No.465574
>>465572armenian cory reference mommy get in here
No.465628
>>465599Dayum Elvis is still alive?
No.465930
>>465813Sonic wouldn't snatch Grace from Alunya.
Sonic would say, That's no good!
No.465938
>>465571For the love of god just chop her head off.
No.465947
quick, send the attack doggos against the tickleoisie!
No.466338
I heard anons haven't played Sonic the Hedgehog on Genesis.
Let's fix this. With a very easy-to-do tutorial.
Set up 3 folders on your desktop.>1st folder, emulator storage folder (for emulator folders)>2nd folder, the shortcut folder (put your emulator shortcuts in this folder)>3rd folder, rom storage folder (where you'll put your games).By having 3 folders, it'll be easy for you to setup emulators.
Kega Fusion is the best Sega Genesis emulator I'm aware of.
You might want 7zip or winrar. I recommend 7zip.
https://www.7-zip.org/To use 7zip is easy:
>right-click & scroll down to 7zip>either click on Extract Here or Extract To in order to open a zipHere is a tutorial in 7 easy steps + a video tutorial
Kega Fusion & Genesis tutorial:https://segaretro.org/Kega_Fusion1st:
>Download Kega Fusion^2nd:
>Extract from zip & place the folder you get from the extract in the emulator storage folder3rd:
>inside the folder, right-click the application & create a shortcut, then place that in the shortcut folder4th:
>get Sonic the Hedgehogfrom google searching Vimm Lair vault – then find its Genesis subsectionIt's a safe site btw, generally speaking.
5th:
https://www.romhacking.net/utilities/383/>Get SBWin here^ and use it to convert the MD files to .bin6th:
>Go to Kega Fusion & Options Tab > Set Config > Controllers7th:
>Go to File > Load Genesis / 32X ROM > play No.466343
>>466338I'm probably the only one here that got all the 6 chaos emeralds on Sonic 1 without savestates
Sonic 1 only has 6 emeralds for some reason, had to install a super/hyper sonic hack of the game, game gets 9000 times better with hyper sonic No.466388
>>466382i downloaded sonic on the suggestion of her majesty but with blastem instead
No.466513
hello grace, I made the thread about the whacky dictator of Guinea, and i wanted to make another one just for you
meet Jean-Bédel Bokassa, emperor of the Central African Empire who if still alive today would probably have Grace Chan on his computer
(warning, some of what you read may have been fabricated by his haters, especially the cannibalism and school massacre)
>One of 12 children to a village chief literally named Mufasa
>His rebellious father was dragged in chains by the french, beaten in the town square to death, and his mother committed suicide, he saw all of this at the age of six
>Named by his teacher “Jean-Bédel” after an author that Bokassa became attached to.
>One of his biggest idols in school was Napoleon Bonaparte.
>Was going to be a priest but declined the offer because he found it boring.
>Served in ww2 against nazi germany in southern france as a tirailleur, and in the first Indochina war against ho chi minh, where he married a Vietnamese girl and had a daughter before leaving them to France thinking he would return for another tour of duty in the near future.
>After returning to his now autonomous country he was able to rapidly rise the ranks to become the commander in chief of the newly formed central African armed forces only because his cousin was the president and because he was the only one around the staff who knew how radio transmitters work
>Sought to claim recognition through flexing and gaslighting, he was known to frequently appear in public wearing his military decorations, and in ceremonies, he would often push whoever was sitting next to President Dacko to take his chair just to display his importance in the government.
>Despite this, the president wasn’t afraid he might pull a coup, at an official dinner, he said, "Colonel Bokassa only wants to collect medals and he is too stupid to pull off a coup d'état”
>Promised the french diplomats that he would topple the government to rid the CAR from the influence of communism, and promised the people he would topple the government to rid the CAR from the influence of imperialism
>Charles de gaulle called him in a conversation “my companion-in-arms”
>During his coup, he was backed by Muammar Ghaddafi, the French government, and Ceausescu at the same time
>The French government in particular refused later to recognize him for over five months, but when he threatened to stop using the franc and to trade in rare minerals with France, they reluctantly agreed.
>His coup speech included the following “The bourgeoisie is abolished. A new era of equality among all has begun. Central Africans, wherever you may be, be assured that the army will defend you and your property … Long live the Central African Republic!” he also released all prisoners and put in their place the former president.
>Some of his new laws include; making a morality police that would monitor bars for profanities and immorality, banning the tom-tom drum except during weekends, men and women between the ages of 18 and 55 had to provide proof that they had jobs, or else they would be fined or imprisoned, street beggars of any kind were also banned. Polygamy, dowries, and female circumcision were all abolished, and the creation of two national orchestras.
>When a lower-ranking general named Banza attempted to overthrow him. He had the man to be placed in the trunk of a Mercedes vehicle and brought before him, he almost beat banza to death with a metal coffee stirrer before putting him on trial.
