, if they live in good health for long, will only lay by such stores and requisites as may be used by a healthy man, and hardly care at all to have appliances at hand in case of sickness. But Cyrus was at the pains to provide these; he encouraged the ablest physicians of the day by his liberal payments, and if ever they recommended an instrument or a drug or a special kind of food or drink, he never failed to procure it and have it stored in the palace.

>And whenever any one fell sick among those who had peculiar claims on his attentions, he would visit them and bring them all they needed, and he showed especial gratitude to the doctors if they cured their patients by the help of his own stores.

>These measures, and others like them, he adopted to win the first place in the hearts of those whose friendship he desired.

(It is useful to add that he supplied these doctors & made sure their care came with his blessing – so that the benefices of the doctors would by extension be benefices of the king – as the quote >>358701 here says, what men would give to be cured adds to the friendship and trust in the king)

<Rewards & Badges

>The day before it he summoned the officers of state, the Persians and the others, and gave them all the splendid Median dress. This was the first time the Persians wore it, and as they received the robes he said that he wished to drive in his chariot to the sacred precincts and offer sacrifice with them.

>With that Cyrus gave the most splendid robes to his chief notables, and then he brought out others, for he had stores of Median garments, purple and scarlet and crimson and glowing red, and gave a share to each of his generals and said to them, "Adorn your friends, as I have adorned you." (4) Then one of them asked him, "And you, O Cyrus, when will you adorn yourself?" But he answered, "–Is it not adornment enough for me to have adorned you? If I can but do good to my friends, I shall look glorious enough, whatever robe I wear."

<Preparations for a royal procession

>Meanwhile Cyrus summoned Pheraulas, knowing that, while he was a man of the people, he was also quick-witted, a lover of the beautiful, prompt to understand and to obey, and one who had ever an eye to please his master.

>And now Cyrus asked him how he thought the procession might be made most beautiful in the eyes of friends and most formidable in the sight of foes.

>"I have issued orders," he added, "for all to obey you in the matter, but to make them the more willing, take these tunics yourself and give them to the captains of the guard, and these military cloaks for the cavalry officers, and these tunics for those who command the chariots."

>So Pheraulas took the raiment and departed, and when the generals saw him, they met him with shouts and cries, "A monstrous fine fellow you are, Pheraulas!" said one: "you are to give us our orders, it seems!"

>"Oh, yes," said Pheraulas, "and carry your baggage too. Here I come with two cloaks as it is, one for you and another for somebody else: you must choose whichever you like the best."

>On the morrow all things were ready before day-break, ranks lining the road on either hand, as they do to this day when the king is expected to ride abroad—no one may pass within the lines unless he is a man of mark—and constables were posted with whips, to use at any sign of disturbance.

>In front of the palace stood the imperial guard of lancers, four thousand strong, drawn up four deep on either side of the gates.

>And all the cavalry were there, the men standing beside their horses, with their hands wrapped in their cloaks, as is the custom to this day for every subject when the king's eye is on him. The Persians stood on the right, and the allies on the left, and the chariots were posted in the same way, half on one side and half on the other.

>Presently the palace-gates were flung open, and at the head of the procession were led out the bulls for sacrifice, beautiful creatures, four and four together. They were to be offered to Zeus and to any other gods that the Persian priests might name. For the Persians think it of more importance to follow the guidance of the learned in matters pertaining to the gods than in anything else whatever.

>After the oxen came horses, an offering to the Sun, then a white chariot with a golden yoke, hung with garlands and dedicated to Zeus, and after that the white car of the Sun, wreathed like the one before it, and then a third chariot, the horses of which were caparisoned with scarlet trappings, and behind walked men carrying fire upon a mighty hearth.

<The Appearance of Cyrus

>And then at last Cyrus himself was seen, coming forth from the gates in his chariot, wearing his tiara on his head, and a purple tunic shot with white, such as none but the king may wear, and trews of scarlet, and a cloak of purple. Round his tiara he wore a diadem, and his kinsmen wore the same, even as the custom is to this day. And the king's hands hung free outside his cloak.

>At the sight of the king, the whole company fell on their faces. Perhaps some had been ordered to do this and so set the fashion, or perhaps the multitude were really overcome by the splendour of the pageant and the sight of Cyrus himself, stately and tall and fair. For hitherto none of the Persians had done obeisance to Cyrus.

>And now, as the chariot moved onwards, the four thousand lancers went before it, two thousand on either side, and close behind came the mace-bearers, mounted on horseback, with javelins in their hands, three hundred strong.

<The importance of love and praise

>Praise, Pheraulas saw, will reap counter-praise, kindness will stir kindness in return, and goodwill goodwill; those whom men know to love them they cannot hate.


>And you, Cambyses, you know of yourself without words from me, that your kingdom is not guarded by this golden sceptre, but by faithful friends; their loyalty is your true staff, a sceptre which shall not fail. But never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the field… No, every leader must win his own followers for himself, and the way to win them is not by violence but by loving-kindness.


>Of all the powers in Asia, the kingdom of Cyrus showed itself to be the greatest and most glorious. On the east it was bounded by the Red Sea, on the north by the Euxine, on the west by Cyprus and Egypt, and on the south by Ethiopia. And yet the whole of this enormous empire was governed by the mind and will of a single man, Cyrus: his subjects he cared for and cherished as a father might care for his children, and they who came beneath his rule reverenced him like a father.


File: 1679549646510-0.png (152.01 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 02.png)

<Cyrus / To the eldest born son
>Sons of mine, I love you both alike, but I choose the elder-born, the one whose experience of life is the greater, to be the leader in council and the guide in action.

<Cyrus / Let the earth be my grave

>As for my body, when I am dead, I would not have you lay it up in gold or silver or any coffin whatsoever, but give it back to the earth with all speed. What could be more blessed than to lie in the lap of Earth, the mother of all things beautiful, the nurse of all things good? I have been a lover of men all my life, and methinks I would fain become a part of that which does good to man

Hobbes also viewed sovereignty also to instruct or educate.

<Thomas Hobbes on Instruction / Propaganda (basically)

>Another thing necessary, is rooting out from the consciences of men all those opinions which seem to justify, and give pretense of right to rebellious actions… that there is a body of the people without him or them that have the sovereign power… and because opinions which are gotten by education, and in length of time are made habitual, cannot be taken away by force, and upon the sudden: they must therefore be taken away also, by time and education. And seeing the said opinions have proceeded from private and public teaching, and those teachers have received from grounds and principles, which they have learned in the Universities…

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

>Whereas the common people's minds, unless they be tainted with dependence on the potent, or scribbled over with the opinions of their doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatsoever the public authority shall be imprinted in them.

>And, to descend to particulars, the people are to be taught, first, that they ought not to be in love with any form of government that they see in their neighbor nations, more than with their own, nor, whatsoever present prosperity they behold in nations that are otherwise governed than they, to desire change. For the prosperity of a people ruled by an oligarchical or democratical assembly comes not from Oligarchy, nor from Democracy, but from the obedience and concord of the subjects: nor do the people flourish in Monarchy because one man the has right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in any kind of state the obedience, and consequently the concord of the people, and they shall not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience to do no more than reform the Commonwealth shall find they do thereby destroy it; like the foolish daughters of Peleus, in the fable, which desiring to renew the youth of their decrepit father, did by the counsel of Medea cut him in pieces and boil him, together with strange herbs, but made not of him a new man. This desire of change is like the breach of the first of God's Commandments: for there God says, Non habebis Deos alienos: "Thou shalt not have the Gods of other nations," and in another place concerning kings, that they are gods.

>For he that deserteth the Means, deserteth the Ends; and he deserteth the Means, that being the Soveraign, acknowledgeth himselfe subject to the Civill Lawes; and renounceth the Power of Supreme Judicature; or of making Warre, or Peace by his own Authority; or of Judging of the Necessities of the Common-wealth; or of levying Mony, and Souldiers, when, and as much as in his own conscience he shall judge necessary; or of making Officers, and Ministers both of Warre, and Peace; or of appointing Teachers, and examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence, Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let the people be ignorant, or mis-in-formed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essentiall Rights; because thereby men are easie to be seduced, and drawn to resist him, when the Common-wealth shall require their use and exercise.

>I conclude therefore, that in the instruction of the people in the Essentiall Rights (which are the Naturall, and Fundamentall Lawes) of Soveraignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a Soveraign has his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault, or the fault of those whom he trusteth in the administration of the Common-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not onely his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger that may arrive to himselfe in his naturall Person, from Rebellion.

<The Use of Universities

>As for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receive this Instruction, wee are to search, by what means so may Opinions, contrary to the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have neverthelesse been so deeply rooted in them… It is therefore manifest, that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the right teaching of Youth in the Universities.

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

Though he reserved for fathers to educate their children as they like.

<And because the first instruction of children depends on the care of their parents, it is necessary that they should be obedient to them while they are under their tuition; and not only so, but that also afterwards, as gratitude requires, they acknowledge the benefit of their education by external signs of honour. To which end they are to be taught that originally the the father of every man was also his sovereign lord, with power over him of life and death; and that the fathers of families, when by instituting a Commonwealth they resigned that absolute power, yet it was never intended that they should lose the honour due unto them for their education. For to relinquish such right was not necessary to the institution of sovereign power; nor would there be any reason why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them than from other men. And this accords with the fifth Commandment.

Hobbes, like Xenophon, also puts a great stress on obedience:
<Take away in any kind of state the obedience, and consequently the concord of the people, and they shall not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience to do no more than reform the Commonwealth shall find they do thereby destroy it

<To the eldest born son

Dante Aligheri also notes, that every house is ruled by its eldest.
though I think that's from Aristotle

Jean Bodin was an ardent defender of hereditary monarchy.
& criticized Aristotle in defense of it
I myself am partial to it.


der kaiser rief und alle allekamen
The emperor called and everyone, everyone came!

<King James VI & I / My sheep hear my voice

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


File: 1679553802157-2.mp4 (4.98 MB, 492x360, pharaoh02.mp4)

<Merneptah's Speech
>Hear ye the command of your lord; I give–as ye shall do, saying: I am the ruler who shepherds you; I spend my time searching out–as a father who preserves alive his children

<Egyptian Teachings of a Man for his Son (Praise extracts):

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

<Egyptian Loyalist Teaching

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

<Bossuet / Royal Shepherd

>God has chosen David, and took him from the flocks of sheep… to feed Jacob his servant, and Israel his inheritance.