>First leader of his country to allow female prime ministers
>After the death of de Gaulle, Bokassa himself said: "I lost my biological father as a child, and now I turned towards my true father, General de Gaulle…"
>After a meeting with Gaddafi in September 1976, Bokassa converted to Islam and changed his name to Salah Eddine Ahmed Bokassa. It is presumed that this was a ploy calculated to ensure ongoing Libyan financial aid. Especially that he converted back to Catholicism the following year and then converted once again to islam before converting back one final time to catholocism
>Declared himself emperor Bokassa the first in 1977
>Bokassa claimed that the new empire would be a constitutional monarchy. In practice, however, he retained the same dictatorial powers he had held for the past decade as President for life.
Forced the French to pay for his coronation, which they agreed to so long as he broke ties with Libya and didn’t go after the diamond and uranium mining companies
>Was Coronated on the same day as Napoleon, His coronation ceremony alone is said to have cost 20 million USD(80 Million today) and was apparently 1/3 of the state budget and all of France's aid money for that year. 5 million of it alone was spent on his crown and bronze eagle throne; the coronation took place in a sports stadium and was attended by the prince of Liechtenstein
>tried to replicate the crowning ceremony of Napoleon but the white horses that were to pull the imperial carriage and had been specially imported from France quickly died of heatstrokes so he had to finish the journey to the royal palace by car
>When the presidents of other African republics refused to attend his coronation, he was quoted saying “They’re jealous because I have an empire and they don’t”
>Declared his son an admiral, of a landlocked country.
>The guest list included the emperor of Japan, Reza Pahlavi and the pope.
>During his coronation, It is said he served slaughtered children to the Italian and German diplomats whom he called “cannibalists” and “leeches”
>proclaimed himself the uncrowned King of Scotland and created a dollar store Victoria Cross so he could have VC in his title
In 1979 he had hundreds of schoolchildren arrested for refusing to buy uniforms with his face on them from a company owned by one of his wives. Bokassa was reported to have personally supervised the massacre of 100 of the schoolchildren by his Imperial Guard.
>Was supposed to be executed after his majesty lost power in a coup supported by the French secret service, they let him live and serve in the central African republic as a politician anyway.
Left dead and rotting bodies in a fridge in his place. Was still exempted from being tried for cannibalism because it was not considered to be a crime but a “misdemeanor” by the law
When his health declined, he proclaimed himself the Thirteenth Apostle and claimed to have secret meetings with the Pope John Paul II
>was posthumously rehabilitated after death in 2010 which increased his popularity despite some of his crimes, being called "a son of the nation recognized by all as a great builder".
He had 17 lovers of various nationalities, Romanian, Tunisian, Gabonese, French,Belgian, vietnamese and more, one of whom was Marie-Reine Hassen, and a reported 50 children, three of which included Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Crown Prince of the Central African Empire, Jean-Serge Bokassa, and Kiki Bokassa. All claimants to the throne
titles include “His Imperial Majesty Bokassa the First, Apostle of Peace and Servant of Jesus Christ, Emperor and Marshal of Central Africa”
No.466540
>>466379That is a max /comfy/ mp4.
Hope more anons will play Sonic 1.
My challenge for today is for anons to beat Sonic 1 in one sitting.
Then send a screencap to this post of either Sonic 1 end screen: (with Sonic or the Eggman)
No.466583
>>466580
Isn't that from some old ppdppl art?
No.466585
>>466583Yep, it's paps art.
For clarity's sake, I edited and painted over it.
No.466757
>>466540>>466540game is harder than i thought it was gonna be, ill get back to it.
No.467080
>>466757Let me guess…
Stuck at Marble Zone or Labyrinth Zone?
tips:
>try collecting rings and doing special states for continues; you get continues by collecting enough rings in a special stage>find extra life boxes around Green Hill Zone and Marble ZoneBtw, there are shortcuts in Marble Hill Zone & Labyrinth Zone that make them much easier.
No.467147
>>467124 (me)
I forgot the emulator was on low volume, probably not too low I think.
No.467212
>>467205acktchually it's hyper sonic, the only appearance was in S3&K after u get
14 emeralds in the game
>file is the rom hack No.467479
>>467309I paused a bit around the COPE in Spring Yard Zone.
>>467397That old pic of Grace on a laptop needs to be updated and remastered badly.
No.469512
I like this artist, very beautiful Grace pics
No.470149
Sonic tier list:
https://tiermaker.com/create/sonic-the-hedgehog-mainline-games-53564
>leftypol anons shall rank their Sonic tier lists againHave any opinions changed since last time?
I might play more Sonic and re-arrange my old list.
S-tier will likely stay unchanged for me (luv me Sonic 1 & SA1 / SA2).
No.470595
Guess Grace-anon likes Sonic very much O.o
No.470624
Sanic the fastboi he's the fastest uyghlet alive
No.470893
Do you like Robert Filmer, Grace?
No.472073
I'm aware Evola also made the reverse critique from Guenon, too. Yet I also find Evola disagreeable and Evola likewise criticized us (so I feel justified).
I've never liked the NRx / traditionalist crowd hovering around Spengler, Guenon, and Evola – those spergs have a certain air to them and apathy I find disagreeable when it comes to monarchy and my own ideals.