>He merely changed the flock: instead of grazing sheep, he grazed men. "To graze" in language of Scripture is "to govern" and the name "pastor" signifies the prince–so much are these things united!

>I said to Cyrus, the Lord says, Thou art my shepherd. That is to say: you are the prince whom I have established.

>It is not only Homer, then, who calls the princes the shepherds of nations; it is the Holy Ghost. This name sufficiently warns them to provide for the need of the whole flock, that s to say the whole people… It is a royal right to provide for the needs of the people… It is for this that royalty is established, and the obligation to take care of the people is the basis of all the rights that sovereigns have over their subjects.

>That is why, in times of great need, the people has a right to appeal to its prince. "In an extreme famine, the people cried to Pharoah for food." The famished people asked for bread from their king, as from a shepherd, or rather from their father. And the foresight of Joseph had placed Pharoah in a position to provide…. In the vows which David made for Solomon on the day of his coronation, he spoke only of the care he should have for the poor, and located in this point the happiness of his reign…. David had well realized that nothing is so royal as to be the help of him who has none; and ths is all he wished for his son the king.


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


That's the end of my political discourse for today.
Will relax with some music.


man imagine being a monarch. you grow up you get a crown put on your head and told you're a divine being but you know you're just another humann potato



Obligatory DPRK songs.
Grace-chan reveres these virtues of the DPRK.



& no, this is not a cynical snub.
There is no reason to hold any spite from my pov.
DPRK hasn't overthrown any royalty
& in my eyes has somewhat of a royal virtue


File: 1679733435295-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

File: 1679733435296-1.mp4 (3.89 MB, 320x240, On the Ship.mp4)

Grace art will be finished soon.

I am drinking lemonade atm.

Also, music like vid related I'd listen to on repeat.
The sound of the waves is relaxing for me.


File: 1679734750414-0.png (212.19 KB, 600x912, 1638614534178.png)

File: 1679734750414-2.gif (22.8 KB, 220x221, lemonade.gif)

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

I like to think it's the same w/ leftypol.org.

If I mention Grace likes lemonade, I fully expect lefty anons to suddenly be interested in lemonade too.




Oh lemonade, my favourite, would her majesty allow me to accompany her for a drink of lemonade?


holding hands with grace and feeding her a lemonade 🙂


Comrades, lemonade is the drink of the proletariat & Grace-chan.
The working class loves lemonade!
Besides water & vodka.

Anon may, but Grace-chan will.
& doesn't need to be fed lemonade.
Though keep in mind to w/ lemonade to rinse & drink water for the sake of your tooth enamel afterwards & also to dilute the lemonade itself with water. Esp. lemon juice concentrate can wear tooth enamel? I think lemonade itself is okay, but it's a citrus.


Isn't lemonade just water, lemon and a bit of sugar?



That is what makes lemonade a great drink.
Its simplicity.


Pics related.
Grace & Alunya at the beach.
Playing volleyball.


>DPRK hasn't overthrown any royalty
doesn't the Japanese emperor count?


I don't think it counts for much.


>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.


>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.


File: 1679869523170-0.png (733.83 KB, 3000x3000, clown Grace mic.png)

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.


File: 1679870308989-1.png (317.25 KB, 530x796, clown dog.png)

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


File: 1679878103901-0.png (1.02 MB, 3100x3100, Clown Grace ball.png)

File: 1679878103901-1.png (257.98 KB, 498x494, depressed dog.png)

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


File: 1679880250683-0.png (149.83 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 3.png)

File: 1679880250683-1.png (74.75 KB, 460x340, pikmin chad olimar.png)

File: 1679880250683-2.mp4 (2.98 MB, 640x360, Pikmin Main Theme.mp4)

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


File: 1679900974908-0.jpg (122.65 KB, 800x800, CmdiDJ5VUAE_Fg1.jpg)

File: 1679900974908-1.jpg (356.44 KB, 668x3001, 1677091833132.jpg)

File: 1679900974908-2.png (160.61 KB, 296x288, Caligula Coin.png)

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


File: 1679901242610-1.gif (57.1 KB, 220x165, ohm-money.gif)

<Hobbes Leviathan Monetary Policy

Mony the Blood Of A Commonwealth
>By Concoction, I understand the reducing of all commodities, which are not presently consumed, but reserved for Nourishment in time to come, to some thing of equal value, and withall so portably, as not to hinder the motion of men from place to place; to the end a man may have in what place soever, such Nourishment as the place affords.

>And this is nothing else but Gold, and Silver, and Mony. For Gold and Silver, being (as it happens) almost in all Countries of the world highly valued, is a commodious measure for the value of all things else between Nations;

>and Mony (of what matter soever coined by the Sovereign of a Commonwealth,) is a sufficient measure of the value of all things else, between the Subjects of that Commonwealth.

>By the means of which measures, all commodities, Moveably, and Immoveable, are made to accompany a man, to all places of his resort, within and without the place of his ordinary residence; and the same passes from Man to Man, within the Commonwealth; and goes round about, Nourishing (as it passes) every part thereof;

>In so much as this Concoction, is as it were the Sanguification [or blood flow] of the Commonwealth: For natural Blood is in like manner made of the fruits of the Earth; and circulating, nourishes by the way, every Member of the Body of Man.

<And because Silver and Gold, have their value from the matter it self; they have first this privilege, that the value of them cannot be altered by the power of one, nor of a few Commonwealths; as being a common measure of the commodities of all places.

>but base Mony, may easily be enhanced, or abased.

<Secondly, they have the privilege to make Commonwealths, move, and stretch out their arms, when need is, into foreign Countries; and supply, not only private Subjects that travel, but also whole Armies with provision.

>But that Coin, which is not considerable for the Matter, but for the Stamp of the place, being unable to endure change of air, hath its effects at home only; where also it is subject to the change of Laws, and thereby to have the value diminished, to the prejudice many times of those that have it.

The Conduits And Way of Mony To The Publique Use
<The Conduits, and Ways by which it is conveyed to the Publique use, are of two sorts; One, that Conveys it to the Public Coffers; The other, that Issues the same out again for public payments. Of the first sort, are Collectors, Receivers, and Treasurers; of the second are the Treasurers again, and the Officers appointed for payment of several public or private Ministers. And in this also, the Artificial Man maintains his resemblance with the Natural; whose Veins receiving the Blood from the several Parts of the Body, carry it to the Heart; where being made Vital, the Heart by the Arteries sends it out agan, to enliven, and enable for motion all the Members of the same.


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)


File: 1679905411706-0.png (125.61 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 01.png)

File: 1679905411706-1.jpg (100.25 KB, 563x713, aesarwh00viol_0006.jpg)

I'll share another read w/ anons.
An appeal to Caesar

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).


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.


File: 1679969885197-1.jpg (96.86 KB, 640x457, large.jpg)

File: 1679969885197-2.jpg (73.34 KB, 730x495, stalin&children.jpg)

>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.
>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.


File: 1679970287968-0.jpg (129.32 KB, 792x446, Grace stonks.jpg)

File: 1679970287968-1.png (1.29 MB, 1185x586, 1670565299212.png)

<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'.


File: 1679971842354-0.png (147.3 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 11.png)

File: 1679971842354-1.jpg (154.57 KB, 750x1000, 1679636288497377.jpg)

>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.


File: 1679975026785-2.png (839.16 KB, 995x826, leviathan.png)

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.


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.


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


File: 1679980892783-0.png (161.66 KB, 825x862, Grace sad clown face.png)

File: 1679980892783-1.png (317.25 KB, 530x796, clown dog.png)

I could talk at length about perpetual power & sovereignty.

& what it means for Monarchy.

But tbh I want to forfeit this conversation.


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


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


File: 1679982364914-0.png (305.48 KB, 1189x1104, Grace joker clown silly.png)

File: 1679982364914-1.png (317.25 KB, 530x796, clown dog.png)

>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:

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.


File: 1679984539130-0.png (254.66 KB, 902x784, Grace soft crop.png)

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.


File: 1679987215831-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

File: 1679987215831-1.jpg (591.43 KB, 1536x966, 00dLIvdUE.jpg large.jpg)

File: 1679987215831-2.jpg (121.41 KB, 635x359, New_Science.jpg)

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.


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


File: 1679989584579-0.png (141.59 KB, 851x900, 1666814326383.png)

File: 1679989584579-1.jpg (138.92 KB, 800x601, dog and cat.jpg)

<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.


File: 1679990887846-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

File: 1679990887846-1.jpg (519.29 KB, 2048x1511, charles maurras.jpg)

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.


File: 1679996107358-0.png (138.48 KB, 500x500, Grace pik 7.png)

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.

>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.”

<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.)

>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.

<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.


File: 1679999464897-0.png (733.83 KB, 3000x3000, clown Grace mic.png)

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.


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).


File: 1680012216956-1.mp4 (8.73 MB, 720x404, Bees Bee Queen.mp4)

File: 1680012216956-2.mp4 (11.69 MB, 640x360, saudi arabia.mp4)

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


omg they saved the queen bee


cute video

are you actually a monarchist or just memeing?


File: 1680043280156-0.png (733.83 KB, 3000x3000, clown Grace mic.png)

File: 1680043280156-1.png (317.25 KB, 530x796, clown dog.png)

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.


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


File: 1680044445680.mp4 (2.12 MB, 856x480, 1676827221617.mp4)

>It was all a larp, smh




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



>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


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.


File: 1680089177718-1.jpg (428.51 KB, 1109x951, Nec_Pluribus_Impar.jpg)

<Ebenezer Gay

>Light is an Emblem of Authority. It is the Firstborn of Things visible: Hath the Pre-eminence among them, or Predominancy over them:

>Rulers are the light of a People, and as when the Sun shineth brightly, there is a pleasant Day over the face of the Earth, so when they shine with Wisdom, Justice, Meekness and the like, and shed abroad the reviving Rays and benign Influences of good Government, there is a cheerful Day of Prosperity enjoyed; truly their Light is sweet.