I put my foot down too b/c I certainly don't agree w/ Guenon that we should return to the Thomas Becket era where the kings lacked majesty or pre-eminence and where the political estate was overlooked in the doctrine of the two swords…I def for sure don't want that same apathy toward the majesty of monarchy. I'd rather agree w/ Hobbes that back then there was the same apathy when the political order meant so much more, – that I cannot help agree with the Fascists on this one. As all the philosophers too found the political order noteworthy whether it was Plato's Republic or Statesman or Aristotle's Politics.
All in all there's a reason why I'm a monarchist and not a theocrat alone – part of it is I highly value the political as an ideal and unity as I expressed
>>469539 here – the other is I feel a stronger bond with monarchy would lead to integrity and inspire virtue, as the political forms of state do come with certain virtues like Aristotle himself confesses.
I've had traditionalists come up to me and say it doesn't fundamentally whether it's a monarchy or not, but the system of values – which I disagree with again. The way contemporary rightwingers talk about morality independent of the policy and structure of society is asinine to me – different structures reflect different values, what makes a good monarchy is different from a good democracy and so on, the same way we don't talk about moral order irrespective as if it didn't matter whether parents or their children had the integrity of the family. Again, the apathy of traditionalists toward policy I find to be part of their own downfall if I had to criticize them. It's their own neglect of making this dichotomy of the secular and spiritual and deeming the political order not an ideal worthy of pursuit that pushed them off the rest of society and made the radical shift toward secularism inevitable – because the political order accounts for everything in society, the priest caste and warrior caste, the maintenance of justice and order overall. And it's the monarch's part, not as a warrior or priest, but as the head of a household (that's the idea of monarchy in my mind)… monarchy appeals to me precisely because it's unique, not because it's part of a clique (which I say to the caste mentality) – the monarch is an individual power who gives us an indivisible sovereign power and has majesty, not only that it's a hierarchy (rule by priests) or a stratocracy (military government) – the ideal of monarchy and majesty is a strength insurmountable and not one clique against the other clique – this misunderstands majesty.
No.472089
Evola dismisses absolute monarchy and in particular Thomas Hobbes to be atheist and uninspired. Albeit without consideration of Jean Bodin and others.
Between Evola and Guenon – there are typically those stressing warrior caste or priest caste.
Say what you will about Hobbes and how Leviathan is Enlightenment-tier – I'm convinced Hobbes had the right idea about Sword and Crosier – direct and indirect power – Hobbes understood the problem and redressed it by uniting them both under one person, a very monarchist conviction.
There's a reason why totalitarian / authoritarian societies (whatever you call it) lead by political minds seem more successful overall in impacting a change than the pockets of traditionalists and churches in Western democracies. –They've never been able to overcome that chasm set by their distinction of the secular and spiritual and realized in the Enlightenment. Whereas the totalitarian and authoritarian and politicized regimes are very successful in impacting – they not only change the values, but deal with society at large, something the traditionalists have never fully committed to doing because they deemed it merely a secularism. They've revitalized the political and re-organized society accordingly, they've been successfully instilling order in the modern world and realized social integrity in ways traditionalists frankly cannot (albeit they would slander these regimes). The basic conservative redpill with morality is sorta half-realized because of this. They see society and social disunity and come to this, but they haven't come to appreciate the craft of social unity in politics which takes into consideration all of it from the family and overall state under which warriors and priests are brought up.
You find this problem with Catholicism – that you have clashes with the Vatican, because the priesthood is raised under the state – inevitably it creeps into the Church because the priests themselves are born and reared this way – you find it with low church and Protestants that they clash with the World or society (which to them is like a big public school) that even their children will be influenced no matter how much they try to shelter them. It's all because the political dominion matters a hecka lot and the structure of society inspires virtues for people to follow. If we don't focus on the political as a high pursuit, so much is abandoned and fall shorts no matter how much they put consideration in morality and the religion – you need heroes and a structural integrity the political encompasses.
This is why I personally think Evola was in the wrong in criticizing Fascism – and why ᴉuᴉlossnW and Giovanni Gentile had the right idea.
Giovanni Gentile:
>A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit
ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
>Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values.
That's why I don't call myself a traditionalist (apart from being associated with other doctrines). Being an absolute monarchist is a little heterodox and we tend to be black sheepish at times – to assert one person as supreme it's almost a necessity. Otherwise we would settle for the mixed state and all the other ideas that were considered traditional and the norm, but this order lacked certain notions of monarchy we sought to establish.
No.472116
Evola was a Pagan. Guénon became a Muslim.
It's a bit weird for traditional Christians (who don't believe in universalism of religions btw).
In a way, I kinda lament the ascendance of traditionalists and esotericism in rightwing circles (particularly Fascism) b/c they replace and take the spotlight over such valid opinions concerning politics.
I feel the same way for Monarchy. It's taken for granted that what denomination you are will inevitably lead to what politics you hold in e-monarchist circles a lot. And while Hobbes acknowledged this in the Presbyterians trying to establish a democracy in England with the Puritans – I'd also note there are some inconsistencies that it's not always a solid deal. It might make sense for England when they were united, but sometimes it's also an inconvenience when they're separated and yet mirror each other – it evolves into a Cain and Abel or Romulus and Remus scenario. Many right libertarians, for example, also tend to be Catholic and yet Cromwell also established a dictatorship and was close to having his own dynasty. I'm not of the opinion that if we shill Catholicism then a monarchical state will inevitably follow – we might get a traditional monarchical state with all the regalia, but I don't take it for granted as there are many Catholic countries that also aren't monarchies. But that's my criticism of e-monarchist business: way too much focus on what denomination rather than simply the political idea of Monarchy: it wasn't like that in the Herodotus Debate, for example. It's also crucial to me to stress Monarchy as a political form of state just as much, but many e-monarchists dawdle around it. A big difference between us is they consider the Middle Ages as the quintessential time of monarchy and no improvements could've been made… but I clearly think otherwise given what I said about the Thomas Becket era. I tend to think of the crown and regalia more like the paint that comes with monarchy and the culture, but not necessarily the paint makes monarchy: for instance, some monarchies don't wear crowns or the ones that do only wear the crown very briefly and for the rest you're left with their person. As far as I'm concerned, a secular dictatorship even could potentially become a monarchy and that's why I tend to pay attention to a lot of unusual regimes for a monarchist to pay attention to. The only thing about such dictatorships is they typically keep the pretense of democracy and this might be that ah-hah moment for traditionalists to slam dunk me – but even those cases could still potentially be a monarchy like the Pahlavi dynasty. I guess a big difference is I'm of the opinion monarchy can happen in the modern world, just that it would simply look different and have another coat of paint. – this is mostly true even for traditional royalty as we all know they now wear suits and ties like the rest of the statesmen. For myself I don't really go into the dichotomy of the traditional vs the modern or the middle ages vs the modern era – monarchy for me is a universal form of state applied to all times and ages, so long as there are states there is a potential for monarchy in my mind to adopt the state. I overlook a lot of the dichotomies set before our eyes.
All this makes me want to stress the ways in which absolute monarchy is different in ways traditionalists don't anticipate.
No.472118
>>472116Are you religious?
No.472122
>>472118I am not very religious, but I wouldn't say I'm a committed atheist or agnostic either (perhaps the truth is out there and knowable).
You can probably tell by the content I post I'm a very contemporary person. I hail from a fairly secular family and lifestyle and have monarchist convictions not from religious revelation but simply political dissatisfaction and ideas.
If I had to describe my political journey, I used to definitely like strongmen dictatorships (like ᴉuᴉlossnW and Stalin) or learning about the antics of Caligula, and feeling the need for leadership – that this gradually evolved into a monarchist politics.
No.472138
This video >>472042 here speaks volumes about our differences.
For them, they tend to bawl their eyes and bite their lips at Philip the Fair persecuting the Templars and Henry VIII's dissolution of monasteries.
While I on the other hand, bawl my eyes the Road to Canossa and Thomas Becket affair (particularly for the King) and the Constantine Donation or Childeric III being deposed and tonsured or disdain for other kings being desposed and sent to nunneries.
With Guénon and Evola, I'm not typically invested in returning to an Aryan Indian caste system or a class of cliques between warrior and priestly caste.
Like I said, my idea of monarchy isn't warrior or priest per say, but the structure of a household which lays the foundation for the structure of policy: I like the king as the supreme head and father of the people and the idea of the household places emphasis on governance and ruling – the reason why BAP (who focuses on the warrior caste or general kings) or the priestly caste is partially to do with that idea. The head of a household could include a multitude of professions all under one. Their idea of Aryan Indian caste skips over the other Western canon called politics (which, like a household, could include both professions).
I've been called Caesaropapist before, but it's also true the Caesars and Augustus also had the religious office of Pontifex maximus and Bodin acknowledged the power of priests and the clergy and how monarchs adapted it to make their power greater… and I recall other Roman statesmen too sometimes joined between religious offices. Guénon seems to pin it all on Philip the Fair allegedly.
When Bodin lists all the offices constituting a commonwealth and ranking them, he well ranks the clergy high – but it wasn't so much that they weren't also involved in the commonwealth or without political consideration.
Bodin lists the monarch first and then follows the clergy in terms of the offices of a commonwealth and rank – I'm of the opinion this is a good tihng.
Like I've said numerous times before… I'm not into monarchy because I like cliques – if I did, I would be an oligarchist.
The purpose of there being a monarch imo is not to establish a clique priestly or warrior, but to have an individual person establish harmony between the cliques. As Bodin appeals to harmony as the virtue of a monarchical state. The stress isn't that we need a warrior king or a priest king, but one king – we need one, let there be one ruler.
No.472225
Traditionalists don't talk monarchy the same way we absolute monarchists do.
Absolute monarchists speak in terms of the Herodotus Debate.
Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy.
3 simple forms of State.
Bodin traces it back to Herodotus.