I liked your video, anon.
& why I brought up… Majesty


File: 1680232880578-0.png (78.43 KB, 500x500, Grace 11.png)

File: 1680232880578-1.png (76.91 KB, 500x500, Grace 12.png)

Grace art coming soon.


File: 1680240746901.jpg (396.33 KB, 700x450, Trump-king.jpg)

What would you think if Donald Trump became King of the USA and the Trump Family became the House of Trump?


File: 1680249051689-0.png (126.34 KB, 500x500, Grace concerning.png)

File: 1680249051689-1.mp4 (7.81 MB, 640x352, The Snorks.mp4)

This would probably entail the destruction of the USA itself.
Like Hobbes says, changing from one form of State to the next means the destruction of the previous State.
Like Bodin says, to make a subject equal with the Sovereignty itself means its destruction.
Sure, the old symbols and so on could be used, but that's no different than Putin using symbols of both Tsarist Russia and the Soviets. – Certain successor states use old symbols to gain obedience of the subjects and a seeming continuation of government and stability, in the way heirs adopt the name of Casear (a man of pre-eminence) to further their own majesty… as various successive states also took to being another Rome.
This is no different than the wolf from Little Red Riding Hood eating the grandmother & putting on her clothes.
The US Constitution sets term limits on the President by the 22nd Amendment.
& no noble titles
>Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
So it is doubtful this can be a de jure monarchy by institution, but de facto.
I'm not too well versed in this dilemma tbh.
Whether Trump gains this by right of conquest or not, Bodin would deem it to be a lordly monarchy (by right of conquest) or an illegitimate seizure of power as a tyrannical monarchy.

Executions, banishments, confiscations, and other deeds of violence usually mark a transition of State
Chuck Schumer says he's afraid for the future of democracy.
& other partisans surrounding Nancy Pelosi increasingly talk about the Majesty of the People.
Saying that the elections are being invalidated and deemed unjust.
They might be right, that these are death throes or the weakening / diseases of commonwealth.

<So also the lesser Cities of Greece, were continually disturbed, with seditions of the Aristocraticall, and Democraticall factions; one part of almost every Common-wealth, desiring to imitate the Lacedaemonians; the other, the Athenians. And I doubt not, but many men, have been contented to see the late troubles in England, out of an imitation of the Low Countries; supposing there needed no more to grow rich, than to change, as they had done, the forme of their Government. For the constitution of mans nature, is of it selfe subject to desire novelty: When therefore they are provoked to the same, by the neighbourhood also of those that have been enriched by it, it is almost impossible for them, not to be content with those that solicite them to change; and love the first beginnings, though they be grieved with the continuance of disorder; like hot blouds, that having gotten the itch, tear themselves with their own nayles, till they can endure the smart no longer.

<Lastly, when in a warre (forraign, or intestine,) the enemies got a final Victory; so as (the forces of the Common-wealth keeping the field no longer) there is no farther protection of Subjects in their loyalty; then is the Common-wealth DISSOLVED…
<For the Sovereign, is the publique Soule, giving Life and Motion to the Common-wealth; which expiring, the Members are governed by it no more, than the Carcasse of a man, by his departed (though Immortal) Soule

>House of Trump?

This would be so surreal, idk a word for it.
This orange-faced dynasty is going to be so burgerpunk.

It's better to live as a happy commonwealth like the Snorks, tbh.
so avoiding a transition of state or civil war


File: 1680258728298-0.png (147.07 KB, 550x616, Grace cropped.png)

I usually keep this opinion to myself – though unlike other e-monarchists, the institution of the Nobility is not what makes Monarchy partial to me – in fact, the neofeuds, tocquevillists, and others annoy me more, esp. w/ views of the Nobility as a check or balance on the Monarchy or as a safety valve to regicide the Monarch or to foster localism where they value their local noble more than the sovereign monarch… these are treasonous & annoying doctrines to me – I guess also a heterodox opinion I hold. I'm not anti-nobility, more that I am pro-monarchy – if I was all about the pre-eminence of a few men or those eminent families, I would call myself an Oligarchist after all. This is inconceivable or ridiculous to many others in my circles, so I keep quiet. Simply the pre-eminence of one person, that is all, yes, the preference for hereditary monarchy might make this more confusing, but it's more about retain the connection to the previous monarch and to help all the subjects in general see as a familial bond there and between themselves as a whole. I have never been that much of a staunch elitist as my peers… not that I care enough, it's simply not my priority.
there are several things that confuse people: 1st, that they think of states simply as a rift between aristocracy and tyranny, or virtue and vice; 2nd, that monarchy is a manifestation of feudalism / neofeudalism; 3rdly, the confusion of royalism and monarchy and royal monarchy… The 1st point is absolutists think of states more as simply one, few, many – there is still consideration of virtue and vice in Bodin's case such as Royal or Aristocratic (virtuous) Monarchy, Lordly Monarchy, & Tyrannical Monarchy, but the Herodotus Debate outlook on monarchy, or oligarchy, or democracy has more primacy – & that's where the contention comes between us and traditionalists is we're right certain that the Sovereign Monarchy alone has a supremacy, whereas for traditionalists it's sort of the monarch and his peer nobles as one among equals as a virtuous aristocratic blob (the focus not per say on the pre-eminence of one person, but simply a clique of virtuosos w/ one among them). 2nd, b/c Medievalism & the Neofeudalist outlook, as well as Traditionalism & Catholicism &emphasis on hierarchy, it's very unfeasible for them to be content w/ simply the pre-eminence of one person per say & pop culture tends to reinforce Monarchy as a solely Medieval phenomenon w/o a before or after. Though I personally don't care for it or think we need to return a kind of neofeudalism in order to have a monarchical state. 3rd, royalism is often confused with monarchy, but you can have more kings than one king in the same state, like Marx & Engels pointed out earlier – the royal monarchy is that, where you have the pre-eminence of one king or queen, but any one person w/ majesty can be a sovereign monarch w/o having the title of a king
of course, people lambast me as unrealistic–it's pointless to bother, & that's why I keep quiet: personally, I think the Sovereign Monarch has and ought to be revered as having a very close bond with all his people, not simply to mingle with any clique or nobility themselves as opposed to the common good – and not only through them indirectly in order to bond with all the subjects – though like Bodin says he comes nearer to their condition. As Dante Aligheri mentions, the Monarch has such right love and closeness to all his subjects. Idk, I'm probably like Hobbes in this regard and find the clash and lust for honor and elitism a tad annoying. & like Maistre himself says, Sovereign Monarchy does a little bit to ease the pang w/ everyone being under the Monarchy. In the Herodotus Debate, this is even brought up as a contention that the Monarch humbles rich and poor alike as a bad thing–lt's more about monarchy itself for me


File: 1680262257913-1.png (171.98 KB, 500x500, Grace joyous.png)

File: 1680262257913-2.png (153.42 KB, 500x500, Grace smile cheerful.png)

File: 1680262257913-3.png (126.34 KB, 500x500, Grace concerning.png)


File: 1680262299296-0.png (131.18 KB, 500x500, Grace shy blush.png)

File: 1680262299296-1.png (138.36 KB, 500x500, Grace shy love.png)

File: 1680262299296-2.png (146.19 KB, 500x500, Grace majestic.png)


First and Second picture is just when Grace-chan thinks about Alunya ^^


Grace-chan is going to make Alunya an idealist.


File: 1680458031347-0.png (126.34 KB, 500x500, Grace concerning.png)

File: 1680458031347-1.jpg (575.87 KB, 3000x2500, FeoRKAxUcAAiEjO.jpg)

Re-thinking numerous things.
& had a bout of sadness / crisis
a feeling like opening pandora's box
But I will have much more Grace OC this month.
I might even do a picture of Alunya for leftypol.
My friends on /siberia/ are among a handful I have.
So I cherish some anons here for their /kind/ness.
If anyone wants to request a SFW Alunya pic–
I might have that request fulfilled.
the artist doesn't do NSFW, so at best I think if anons want Alunya and Grace in a pic, it will also have to be SFW or handholding and such


File: 1680459134889-0.png (171.98 KB, 500x500, Grace joyous.png)

That is right, anons!
I will get a SFW Alunya pic!
If you request. It can even be a SFW duo w/ Grace.
I am going to bed for now, but I anticipate requests.


M-m-maybe it can be them holding hands together in a mysterious landscape. Fear fills their spirits , But the magic of them being together makes them blush and feel a divine warmth

Or e-even it may be Alunya comforting Grace-chan by hugging while Grace Chan is saddened

I dont know, my imagination is foggy for now , but I think it would really good if Grace-chan x Alunya art drops


Alunya and Grace-chan sitting next to each other at a fast food restaurant, eating hamburgers. Grace-chan is eating it slowly and elegantly, using cutlery and that paper stuff they put in your neck so that if sauce drips it drips on it and not the expensive clothes. (It does not drip because Grace-chan is careful.) Meanwhile Alunya is wolfing it down, pushing the whole hamburger in her mouth with two hands, both covered in sauce, the hamburger is on the brink of completely falling apart, sauce is everywhere. They are both completely absorbed in their own process of consuming the food.


File: 1680564986201-0.png (138.36 KB, 500x500, Grace shy love.png)

Eating food like that I find kinda gross.
All the biting, swallowing, sauce, and meat – I get hyperfocused on it. I have a weak appetite, tbh.
It might be meatphobia or saliva for me. Because if Grace & Alunya were sharing a sundae or shake it or a pocky stick, it wouldn't so bad.
But I might see about this.
I have a reference after all.

There wouldn't be any landscapes.
The art would be like the art you see now–
With a transparent or white background.


File: 1680701865642-0.png (131.18 KB, 500x500, Grace shy blush.png)

File: 1680701865642-1.png (139.12 KB, 450x780, 1674109742528-0.png)

I could do
1 Grace pic w/ Alunya min
Or 6 duo pictures max.


Pocky could be cute. It forces them to look at each other. Although shyly looking away can be cute too.


File: 1680710327765.png (2.64 MB, 3740x2808, grace alunya kissu.png)

Although we already have this most adorable picture.


i agree sundae/shake would be cuter, meat products are gross and undialectical


It could be a vegan burger.


well I guess that's better but still a bit gross


Why won’t Alunya just guillotine her already?