>All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point…
As you can see, Jean Bodin isn't taking the traditional point of view: for the longest time preceding him, many believed in the mixed constitution… it had the dignity of antiquity and the Aristotelian influence (whom I believe Hobbes and myself credit with the idea of the mixed constitution most). We're a bit heterodox in this regard.
Traditionalists are not only partial to mixed constitutionalism due to this, but also tend to not stress three forms of State. They tend to stress Aristocracy vs Tyranny. Good government and bad government. Not so much whether it is a monarchy or oligarchy or democracy – but to Bodin these are accidental qualities and for his part Bodin doesn't define the state by virtue – a tyrannical monarch has a monarchy nonetheless – but he does make room for a royal monarchy, a lordly monarchy, and a tyrannical monarchy… the difference is the stress is moreso on monarchy itself.
That's a big difference you'll easily find between myself and traditionalists: they tend to be more vague and identify with aristocracy (not as oligarchy or rule of the few, but as rule of the best). Whereas we in particular are very insistent upon there being one ruler… they want any number of kings really.
I'm convinced the whole "monarchism" thing as a political ideology is mostly thanks to absolute monarchists – we brought back and stressed monarchy in terms of Herodotus and being a simple form of state where one rules with majesty – otherwise it's aristocracy or mixed constitutionalism being stressed more than monarchy itself imo.
Jean Bodin explains himself here:
>There can be no fourth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ocholocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice).
And again in Six Books of a Commonwealth:
>Thereby to judge what the estate is – as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy; but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [or Oligarchy].
>Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governors good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths, we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite.
>Now it is most certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and inextricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion an infinite number of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths;
>A thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths; namely, a Monarchy, an Aristocracy, and a Democracy.
So we stress as Bodin calls it, the essential and formal differences.
Whether the father is of good or bad quality – yet the father remains a father and ought to be respected by virtue of that. And for majesty or pre-eminence, it's not how many pushups or meritocracy, but the most superlatively power nobody can help to compare to – it's what Aristotle called being like a god among men or a lion to hares – much greater than simply the best man imo, but something extraordinarily grand – for that reason Hobbes makes Leviathan to be the grand total of all the People united in One Person, so that monarch has pre-eminence extraordinary and without comparison in power which is the true mark of majesty or pre-eminence in monarchy, not meritocracy so much imo since no matter how many pushups you do it would never match that great power in potential, which is on par with the power of the people – that's why Louis XIV uses the motto Nec Pluribus Impar, not unequal to many – but let's get back to the topic–
Jean Bodin:
>Whereas No cause (as saith Cicero) can be thought just or sufficient for vs to take up arms against our country… then much less is it lawful to take up arms against a Sovereign Prince. I cannot use a better example, than of the duty of a son towards his father: the law of God says, That he which speaks evil of his father or mother, shall be put to death. Now if the father shall be a thief, a murderer, a traitor to his country, as an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, an atheist, or what so you will else; I confess that all the punishments that can bee devised are not sufficient to punish him: yet I say, it is not for the son to put his hand thereunto, Quia nulla tanta impiet as, nullum tantum scelus est, quod sit parricidio vindicandum. For that (as saith an ancient Orator) no impiety can be so great, no offense so heinous, as to be revenged with the killing of ones father.
Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors
>But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected.
No.472276
I dislike how rightwingers consider the state or political to be dirty or pee-pee poo-poo. They paint an ignoble picture.
The ancaps / hoppeans and ultramontanists I've talked with take the idea that State is like the individual and how a good man and good citizen aren't always the same – they've taken it and run with it, but they also forget other passages. The ancaps in particular I think use that mentality to support their view of the Natural Order (ancap elites) without a state.
Yet Aristotle and Cicero paint a different picture:
Aristotle / The State or Political Community Aims at the Highest Good
>But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.
"So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero
"For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero
"Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero
"But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero
"Plato himself is for a Divine Power assisting in Human Politics… 'tis a remarkable passage that of his in his Meno. "We may as properly call Governors, or States-men, Divine, as we call those who give out the Oracles, or Prophets or Poets by that name; and we may affirm, that they have a Divine Illumination, and are possessed by the Deity, when they consult for the good of the commonwealth" –William Nichols
No.472291
Thomas Hobbes / The people in general were so ignorant>Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty>or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth>King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to>>470893Grace likes Filmer.
>>472280Nice pictures.
No.472311
>>465571Graceanon, how do you deal with the problem of corrupt/evil monarchs? I can see how it can be okay when the monarch is well intentioned and benevolent but that is not always the case.
No.472327
>>472311>Graceanon, how do you deal with the problem of corrupt/evil monarchs?You probably won't be satisfied w/ my answer.
(Absolute monarchists are notorious for non-resistance and denying the right of way for regicide/tyrannicide theory, unless he be a limited monarch – however, it's not justified from our pov for the sovereign).
Good luck with that, or keep your distance and stay away.
First, I'm of the opinion monarchists sacrifice monarchy too much on the pretense of fear of a tyrant: others don't anticipate whether their revolutionary leader will be corrupt or evil themselves: have you ever seen many thread on leftypol asking what if they will go corrupt or evil? not as much because people don't really recall the leaders they believe in. – I see this as a sign of people's doubt and disbelief if they pose too many what ifs, b/c they don't tend to sacrifice the things they follow – for example, the MAGA trumpers would probably take a lot before they would even consider letting the other party judge their candidate. My reasoning is monarchy in particular gets this stigma and inertia because people lack confidence in it to begin with.
Second, I'm sketchy about how much of a tyrant really – it would probably take a lot for me to budge, personally.
Hobbes permitted any man to really defend himself and anticipated rebellion would be a state of war. And Bossuet says that a monarch is subject to reason – so I apprehend that there will be pushback – but we also feel that any such monarch could also suppress that rebellion. The way we look at it is that it's better to bear this inconvenience than risk toppling the boat or setting precedents for killing the monarch (who is the monarchy). – Others thought Hobbes was too lenient giving permission of self-preservation, as Filmer said that any criminal being whipped could murder his sovereign. – Bodin allows a foreign prince to, but not a subject.
We really don't want to damage the pre-eminence of monarchy any further or set precedents. We recognize that it is self-destructive and yet don't want to add to the fire. It hurts the pre-eminence or majesty just as badly to replace the monarch (even if the intentions are good) because being replaced puts the monarch in the relation of being a mere part and not pre-eminent. The idea of monarchy is not to be swapped in and out and take their turn in being governed; we don't want to artificially implement rule by turns with rule by daggers. Monarchy by design also wants to be a lifelong rule, so there's that too. – There are many instances where those who do commit regicide are later put on trial and killed by their successors b/c they want to maintain the monarchy.
No.472329
Thomas Hobbes:
>Another grievance is… while he considers himself that the Ruler has not only to appoint what punishments he lists on any Transgressions, but that he may also in his wrath, and sensuality, slaughter his innocent Subjects, and those who never offended against the Laws. And truly this is a very great grievance in any form of Government wheresoever it happens: (for it is therefore a grievance because it is; not, because it may be done) but it is the fault of the Ruler, not of the Government; For all the acts of Nero are not essential to Monarchy; yet Subjects less undeservedly condemned under one Ruler, than under the People: For Kings are only severe against those who either trouble them with impertinent Counsels, or oppose them with reproachful words, or control their Wills; but they are the cause that that excess of power which one Subject might have above another becomes harmless.
>Wherefore some Nero or Caligula reigning, no men can undeservedly suffer, but such as are remarkable for some eminent Charge; and not all neither, but they only who are possessed of what he desires to enjoy; for they are that offensive, and contumelious, are deservedly punisht.
>Whoever therefore in a Monarchy will lead a retired life, let him be what he will that reigns, he is out of danger: for the ambitious only suffer, the rest are protected from the injuries of the more potent.
So Hobbes deems that only a small percentage really get the blunt of these kinds of monarchs: it's typically those close to them. That Hobbes suggests that you would probably be fine if you're an everyday ordinary person.
No.472331
Jean Bodin Anti-Regicide Remarks
>But when I perceived on every side that subjects were arming themselves against their princes; that books were being brought out openly, like firebands to set Commonweals ablaze, in which we are taught that princes sent by providence to the human race must be thrust out of their kingdoms under the pretense of tyranny, and that kings must be chosen not by their lineage, but by the will of the people; and finally that these doctrines were weakening the foundations not only of this realm only but of all states, then I denied that it was the function of a good man or of a good citizen to offer violence to his prince for any reason, however great a tyrant he might be; and contended that it was necessary to leave this punishment to God, and to other princes. And I have supported this by divine and human laws and authorities, and most of all by reason which compel assent.
>And in this, the princes much deceive themselves [and namely they which give reward to them that have slain Tyrants, to make them a way unto the sovereignty]. For they shall never assure themselves of their own lives, if they severely punish not the conspirators against their own prince and murderers of him, although he was never so great a Tyrant. As most wisely did Severus the emperour, who put to death all them which had any part in the murder of the emperour Pertinax: which was the cause (as says Herodian) that there was no man which durst attempt his life. So also Vitelliu the emperour put to death all the murderers and conspirators against Galba, who had presented requests signed with their own hands unto the emperour Otho, to have had of him reward for their disloyalty. And Theophilus emperour of Constantinople caused them all to be called together, who had made his father emperour, after they had slain Leo the Armenian, as if he would have well recompensed them for so great a turn: who being come together with many other, who though not partakers of the murder, were yet desirous to be partakers of the reward; he caused them altogether to be slain. And that more is, the emperour Domitian put to death Epaphroditus, Nero his servant, and secretary to the state, for having helped Nero to kill himself, who most instantly requested him so to do, being thereby delievered from the executioner's hands, and cruel exemplary death. And these things we read not only Tyrants, but even good kings also to have done, not so much in regard of their own safety, as of the dignity of them who were slain. As David did unto him who in hope of reward brought him his father in law's head cut off, but slain by his enemies. And Alexander the Great caused cruelly to be put to death him who had murdered king Darius, abhorring the subject which durst to lay hand upon his king: although Alexander himself by lawful war sought after his life and state, as being his lawful enemy.