Because sexually reforming the monarchs is better, ask Puyi


They love each other.


File: 1680747424374-0.png (125.61 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 01.png)

File: 1680747424374-1.jpg (5.72 MB, 3135x3764, Louis XV.jpg)

<Louis XV speech
>It is only in my person where the sovereign power resides, whose proper character is the spirit of advice, justice and reason; it is to me that my courtiers owe their existence and their authority; the fullness of their authority, which they exercise only in my name, always resides in me and can never be turned against me; To me alone belongs the legislative power without dependency and without division; it is by my authority that the officers of my Court proceed not to the formation, but to the registration, publication and execution of the law […]; public order emanates from me, and the rights and interests of the Nation, of which a separate body from the Monarch is usually made, are necessarily united to mine and rest only in my hands.


File: 1680794661371-1.png (113.74 KB, 500x500, Grace flag Russia 01.png)

File: 1680794661371-2.png (114.53 KB, 500x500, Grace flag chess.png)


File: 1680917846922-0.png (171.98 KB, 500x500, Grace joyous.png)

File: 1680917846922-1.png (91.89 KB, 270x270, 1627016714489.png)

My plan:
There will be 4 duo Grace & Alunya pics.
not sure how well the artist will draw Alunya
Then 5 Grace pics solo.
my birthday is at the very end of April - 20-something


I hope it'll make you happy for your birthday anon ^^ Like how you make us happy














File: 1681816848344-0.png (814.83 KB, 3000x3000, Grace wink OC.png)

This picture reminded me of a post I made in the last thread.
where I decided for leftypol's sake to bring up KJI's funeral


I'll comment on this pic related that the public holiday people received was some days off for the funeral of their Sovereign Queen – in numerous other countries too thanks to imperialism and the Anglosphere.

Kim Jong Il has the Day of the Shining Star as a holiday celebrated every season & his image was placed alongside his father on the party badges that many people wear (not only policemen).


Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan on Worship
>But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an earthly Soveraign.

>To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the Soule of the Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to the Stool, it were Divine Worship, and Idolatry.

>To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we acknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray unto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe for us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King compell a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall punishment, it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign commandeth to bee done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not a sign that he that obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but that he is desirous to save himselfe from death, or from a miserable life; and that which is not a sign of internall honor, is no Worship; and therefore no Idolatry. Neither can it bee said, that hee that does it, scandalizeth, or layeth any stumbling block before his Brother; because how wise, or learned soever he be that worshippeth in that manner, another man cannot from thence argue, that he approveth it; but that he doth it for fear; and that it is not his act, but the act of the Soveraign.

<Honour And Worship What

>Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the Power, and Goodnesse of another: and therefore to Honour God, is to think as Highly of his Power and Goodnesse, as is possible. And of that opinion, the externall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestowes on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it. Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and the profit they yeeld, followeth the labour we bestow upon them, as a naturall effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour, according to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their mindes. In the second sense, where mens wills are to be wrought to our purpose, not by Force, but by Compleasance, it signifieth as much as Courting, that is, a winning of favour by good offices; as by praises, by acknowledging their Power, and by whatsoever is pleasing to them from whom we look for any benefit. And this is properly Worship: in which sense Publicola, is understood for a Worshipper of the People, and Cultus Dei, for the Worship of God.

<Several Signs of Honour

>From internal Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power and Goodness, arise three Passions; Love, which hath reference to Goodness; and Hope, and Fear, that relate to Power: And three parts of external worship; Praise, Magnifying, and Blessing: The subject of Praise, being Goodness; the subject of Magnifying, and Blessing, being Power, and the effect thereof Felicity. Praise, and Magnifying are significant both by Words, and Actions: By Words, when we say a man is Good, or Great: By Actions, when we thank him for his Bounty, and obey his Power. The opinion of the Happiness of another, can only be expressed by words.

<Worship Natural and Arbitrary

>There be some signs of Honour, (both in Attributes and Actions,) that be Naturally so; as among Attributes, Good, Just, Liberal, and the like; and among Actions, Prayers, Thanks, and Obedience. Others are so by Institution, or Custom of men; and in some times and places are Honourable; in others Dishonourable; in others Indifferent: such as are the Gestures in Salutation, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, in different times and places, differently used. The former is Natural; the later Arbitrary Worship.

<Worship Commanded and Free

>And of Arbitrary Worship, there be two differences: For sometimes it is a Commanded, sometimes Voluntary Worship: Commanded, when it is such as he requireth, who is Worshipped: Free, when it is such as the Worshipper thinks fit. When it is Commanded, not the words, or gestures, but the obedience is the Worship. But when Free, the Worship consists in the opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by which we intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely; they are not Worship; because a sign is not a sign to him that giveth it, but to him to whom it is made; that is, to the spectator.

<Worship Public and Private

>Again, there is a Public, and a Private Worship. Public, is the Worship that a Commonwealth performs, as one Person. Private, is that which a Private person exhibits. Public, in respect of the whole Commonwealth, is Free; but in respect of Particular men it is not so Private, is in secret Free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is never without some Restraint either from the Laws, or from the Opinion of men; which is contrary to the nature of Liberty.

<The End of Worship

>The End of Worship among men, is Power. For where a man sees another worshipped supposes him powerful, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do him, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to capacity, by those rules of Honour, that Reason dictates to be done by the weak to the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of damage, or in thankfulness for good already received from them.


I think the craziest thing about Lizzie the IInd is that somehow even former colonies paid their respects to her during the funeral. I'm sure you will chalk it up to the inherent charisma a monarch has a living symbol of a culture grace anon


DPRK anons in response to accusations of a Cult of Personality also point to the USA & Mt. Rushmore. This is a good point.

All states & nations have a Cult of Personality.
No less than North Korea

Nationalism itself is a manifestation of the Cult of Personality: the money and images and statues, the national identity, the holidays, the sacrifices and tribute it demands, the notion of the People: all of it is a Cult of Personality.


File: 1681818589622-0.png (3.91 MB, 3400x3082, grace-reprimands.png)

File: 1681818589622-1.jpg (522.2 KB, 1920x1080, 1984-4 Leviathan.jpg)

<On the Cult of Personality
<A royal rule is a personal rule.
That is why they abuse the term "Cult of Personality".
The King is a mirror to his people, and the all people aspire towards a persona.
The Monarch is personal as they follow him like a shepherd, and his face gives a familial resemblance to them. So monarchical rule is personal like a shepherd who leads his flock with his person. The charm of princes has the same mesmerizing effect.
That's why it is said–
>When the government is personal, the ruler is a king.
A people desire a person

Hobbes on the Persona
<The word Person is latine; instead whereof the Greeks have Prosopon, which signifies the Face, as Persona in latine signifies the Disguise, or Outward Appearance of a man, counterfeited on the Stage; and sometimes more particularly that part of it, which disguiseth the face, as a Mask or Visard:
>And from the Stage, has been translated to any Representer of speech and action, as well in Tribunals, as Theaters. So that a Person, is the same that an Actor is, both on the Stage and in common Conversation; and to Personate, is to Act, or Represent himself, or an other; and he that acts another, is said to bear his Person, or act in his name; (in which sense Cicero uses it where he says, "Unus Sustineo Tres Personas; Mei, Adversarii, & Judicis, I bear three Persons; my own, my Adversaries, and the Judges;") and is called in diverse occasions, diversely; as a Representer, or Representative, a Lieutenant, a Vicar, an Attorney, a Deputy, a Procurator, an Actor, and the like."

<All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.

Max Stirner (allegedly)
>But only look at that Sultan who cares so lovingly for his people. Is he not pure unselfishness itself, and does he not hourly sacrifice himself for his people? Oh, yes, for "his people." Just try it; show yourself not as his, but as your own; for breaking away from his egoism you will take a trip to jail
<The Sultan has set his cause on nothing but himself; he is to himself the only one, and tolerates nobody who would dare not to be one of "his people".

Thomas Hobbes
>"From whence it follows, that where the publique and private interest are most closely united, there is the publique most advanced. Now in Monarchy, the private interest is the same with the publique. The riches, power, and honour of a Monarch arise onely from the riches, strength and reputation of his Subjects. For no King can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure; whose Subjects are either poore, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissention, to maintain a war against their enemies."

King James VI & I
>"For if the King want, the State wants, and therefore the strengthening of the King is the preservation and the standing of the State; And woe be to him that divides the weal of the King from the weal of the Kingdom. And as that King is miserable (how rich soever he be) that reigns over a poor people, (for the hearts and riches of the people, are the King's greatest treasure.)"


File: 1681818939690-0.jpg (74.67 KB, 1000x696, actor-on-stage.jpg)

File: 1681818939690-1.jpg (225 KB, 1536x1022, Qu1KdDzZ.jpg)

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

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

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

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

To add to >>396729
A common misconception is they see the head as the Sovereignty in Leviathan.
This would be accurate for King James VI & I.
What Hobbes compared Sovereignty to is the soul in relation to the body. The whole form: like 2nd pic related, it isn't only KJU's head, but also the whole form and shape of his figure. The head is usually seen as the senses and compared to the assembly, but the soul and every fiber of the person commands to make use of these.


File: 1681820868433-0.png (814.83 KB, 3000x3000, Grace wink OC.png)

File: 1681820868433-3.jpg (67.39 KB, 483x600, 2625920.jpg)

Grace you will remember
You will remember my name~

I have something new to add.

<On Propaganda

We often see propaganda compared to mind control.

I suppose, in the idealist way: we talk of hypnosis. With the swinging pendulum motion and repetition of words and swirly black and white spiraling. A manipulation of the mental state.

We hear about the right of the broader collective to instill in the individual: like a flower in a pot of soil.

Hobbes also tackles memory & a chain of thought.

Propaganda would be a manipulation of memory: replacing in the chain of thought, the desired object: like in a puzzle game, when blocks fall and sort themselves out, pushing one block out and inserting another.

In remembering, we make use of repetition.

So many propagandists in order to propagate a desire or their effect and goal. Such as M ussolini propaganda:

Si, si, si, si, si, si.


Dux dux dux dux dux

It's like Chinese water torture: droplets falling on your forehead and digging into your mind.