>But if it be so that the soldier which had only broken the vine truncheon of his Captain, beating him by right or wrong, was by the law of arms to be put to death: then what punishment deserves the son which lays hand upon his father?
>But if the prince be an absolute Sovereign, as are the true Monarchies of France, of Spain, of England; Scotland, Turkey, Muscovy, Tartarie, Persia, Ethiopia, India, and of almost all the kingdoms of Africa, and Asia, where the kings themselves have the sovereignty without all doubt or question; not divided with their subjects: in this case it is NOT lawful for any one of the subjects in particular, or all of them in general, to attempt any thing either by way of fact, or of justice against the honour, life, or dignity of the Sovereign: albeit that he had committed all the wickedness, impiety, and cruelty that could be spoken; for as to proceed against him by way of justice, the subject has no such jurisdiction over his Sovereign prince: of whom depends all power and authority to command: and who may not only revoke all the power of his Magistrates; but even in whose presence the power of all Magistrates, Corporations, Colleges, Estates, and Communities cease, as we have said, and shall yet more fully in due place say. Now if it be not lawful for the subject by way of justice to proceed against his prince; the vassal against his lord; nor the slave against his master; and in brief, if it not be lawful, by way and course of justice to proceed against a king, how should it then be lawful to proceed against him by way of fact, or force. For question is not here, what men are able to do by strength and force, but what they ought of right to do: as not whether the subjects have power and strength, but whether they have lawful power to condemn their Sovereign prince. Now the subject is not only guilty of treason of the highest degree, who has slain his Sovereign prince, but even he also which has attempted the same; who has given counsel or consent thereunto; yea if he have concealed the same, or but so much as thought it… And albeit that the laws inflict no punishment upon the evil thoughts of men; but on those only which by word or deed break out into some enormity: yet if any man shall so much as conceit a thought for the violating of the person of his Sovereign prince, although he have attempted nothing, they have yet judged this same thought worthy of death, notwithstanding what repentance soever he have had thereof. As in proof it fell out with a gentleman of Normandy, who confessed himself unto a Franciscan Friar, to have had a purpose in himself to have slain Francis the first, the French king: of which evil purpose and intent he repenting himself, received of the frier absolution, who yet afterward told the king thereof, who sending for the gentleman, and he confessing the fact, turned him over to the parliament of Paris for his trial, where he was by the decree of that high court condemned to death, and so afterwards executed.
No.472333
<And so in Paris, although a foolish man and altogether out of his wit, called Caboche, drew his sword upon Henry the second, Francis his son, as with a purpose to have slain him; but without effect or hurt done, yet was he nevertheless condemned, and so put to death, without any regard had unto his lunacy or frenzy; al∣though the laws everywhere excuse the mad and lunatic man, from all punishment, what murder or villainy soeuer he do; seeing that he is more than enough tormented with the frantic furious passion itself.
>Whereas No cause (as saith Cicero) can be thought just or sufficient for vs to take up arms against our country… then much less is it lawful to take up arms against a Sovereign Prince. I cannot use a better example, than of the duty of a son towards his father: the law of God says, That he which speaks evil of his father or mother, shall be put to death. Now if the father shall be a thief, a murderer, a traitor to his country, as an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, an atheist, or what so you will else; I confess that all the punishments that can bee devised are not sufficient to punish him: yet I say, it is not for the son to put his hand thereunto, Quia nulla tanta impiet as, nullum tantum scelus est, quod sit parricidio vindicandum. For that (as saith an ancient Orator) no impiety can be so great, no offense so heinous, as to be revenged with the killing of ones father.
No.472334
>One must not however label as evidence of tyranny the executions, banishments, confiscations, and other deeds of violence that mark a restoration [or transition] in a commonwealth. Such changes are necessarily violent, as was illustrated by what happened at the establishment of the Triumvirate in Rome, and at the election of many of the Emperors. It is not proper, either, to call Cosimo de Medici a tyrant for building a citadel, surrounding himself with foreign guards, and taxing his subjects heavily for their upkeep, after the assassination of Alessandro, Duke of Florence. Such medicine was necessary to a commonwealth ravaged by so many seditions and insurrections, and for a licentious and unruly populace, everlastingly plotting against the new duke, though he was accounted one of the wisest and most virtuous princes of his age.
<Not only is the subject guilty of high treason who kills his prince, but so also is he who has merely attempted it, counselled it, wished it or even considered it… We read that the most holy doctors that the Jews ever knew, those who were known as the Essenes or experts in the law of God, held that Sovereign princes, of whatever character, should be regarded by their subjects as sacred and inviolable, and given of God. One cannot doubt that David, king and prophet, was informed by the spirit of God if ever man was, having always before his eyes the law of God. It was he who said, "Slander not the Prince, nor speak evil of the magistrate." Nothing is more insisted on in the Holy Writ than the wickedness of compassing the death of the prince, or any responsible magistrate, or even making any attempt against their life or honour, even though, adds the Scripture, they be evil men.