Hobbes describes memory as a decaying sense. And life as motion:

Blood is also seen as a lifeforce: blood flows and sustains.

It has also been seen in a spiritual sense and of the soul.

The Ant Queen in a monogamous ant colony is their lifeforce: the colony falls into decay. I suppose also for Bees there is urgency.

Jean Bodin says,
>This, in its turn, comes from elements affected unequally by external forces. The elements are disturbed by the power of the celestial bodies, while the human body is encompassed in the elements, the blood in the body, the spirit in the blood, the soul in the spirit, the mind in the soul. Although this last is free from all materiality, yet it is very much influenced by the closeness of the association.

When we talk about a blood relationship, it would be easy to see it as race: (as the nutritive element of the body-politic, the soldiers and farmers, that Bodin compares to some organ (I forgot) and added that farmers are like this faculty in providing food – I think the liver.

<Finally he assigned farmers and manual workers to the liver, so that they might supply food and necessaries for the state

This is a bit of a detour: but when you see in those North Korean videos talking about the life blood in relation to any of the Leaders: it is meant to symbolize that he is the lifeforce.

The Persona adds a human face: to which all people relate as a person. What a people so strongly desire, a person. Always gravitating as an audience to the person who captivates them on the stage: the multitude is always looking for a person.

We all know that famous propaganda piece: with the Duce's face and Si Si Si Si Si Si Si.

It shows the power of the persona and repetition (memory manipulation).

Keep in mind, and remember also, Hobbes' nominalism: concerned with names.

So very much the name and identity of a person, given from their parents, is repeated in life: you hear your name and that rebuilds your association. You wake up each morning and remember your name.

Like the effect, that God breathed life into the clay of Adam in Creation. Or allowing him to name the animals. Or the Tower of Babel and division of mankind into numerous languages.

Like the video related: it comes to the same effect for national holidays and remembering the names of any leaders.

And when a person is magnified, it increases the power and retention of memory: making the object in mind more powerful and pushing aside other memories and persons.


File: 1681821100484-0.jpg (17.77 KB, 279x181, 412314.jpg)

File: 1681821100484-3.jpg (481.37 KB, 839x1200, E3g-TxuXIAEA6cL.jpg)

The most powerful propagandist tool:
To associate daily activities with it:
Like drinking water, eating, and all kinds of actions daily done.
Take water and food: associate these things with your political cause and the persona close together.
So that in memory decaying, they will bind together that association.
Or the most awesome sights: like the Sun.


Images and statues could be used for instruction or how to act and who to be like.

Music is also useful: notably, military marches and other patriotic songs.

It is said that music speaks to the soul most of all.


& with blood, it is more than race: like I said, also, lifeforce.
water also told to constitute much of our bodies
the bronze age cultures associate semen with vitality too: a drop of semen is equal to ten drops of blood & forty drops of blood. Aristotle that semen is the residue derived from nourishment, that is of blood, that has been highly concocted to the optimum temperature and substance. Pythagoreans that semen is a drop of the brain. A bit No Fap – I am copy & pasting this from Wikipedia. Simply food for thought.


I like this picture here.
It's not from DPRK, but that cartoon. When KJI and the Soldier hold hands. & the Soldier holds his hand over his heart. Feeling the blood pulse in KJI's hand and KJI his hand. His heart pumping.
This picture captures the spirit of royalism & blood relationship with that red background.
& if I were in charge of any state ceremonies or signature gestures, this gesture I would use.


The farmers & workers a nutrition.
The Sovereign their soul of the Commonwealth:
a blood relationship between the people & their person; a life blood.
I looked at DPRK general and noticed Chondoists.
They were a peasant movement with views related to Confucianism and Korean shamanism. Exceptionally egalitarian & where the maxim that the people are god resonates.
>The essence of Ch’ŏndogyo is said to be contained in a 21-word formula (chumun) that is recited as the way to enlightenment. It is translated: “May the creative power of the universe be within me in abundance. May heaven be with me and every creation will be done. Never forgetting this truth, everything will be known.” This formula contains the basic principle of Ch’ŏndogyo: “Man and God are one” (In-Nae-Ch’ŏn); this oneness is realized by individuals through sincere faith in the unity of their own body and spirit and through faith in the universality of God.
<In keeping with its roots in Confucian thought, Cheondoism venerates Cheon (Sky) as the ultimate principle of good and justice, which is referred to by the honorific term Haneullim (하늘님), or "Divinity".
I would also add, that King Tangun, that North Korea venerates as the Founder of the Korean Nation & their Ancestral Father (& whom Kim Il Sung allegedly attests was a real person, according to Wikipedia) was
Not to overstate their influence: I think Juche itself has more to it than Chondoists (for one, in relation to the Leaders). Korean mythology also venerates the Sky & for Chondoists it is much more universal than the Sky (more like everything).
Along with King Tangun's kingdom of Gojoseon, the North Koreans refer to their country as Joseon. Whereas the South Koreans refer to it as Hanguk.
The notion of the People are God in Juche & Chondoists, I referenced to Hobbes' Leviathan which is the only Western text I can think of somewhat touching the idea: stating that his Leviathan (the monarchical corporation of the People, is a Mortal God under the Immortal God). Of course, Juche asserts man is sociable & is more collectivist than individualist: but I think they are shy in seeing the importance of an individual persona for collective aims (although they attest, one for all, all for one, as a communist motto). I was also surprised when that comparison was made, it was pinned I, for one, am amazed at how much pre-eminence is ascribed to their Leaders and how much it pulls my heart strings in terms of royalist sentimentality (or it is my projection onto DPRK).
I have toyed with the idea. & read the DPRK constitution: though it would be insincere to look at the DPRK constitution and suggest it is that way. I have taken note that the SPA & the Standing Committee that summons the SPA. At best I've seen to suggest is that the President of the State Affairs Commission (the head of State) is on the same term as the SPA. – What we are looking for is a perpetuity, however, & I suppose at best looking at the Juche doctrine and party structure as part of the State constitution extended would be the best way to cheese it (in making any case). This is viable since the WPK holds more than any other party in North Korea. & would be a matter of whether there is something in Juche that grafts a perpetuity of the leadership of KJU to the State constitution: after all the Central Committee of the WPK sends the proposal for the President of the State of Affairs Commission once the SPA is assembled. But this analysis carries with it a sus attitude & nobody likes that, tbh. I have already stated >>387883 here the notion of a military democracy in all fairness. I have a number of guesses, but like I stated towards BAPism – I hold Bodin's maxim that as there should be a supreme commander in the military, so also a supreme prince in the commonwealh. & Hobbes follows along
>And therefore whosoever is made Generall of an Army, he that hath the Soveraign Power is alwayes Generallissimo
This gets you only so far (as I am concerned).
The best I look upon are the videos I post, lol. –who's to say.
Like the video here
>Star in my heart
Like the endless sky
Embraces all the stars
Is slightly like the Chondoist belief of the universal sky embracing mankind, idk.
Another is the relationship between them and Mt. Paektu & the mythology of King Tangun.
I like the lyrics of the Land and the Farmers: along with the Leader in the 2nd video Our Rewarding Workplace. It has a respect for nature and the earth, like calling the land a yardstick of patriotism and the farmers do cultivate and nourish the land and in return the land does give them food. I have seen objections to DPRK & Juche as too man-centered and not caring for the environment, but these suggest otherwise. And Kim Il Sung has been keen to preserve Korean culture (I have seen this juxtaposed to the Cultural Revolution in China).


The bordering and rural areas have an especial relationship with Sovereignty: I think Bodin relates to the city, but also two districts both rural and urban. (He definitely sees the urban as more cultured, but rural where the rough and harderned people reside as the nutritive faculty). The center and the circle has a place in defining sovereignty: like the emphasis on borders.

The founding myth of Rome also has the borders defined with a plow.


File: 1681842144190-0.jpg (243.67 KB, 1708x2048, 1643679542925-0.jpg)

File: 1681842144190-1.jpg (34.24 KB, 640x526, kju tangun.jpg)

>Every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father.


That is all for now.


When will you come back?


We be crashing and burnin'
Gotta lot of good stuff
What you need is a little Yuri
Just a little Yuri
Our Monarchist Grace in the Yuri.
We make things better with a girly kiss
Just the pals being the gals
Doing the gays and ayys.

- Original and awful attempt at lyrics for 500 Alex.

Also hello again hope you are well. I see we are on thread seven we are out to get lucky tonight it seems. Going to tip some cows and then fly around in the UFO abducting people and placing them in different places just as a prank bro.


File: 1682153531251.png (216.92 KB, 441x331, cow-tipping.png)


File: 1682251787339-0.png (270.79 KB, 676x869, Grace VR 14.png)

I am back.
There should be art soon.
That is what you can look forward to.


That's good to hear!


File: 1682381294048-0.jpg (36.41 KB, 375x314, grace eyes glance.jpg)

File: 1682381294048-1.png (257.98 KB, 498x494, depressed dog.png)

We are all so fragile.
I have felt this way before, but never so strongly
knowing the fragility of people makes me compassionate

I enjoyed reading this.

idk when I'll have the Grace and Alunya art.
If it gets delivered, the anons are going to like it.


Oh no, did something happen to someone important to you?


I’m tired of her.
Send her to the guillotine.


Its been tried, so instead we tolerate her presence as long as it remains here. But as you know, we are here now.

>>I enjoyed reading this.
Well I am glad you did enjoy my attempt writing lyrics and poetry as they are similar but one spoken and the other sung. But I have written works before and will continue to do so.



File: 1682722814233-0.jpg (193.4 KB, 696x798, grace another crop.jpg)

File: 1682722814233-2.png (451.68 KB, 1140x1140, 166706330221329691.png)

I've been into monarchist politics for years and have decided to retire from being a political activst – I will still do royal colony threads and post grace art & there will be grace art here and there

But I am mostly retired.

I might get Grace new clothes (but she will always have her original clothes).


I had b-day blues sometime ago and I'm overall feeling moody.

There will still be Grace art & some upcoming –

A new royal colony thread soon.

The new royal colony thread will be more personal / apolitical.

I love the /siberia/ community & will post in a new thread.

Like I said, Grace might find new clothes to wear and another wardrobe.


Happy birthday!


File: 1682821651155-0.png (176.07 KB, 1092x1145, Grace sad crop 02.png)

sniff sniff
My time spent in e political activism was… a thankless job.
making the 1600s pamphlets on monarchy accessible… the reading list… the grace-chan art… the infograph series… all the effort i put into a revival of political thought.
no fans whatsoever in those circles.


File: 1682821734180.png (31.52 KB, 269x143, 122.png)

thank you, anon.


I'm sorry Grace, it sucks to be unappreciated.


File: 1682822038485.jpg (51.72 KB, 564x759, grover vi socialist.jpg)

Wait does this mean Grace-chan is becoming a communist finally? You can even be monbol if you must. embrace Grover VI thought


it's not a great feeling. The pang of rejection.
even worse my rivals get more success.
puke, those von hallerists, for example
urgh, i can't get them no matter what.

Grace-chan might LARP as a communist or wear communist clothes, at best.

my mental state isn't so good to become anything atm.


Sorry to hear you're having a bad time - how is life outside Grace-chan?


File: 1682823644506-0.png (140.16 KB, 500x500, grace pik 9.png)

It is laced with a bit of despair.
For the most part I am okay.


Okay then. Well hang in there <3 We are rooting for you. You are an honorary comrade.


File: 1682824234857-0.png (126.34 KB, 500x500, Grace concerning.png)

I plan to move to the next thread in a bit.


File: 1682827942297.png (251.82 KB, 986x562, markup_1000004150.png)

Hey grace, wanna try this pickled cabbage recipe? It's purple, goes good with tuna and eggs.


File: 1682881193523-0.png (125.61 KB, 500x500, Grace pikk 01.png)

This I might dp a few chores before retirement.

As for retirement, I will still be on the board-tan scene & playing with /tkr/, /hispol/, & /leftypol/.

I might bring about King James VI & I and England's Beauty dedicated to King Charles II for King Charles III's coronation.


File: 1683372940630-0.jpg (145.93 KB, 660x565, charles-ii-660x565.jpg)

To the most Potent, and Puissant Monarch Charles the II King of Great Britain, &c.

The epistle dedicatory.

Dread Sovereign,

God hath given us a Sight, the Sight of your Self. How many aking eyes where there once to see you? how many ravished eyes may there be now to behold you? Every one could not present such a sight; no, He in Heaven. Hath restored you to your Father's Throne to be looked upon as a glorious Spectacle. We saw for many years nothing but the horrid faces of strange Rulers, and now we have your Face of true Majesty to bless our eyes with.

OH that we had good eyes in our heads to discern the difference of Objects; what a change this, that whereas we saw nothing but Usurpers in their Barbarousness, Our does do now see a King in his Beauty? Your absence was the Bane, Your precense is the Beauty of the Nation. To apply all this Beauty to yourself, perhaps would be judged flattery, therefore I have endeavoured to show your three kingdoms, that there is a derivative Beauty in you, namely that your Majesty is our Beauty. For how is a Nation obscured if it has not a King in it? and how is it illustrated, if it hath a King reigning in Royal Splendour and Imperial dignity? I wish that there be no ill Judges of Beauty in the Land, and that there be none which are ready to strike at the face of Beauty. It doth grieve me, that when you have brought delight to the eyes of Millions, and put peace into all hands, yet there should be left amongst us some glaring eyes, and menancing hands… What need those King-vexers and Gad-flyes of Monarchs plot treasons, and kindle diffentions, when we have Incendiaries, and State-troublers of our own?

…Oh inexorable, oh incorrigible King-haters? Men have been mad, and some distempers we have lately found, but surely this frenzy will not always last. Let them look your Majesty through, and what occasion can they find in your of disgust, distaste, or so much as discontent? So far as I can perceive your Majesty doth but seek your Native Right, the established Religion, the fundamental Laws, the Honour of the HIghest, the freedom of the meanest, the welfare of the Nation, the Peace of the Kingdom, and they may see as well as I that your graces are conspicuous, your qualifications eminent, your carriage affable, your Government mild, your counsels prudent, your actions Heroical, your life spotless, and your conscience sincere, except therefore they would have an Angel to reign over them, where can they have in flesh and blood a more desired man? what heart can have a rancorous thought against such a King? No, I hope to see all your Enemies blush at their causeless anger, and senseless spight; yea to fall down at your Royal Feet, and repent that they have been so inconsiderate, and weep that they have been so unkind. Bear but with their former failings, & pardon that which is past (as what cannot that Royal Heart of Yours that is the living spring of clemency wash out of your remembrance? and methink your Majesty should have felt the last of animosities, and triumphs; people will not always kick against the pricks, and run upon the spears point of divine laws, but do that which God hath obliged them to, even honour your Person, acknowledge your Authority, submit to your Edicts, admire your Perfections, and be knit to you in the adamantine chains of Fidelity and Loyalty, that this wasted Country may once against become a flourishing Nation, and the Kingdom of Triumphs. Thus in all Humility prostrating myself at your Majesties Royal Feet, and Praying for your long LIfe, your increase of Princely Honours, your lasting Peace, and everlasting Bliss, submissively I take leave, and rest.

Your Majesties Devoted Subject in all unstained and inviolable loyalty.

Tho. Reeve.

First, for the opening of the Cabinet, or the clear manifestation, Thine eyes shall see. God's Cabinet bad been shut, but he would unlock it, people had lived in the dark, and though they might hope for much, yet for the present they discerned nothing, but this black sky should no always last, there should come a time of light and sight, though thy eyes do not see, yet thine eyes shall see. Thine eyes shall see. From hence observe, that the sweetness of a blessing is in the actual fruition of the same, not to have it is promised, but presented, not hoped for, but enjoyed.

Better is the sight of the eyes, then the wandering of the desire. Eccles. 6. 9. The wandering of the desires is pain, and grief, but the seeing with the eyes is contentment, therefore David praised God that he set one upon his Throne, his eyes seeing it. 1 Kings 1. 48. And God did comfort up his dear people, that their eyes should see, that God would be magnified from the border of Israel.

This does show first that God is the God of sights, the thing that is hid he can bring forth to light. Job 28.11. He can show wonders in the Heavens, and the Earth. Joel 2.28. Yea so delight our ears, and affect our eyes, that we shall stand in a kind of amazement, and say, Who has heard such a thing? and who has seen such things. – How great are his signs? how mighty are his wonders? Dan. 4. 3. Oh then we that are all rare things, and strange sights, why do we not cleave close to God? Is there any which can so dazzle our eyes? Is not he the God of objects? yes, he is great, Wonder-worker. He has given so much to the eye, that the eye cannot comprehend it. If we would be Spectatours of bright things, then we should never separate ourselves from him who does make every thing to shine with radiant beams, no, we should enjoy God, as the eye does the light. If we provoke the eyes of his glory, he will vex our eyes with sad sights, but if we do that which is acceptable in his eyes, he will do that, which shall be delectable to our eyes.

This does show us that we may depend upon God for wonders, the eyes of all things look upon thee, and they may, for he is the God of the eyes, and has the curious, and marvellous sights for them. The pictures with orient colours do hang in his gallery, the exquisite, polished, elaborate master-pieces are to be seen in his Providence. He is all hand. God in his one existency has anticipation of all things which can be shown. He does include the perfection of every being in himself. For other things it may be said that, Every thing is good by his own proper and particular good, but God has goodness in him not by way of limitation, determination, order, species, or measure; but by indivision, eminency, and excess, he being the Abstract of all the concrete excellencies in the world, for he is not hoc, aut hoc, sed omnia, this, or that, but all things. The living, and powerful thing of an unlimited virtue. There is in God the admirable beauty of the whole universe, therefore those things which come from him are not only good, but very good. God then can show us better things, and greater things, and brighter things, then ever we yet beheld. If potent man (as thou thinkest) can make thee see strange things, what can the Omnipotent God? As if it there were not in the whole world tongues loud enough to sing our God's praises, or eyes bright enough to see the admiration which shine in his works.

Rely upon this God then, and expect Wonders from him; when they eyeballs have asked to behold any thing that is comfortable, and nothing thou could discern, though thy eyes were ready to fall out. Deut. 28. 65. yet then he may tell thee that happy sights are at hand, yea say unto thee, Thine eyes shall see.

This does show that God is to have the honour of all rich blessings…. Oh then we are apt to turn our eyes the wrong way, even to fix them upon man, rather then God! For man we see, and think that by him we only see, that none presents objects to our eyes, but this Inferiour Deity…. God is the Founder, and Fosterer. What then? shall men be worshipped? no. Incense does belong to God, it is the good will of him that dwelt in the bulb. Deut. 33. 16. which does make every thing prosperous to us. Set aside God's assistance; what can the feeble arm of man do? no, he has wrought all our works for us. In thine hand is pwoer and strength, and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. 1 Chron. 29.12. Can we see any thing of ourselves, till God hold a blessing to our eyes? – Aaway then with the crys, and ingeminated praises that are given to men, let not these be so much as spoken of, till God has had the first song, the new song, and his song of degrees; praise not man at all, till ye have praised God in the Highest; no, let God have his Hymns before Man has his Panegyricks; And thus indeed, when God has had his worship, man may have his honour – we must remember to give the prime and principal reverence, veneration, and adoration to God, because man cannot show us a sight, nor bring to our view (of himself) the least thing, which can delight and affect the eye-sight, no, it is God only, that does say, and can say, Thine eyes shall see.

Oh therefore let us enamel our blessings, and as we have reigning mercies amongst us, so let us set a Crown upon the head of them. Let here be the new creatures, the children of light, the lively stones, the seed of the blessed, the trees of righteousness, the people that are partakers of the divine nature, that have a lot amongst them which are sanctified, that are brought from men, men that this world is not worthy of, yea let the whole Land be turned into a Kingdom of Priests. We ought to do this for our very sights' sake, our Objects do require us to be such Ornaments, and our mercies such Mirrours. What should be seen in us, when so much is seen by us? We see that which did not see, we see that, which we were once afraid we should never have seen; though we be now in fruition, and our eyes do see, yet let us remember how remote this happiness was, at what a distance the Object was placed from us, we had it but in expectation, or our greatest propinquity to it was in a promise, the sight reserved for the future, Thine eyes shall see.


File: 1683373199815-0.png (814.83 KB, 3000x3000, Grace wink OC.png)

File: 1683373199815-1.jpg (824.01 KB, 2048x2048, FTlidaHX0AEm3UL.jpg)

Part 2. The King.

I have done with the opening of the Cabinet, I now come to take out the Gem. Seeing there is a sight I would fain see what it is; Is it the best of the Nation? then I wipe mine eyes to look upon him. Has he been hid in a cloud? then it will be pleasure to see him, when God does present him. Has he not for many years been seen, and is now the seeing time come? Then I can no longer withhold mine eyes from him, no I passionately desire to see the King. Thine eyes shall see the King. The King. From hence observe, that A King is the perfection of all earthly Objects. Of all desirable and delectable Sights that this world can afford, a King is the splendour of them. Thine eyes shall see the King.

He is publici decoris lampas, the lamp of public brightness; Caelitum egregius labor, the Master-piece of the divine Artisan; Excubitor communis salutis, The Watch-man, or Sentinel of the common safety; magnum regni columen, the great pillar of the Kingdom, the heavenly dew to water a Nation; Caput quod ab alto providet, The head which from above does provide for multitudes; Oculus innatus corpori, The eye set in the head to look for the general good; Peritus Gubernator, The skillful Mariner which does preserve the whole bark from perishing; Paxillus reipublica, The stay, or supporter, upon which hang the weight of a whole Commonwealth; Ignis qui urit, & lucemprabet, The fire which does burn up all the wicked, and does give light to all the Godly. Yea, the Ancients knowing the high benefit of such a Supreme Governour know not how to bestow Elegies, and Encomiasticks enough upon him; And does not Scripture conur with these, and set out a King with as great lustre? yes, I have said ye are Gods, Ps. 82.6. As if a King were, the Mdeal, wherein Gods own Image is represented, Alter Deus in terris, another God upon earth. For (methink) I see in a King a semblance of God's infinite being, his quickening spirit, his out-stretched arm, and his glorious Majesty. He is not the Divinity, but a Synopsis of the Divinity, a God exemplified, or effigiated. Why are Kings to promised to Abraham, Kings shall come out of they loins, and so prophesized of by Jacob, Judah shall have a Scepter, and so passionately desired by the people, Give us a King, and so confirmed by God Almighty, by an Institution, an Oath, and by the holy oil, yea, why is God himself the great King, the King of glory, and the King of KIngs, if there were any thing upon earth more eminent then a King? As it is the greatest curse upon earth to want a King; For many days shall pass in Israel without a King. Hos. 3.4. and because we feared not the Lord, therefore we have no King. Hos. 10. 3. So it is the greatest blessing to have a King, for the shout of a King is amongst them. Num. 23.21. And the Lord has given you a King 1. Sam. 12.13. And, Why dost thou cry out? Is there not a King in thee? Micah 4.9. as if a King were there, all were all. When I read of so much reverence, & awful Subjection enjoined to Kings, that we must Submit to them for the Lord's sake, and not resist them for fear of damnation, that we must not provoke them to wrath, not stand in an evil thing against them, not curse them in our bed-chambers; how do I think that Kings are pricelessly tendered by God Almighty, and that they are his chief Favourites! yea, wherefore does he command so many prayers and supplications to be made for them, and that with a especially, as if he would have the lips of a whole Nation to sacrifice for their safety and welfare, if Kings were not the principal persons, which God had under his protection and tutelage? Well then if either God's love, or his laws, his titles, or his privileges, his mission, or commission, his consecration, or conservation, his impress, or his Image, his watchful providence, or his ireful vengeance concerning Kings be to be regarded, we cannot imagine any persons more conspicuous or precious, excellent or eminent than Kings. No, man's eyes cannot see no more exquisite, and magnificent Creature upon earth then a King, for Thine eyes shall see the King.

This does show that the want of a King is the inlet of all infelicity. For how can that Land be happy, where the eyes do not see a KIng? no, then servants ride on horseback. 10. Eccles. 7. The people shall be oppressed every one of another, and every one of his neighbor, the children shall presume against the ancient, and the vile against the honourable. Is. 3.5. For when the Kings are fallen, Hos. 7.7. All welfare fall with them, then presently they are mixt with strange worships, strangers devour their strength, & gray hairs are here and there upon them. Hos. 7.8.9. Yea, when Princes are hanged up by the hand, then the young are taken to grind, and the children fall under the wood, the Elders cease from the gate, and the young men from their songs, the joy of their heart is gone, and their dance is turned into mourning. – nay God does not sooner remove the Crown, but the Kingdom is no more the same it was, then presently God overturn, overturn, overturn. Ezech. 21.26.27. When the true Shepherd is removed, then there is nothing to be seen in the Nation, but the instruments of a foolish Shepherd, of such a Shepherd, which will not look for the thing that is lost, nor feel the tender Lambs, nor heal that which is hurt, nor feed that which standeth up, but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. Zach. 11. 15. 16. Take away such a Shepherd, and the poor flock goes to woeful desolation, for Arise oh Sword upon my Shepherd, and upon the man that is my fellow, that is, God's immediate Vicegerent, and what then? And the sheep are scattered, and God turn his hand upon the little ones, And in all the Land saith the Lord two parts therein shall be cut off, and die. Zach. 13.7.8. So that where a King is wanting, what but disorder, distraction, devastation, and desolation is to be expected? And have not we had experience of it? Yes, so soon as a King was gone, how did every one wear the Crown, and sit in the Chair of State? Peasants were Princes, and Mechanicks Monarchs, never such a spawn of new Lords, nor a litter of upstart Rulrers seen, paradoxes were principles… Delinquents Estates, and allegiance was conspiracy. Were there ever so many fundamental Laws overthrown, so many families ruined, so many millions spent, so many bowels torn out in five hundred years within this Realm, as there were in this short space of King-routing? Alas consciences, estates, privileges, speeches, looks, affections, labours, laws, lives, were all subject to the will of the insulting Conquerour… so our subjecting a King was the Original of all miseries of the Nation. In those days when there was no King in Israel, every man did that, which was good in his own eyes. Judg. 17.6. – Oh dismal Reign! oh miserable Realm without a King! will ye ever engage again to be ruled without a King, or House of Lords? will ye ever be ready to take an oath of Abjuration again against a Single Person? Then be ye for my part single, and singular, desperate, and willful Bondmen. For it is to make the whole Nation a slave to be destitute of a King, the presence of a King being the preservation of a Kingdom, for Thine eyes shall see the King.

This does serve to exhort us to be cheerful Seers. For have ye got a King again to look upon?

It is a sight that the eyes of a whole Nation might behold with admiration. Do ye not bless your eyes then, that ye are seeing that, which ye have so long seeking for? Do ye not know what ye could not see, what ye would have seen, what ye do see? Does the delight of a Kingdom grieve you? Does the desire of your eyes offend you? Have ye not what can be seen? can ye see a better? If thine eye then offend thee pluck it out, pluck out that evil out of thine eye. The eye is the light of the body. Have as clear an eye, as can be to see so bright an Object. Is there a diseased eye here? oh cure the malady. Are there any moles here? away with such Blinkards; are there any Bats here? away with such unlucky birds; Did the sight of Ostriches offend you, and shall not the sight of a Phoenix please you? Every man is delighted when he does see the light, and what is a King, but the Light of our eyes? The eye does receive the beams of the Sun in a spiritual manner, & so do ye the sight of a King, that glorious Sun.

Oh that we have opportunity to commemorate these things, that we have the happiness with our eyes freely to see them! was it a joyful thing once to hear of a King, and shall it not be much more joyful to see a King? yes, the sense of sight is much more perfect than that of hearing. If your eyes then should not take pleasure in that which was once so comfortable to your ears, your eyes are wonderfully distant from your ears, as Thales said.

Oh then that all the hearts of the Kingdom should not spring with joy, that all the feet of the Kingdom should not leap with Triumph, that all the eyes of the Kingdom should not gaze with pleasure to see such a solacing, satisfying, triumphant Object presented to the sight! Ye have not now a King living, or honoured beyond Sea, or counted worthy of a Crown by very strangers which conversed with him, but the faces of his own people are blessed with the sight of him; he is come towards you, he is come near you, he is come home to you. And what went ye out to see? nay, what is brought into your Throne to see? Can there be a more bright, amiable, delectable, splendid, illustrious, supereminent, matchless, majestical sight for the eyes of a whole Realm to look upon then a King? no, Thine eyes shall see the King.

This serves to exhort all to make a King Royal. And how Royal? but in being yourselves Loyal? How is he a King without Royalty? and how are ye Subjects without Loyalty? The Hebrews have a Proverb; that a man should fly out of that Kingdom, where a King is not obeyed. And doubtless no Nation shakes with a Quag-mire, or tossed with an Earthquake is more dangerous to stand upon. Rebellions are the burning fevers of Realms, the Deluges of States, the Eclipses of Nations, the hurricanes of Kingdoms. Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft. Sam. 15.23. For then all the Magicians are at work, and using all the inventions of their black Art. Traitours upon earth are but the disciples of Judas, or the State-students of Achitophel, or the Spirits that learn their aspiring Art of Lucifer. Goodly pedagogues that they are trained under, if I would have an Academy of Hell set up, I would have Traitours there commence, and become Graduates.

Oh then that men live under a King fomenting sedition, engendering Treason, yea that count it is a part of their Divinity to cast firebrands, and fire Beacons, and strike up drums, and display colours, and shoot off warning-pieces against their Sovereigns, that if they have not a plyable King according to their own mind, they will fight him into their bent, this is Pole-axe-religion, Gunpowder-Divinity.

…Therefore if there be a King, then amongst you give him the reverence and right of his Name, that is, be ye Loyal to him… Monarchy is that Government, which ye ought to be espoused to. Look therefore where ye should look, and see whom ye should see, and that is a King; See him to be a King, and see him, as a King; for that duty is that which must complete the delight of my Text, Thine eyes shall see the King.

For a King is in a Commonwealth like a heart in the body, the root in the tree, the Spring in the stream, the Eagle in the sky, the Sun in the firmament, & these pink-eyed people look upon a KIng not only with disdain, but defiance; They like not the honey of Government, nor the Bee that should afford it them. To such a King is an heart-gripe, an eye-sore, yea they look upon their fawns, and satyrs, – What need have we of a King? what does a King amongst us? They have cried themselves so long to be the free-born people of England, that they would not only be free in respect of liberty, but free in respect of Sovereignty. Oh this same Monarchy (say they) is the great bondage of the world! …Till they renounce their opinions, I do renounce them, and cannot think but all their fair words do but prepare, and fore-run (what in they lie) a foul day. They make themselves instantly secure, if they plead, they would have us abjure all Kingly Government to be lawful, if they will but abjure that as an excrable opinion, and give real assurances For they are the pests of States, and prodigees of Nations, they approve of no Government, they reject all Kings. And can there be greater Monsters in human society, then such swords-men against authority, and Headsmen to Kings? no, these are the worst eyes that can be in the head of a Nation, because the best eyes do delight in the presence of a King, and count it an happiness to see a King, for Thine eyes shall see the King.


File: 1683373365851-1.jpg (135.75 KB, 432x563, King Charles II.jpg)

Part 3. In his Beauty.

Now let us come to the lustre of the Gem, the Beauty of the King, Thine eyes shall see the King in his Beauty. From hence observe, that the glorious King is the King shining in the splendour of his Royalties; not only when an excellent title, but excellent Majesty is added to him. Dan. 4. 36. not only when the Land is the Land of his inheritance, but the Land of his Dominion. 2 Chron. 8. 6. not only when he has the chief place amongst men, but when he has the chief power amongst men, when he does rule over men. 2. Sam. 23.3. It is not the Crown, but the Crown-right, which does make a King, otherwise Kingship is but nobilis servitus, a noble kind of servitude. Nihil beatum sine libertate. Nothing can be called blessed without liberty. Magnificence without just power is but a golden chain. When the title is with one, and the command with others, this is rather to look like a King, then to live as a King. Therefore was it said of Vespasian, that when news was brought him concerning the accidents which had happened to Vitellius, that a certain Majesty arose in his countenance, which was never seen before, which did foretell, that ere long he should be Emperour. The Majesty of a King then is the true Inauguration of a King, for what is Majesty, but Major potestas, the greater power? Deprive a King then of his Royal power, and men had as good pluck the Crown from his Head, this is truly Crimen lese Majestatis, that though men never touch the King's Person, yet they touch his Majesty, and this haughtiness of itself is High Treason.

If I be a Father where is my honour? So if there be a King, where is his Royalty?

Those things, which do immediately pertain to a King should have an inherent dignity in them, yea, it is not fitting reliquias Regis jacere inhonoratas, that the very Reliques of a King should remain without honour… So any thing which tends to the diminution of a King's honour is reprehensible, and criminal. Cicero pleading for Deiotarus a King, says, The name of a King was ever holy in this City. So that is the best City and Country, where the name of a King is most Sacred, & the person of a King most reverenced.

He that does take away from a King his prepotency and Supremacy had as good steal the Crown Jewels.

Let a Prince show himself affable to the people, but let him not suffer himself to be condemned. For if he has lost his dignity, he is a King, but without Royalty. An arrogant Courtier, or an insolent Statesman that is too bold with the King's power is next to a Rebel, which does fight against him with an armed hand. A wise counsel is requisite for a King, but counsel had need have in it two grains of modesty to one of direction. If it troubled David so much that he had cut off the lap of Saul's garment, then how may it trouble them which cut off half the Robe of Majesty, Auctoritas Principis nata est ex metu & admiratione. The authority of a Prince is begotten of fear, and admiration. When a King then has lost his dread and reverence he is but a painted Sun. The vulgar is apt to grow insolent, but this audaciousness is to be repressed. Therefore Aristotle would not have too much honours given to Subjects, lest they should hold themselves Compeers with their Prince. It is ever perillous for the name of any private man to be equalled, or preferred before the Prince. Majesty in a Prince is as it were the soul of the Kingdom. What safe sailing is there where the Mariners do not obey the Ship-Master? Contempt is as great a seedsman of rebellion as hatred, for the one is begotten of ambition

Petrus Crinitus has a notable discourse, that when Anacharsis came to Athens, and saw the Princes but only giving counsel for things to be done, & the people decreeing all, he cried out, Oh Commonwealth is a short time coming to ruin, where the Princes propound things, and the people determine them!

So if a Prince be not Superiour in command it is to take in pieces the joints of a Throne, and to bring down a King that should order all to the wills of Inferiours. Let as much honour as can be given to faithful Counsel, but still let the Prerogative be inviolable. It is good advise, if well listened to, which is given in the 8. of Eccles. 2. I advertise thee to take heed to the King's Commandment, and that in respect of the Oath of God, because God has precepted, and swore a whole Kingdom to the Commandment of a King. For wherefore is he a King, if he should stand by to see his Commands vilified, and neglected? would a matter of the anvile, or the awle, or the frippery wares be thus used? Let every one then have his right, honour to whom honour belongeth, Royalty to whom Royalty belongeth. If a King does want his just authority he is but an appellative King. For what is it to see a King wear Robes, fit in a Throne, hold a Scepter, if he does want his Sovereignty? this is but to see a King in his Bravery, and not a King in his Beauty. In beauty there must be no skarre, so in the Government no restraint of just authority. He is never a complete King, till there be an unshaken liberty in governing. A Lion wheresoever he be, he is a Lion; so a King wheresoever he be he must be reigning. The King must give the word to the whole Nation, all must incline to follow him. Judg. 9.3. They must be at his bidding. 1 Sam.2.2.14. At his word they must go out, and at his word they must come in. Num. 27.21. They must move forward, & backward, as he does give the charge. A resplendent King is he which is Imperial, which is powerful in having his Mandates observed, This is a King in his beauty. Thine eyes shall see the King in his Beauty.

This does show that a right King is a rare Beauty. For can the eye of a man behold a more choice Object upon earth, then a lawful and righteous King? no, when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice, Prov. 29:2. For such an one is the Minister of God for good. Rom.13.4. When a King does reign in justice, the Princes rule in judgment, that man shall be an hiding place from the wind, and a refuge from the tempest, as rivers of water in a dry place, and as the shadow of a rock in a weary Land, the eyes of the Seeing shall not be shut, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken, the heart of the foolish shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stutterers shall speak distinctly. That in such a King's days judgment shall dwell in the desert, and justice shall remain in the fruitful field, the work of justice shall be peace, even the work of justice, and quietness, and assurance for ever, yea the people shall dwell in the tabernacle of peace and in sure dwellings, and safe resting places.

Now these words though they be spoken mystically of Christ, yet literally they are meant of any good King; for a good King how beneficial is he? A king by judgment maintains his Country. Pro. 29.4. For he knows that he is therefore constituted King, that he might do equity, and righteousness 1. Kings. 10.9. and therefore is a Copy of the Law put into his hand, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words of the Law, and the Ordinances. Deut. 17. 19. Such a King will be like David, who fed Jacob his people and Israel his inheritance, with a faithful and true heart, and ruled them prudently with all his power. Ps. 78. 72. 73.

A good King does chiefly look to have his Throne established by righteousness. Prov. 25.5. and that his people under him may lead a peaceable, and a quiet life in all godliness, and honesty. Tim. 2.2. This is a good King, and indeed his worth, and value is scarcely known; A good King is like a good Spring, a good mine, a good corner-stone, a good Magazine, a good Angel, which made Aristotle to say, that it were better for a City to be governed by the best man, than by the best law, because his life is a Law, and there need no other precept, but his precedent. He is the rare Painter which makes his whole Kingdom a picture drawn out with Orient Colours. He is so transformed into God, that (as ludovicus Carssus wished his on) the people may see the immortal Judge sitting in him. Which made Paulus Jovius to say that Kings had distinct eyes from other men, because they look out with their Princely eyes minding only the general benefit. Such a Prince does remedy the errours of former Governments, as Micerinus did the high enormities of Cheops, and Chephren which reigned before him in Egypt. – In such an ones Government people leave groaning, and there are nothing but laeta & fausta, pleasant and delightful things to be seen, as it was said of Sitalces; or all grievances being removed, the Nation lives without fear, or perplexity, as it was said of the reign of Alcimus. That wise Governour does make it his principal art to restore the ancient glory of a Nation, as Justinian the Great did, or like that famous Tiberius the second, he has no other Princely ambition in his breast, but none of his precedessours might exceed him in piety or felicity. That Prince is so honoured by the people, that like another L. Piso because he had done all things for the welfare of the Nation he shall be surnamed Frugi, the Profitable, yea, there are prayers made by the whole Land, that such an one may not die childless, lest such a renowned family should perish (as it is said of Ariston the King of Lacedemonia) and if God send an heir, for the Father's virtues they are willing to have the child's name called Demarathus, the people's Darling; and well may it be so, for a good King does take his Crown out of God's hand, and does wear it for his honour; his heart is in Heaven, and his eye upon the Church; he does first seek for the purity of religion, and is careful that sacrifices without blemish be brought to the Altar; he does look to conquer rather with his bended knees, then his armed hand; he does prefer a penitent before a Peer, and a just liver before a high-borne Grandee; he does desire to have his Priests undefiled, and his Judges uncorrupt; he does want no Majesty, and yet does abound in humanity; his speech is gentle, and his hand is soft; he is passionate against incorrigible sinners, and yet compassionate to remorseful enemies; he grieves at intemperance, and hates blasphemy; he likes neither the laughing Projectour, nor the weeping Sectary; he would have his Sanctuary without indevotion, and his treasury without injury; his watchful conscience is the Squire of his body, and his deprecatory petitions his best Life-guard; his innocent life is his ingraven Image, and his pious examples his richest Medals; he does shine like a Sun himself, and does wish to have none but bright Stars about him; next to his own pure heart he does endeavour to have a pure Court; he does stand upon his own prerogative, but catch at none of his people's liberties; he had rather gild a Kingdom, then his Exchequer; his Crown-land does satisfy him better then breaking an Inclosure; he can see a Vineyard out of his Palace-Window without proclaiming himself Own