>O how many Tyrants should there be, if it should be lawful for Subjects to kill Tyrants? How many good and innocent Princes should be as Tyrants perished by the conspiracy of their subjects against them? He that should of his subjects but exact subsidies, should be then, as the vulgar people esteem him, a Tyrant: He that should rule and command contrary to the good licking of the people, should be a Tyrant: He that should keep strong guard and garrisons for the safety of his person, should be a Tyrant: He that should put to death traitors and conspirators against his State, should be also counted a Tyrant. How should good Princes be assured of their lives, if under colour of Tyranny they might be slain by their subjects, by whom they ought to be defended?
No.472464
Grace I remember you saying you were most sympathetic to Anglicanism of all Christian denominations, does this mean you prefer Burke over de Maistre?
No.472515
>>472464For cultural reasons.
I believe the Royal Supremacy is in part responsible for the majestic view of kings and what makes the idea of king so especial in its own particular way (esp. for the Anglosphere) – like Hobbes lamented, king simply means another rich guy and nothing too especial at all – not all cultures have that high regard of king in the same way or hold them in such esteem. In the Anglosphere, it counterbalances the mixed constitutionalism b/c royal supremacy scales us back to the pre-eminent views of monarchy which wouldn't have been there as pre-eminently neither be as powerful otherwise.
Although King Charles II was secretly Catholic, I believe this famous portrait of him was made possible b/c of Royal Supremacy. It wouldn't be this way in the Thomas Becket era for sure and that's why I'm not altogether enthusiastic w/ the traditionalists in wanting to return to it (b/c I don't want to lose majesty which monarchy fought tooth and nail for) – that's part of the problem talking to other monarchists, is they don't realize such especial views of the king had been a gradual development and it took pains to establish what they enjoy today and take for granted.
If we retvrned to tradition and didn't mind to retain some of the majesty along the way, we'd lose so much and return to apathy.
I read many of the pamphlets from the 1600s and many of those royalists had been Anglican.
>does this mean you prefer Burke over de Maistre?Keep in mind Burke was a Whig and de Maistre an absolutist.
ᴉuᴉlossnW said that he wouldn't make a prophet of De Maistre, but neither do I consider him our most prominent voice. De Maistre is our weakest link in some respects – I have some reservations about him (De Maistre seems to lean toward that Tocquevillism which stresses the Nobility over the King and De Maistre dissed Louis XIV and De Maistre was ultramontanist – all elements that make me iffy but I still consider him narrowly a member of our camp – I'd probably prefer other absolute monarchists to him).
No.472574
Right libertarians and traditionalists both paint a very negative and bleak picture for absolute monarchists.
I was surprised Fascists have a much more positive narrative,
Mario Palmieri in Philosophy of Fascism:
Mario Palmieri
>While the King personifies the sovereign authority of the State, authority which in itself sums up all powers; executive, legislative and judiciary, the Head of the Government represents only the King in his relationship with the People.
>It is thus that in the Fascist reform of the State, the King is still the only one who has the right to declare war or to accept peace, the right of pardoning those condemned by the judiciary organs of the State, the right of stipulating in the name of the State, treatises of alliance with other states and, finally, the right to be outside and above all laws.
Jean Bodin's Marks of Sovereignty:
>1. Make laws
>2. Declare war / peace
>3. Appoint magistrates
>4. Hear last appeals
>5. Give pardons
>6. Receive fealty & homage
>7. Coining of money
>8. Regulation of weights & measures
>9. Impose taxes
>10. The power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punish
Jean Bodin
>So also is it proper unto sovereign majesty, to receive the subjects appeals, and the greatest magistrates, to place and displace officers, charge or exempt the subjects from taxes and subsidies, to grant pardons and dispensations against the rigor of the law, to have power of life and death, to increase or diminish the value and weight of the coin, to give it title, name, and figure: to cause all subjects and liegemen to swear for the keeping of their fidelity without exception, unto him to whom such oath is due: which are the true marks of sovereignty, comprised under the power of being able to give law to all in general, and to every one in particular, and not receive any law or command from any other
>Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongeth an absolute power, not subject to any law.
>It behooves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish other: which he cannot do that is himself subject laws or others
In an older work, he lists them again.
>I see the sovereignty of state involved in five functions.
>One, and it is the principal one, is creating the most important magistrates and defining the office of each one; the second, proclaiming and annulling laws; the third, declaring war and peace; the fourth, receiving appeal from all magistrates; the last, the power of life and death when the law itself leaves no room for extenuation or grace.
Back to Mario.
Mario Palmieri
>Above all, foundation and mainstay of the Fascist reform is the theory that all powers of the State belong to the King who personifies the very authority of the State, and that he simply delegates the executive, legislative and judiciary functions to the very organs of the State.
>The King, in other words, not the people, is the true Sovereign of the Fascist State.
Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW marks this out similarly in The Doctrine of Fascism:
>Fascism is opposed to Classical Liberalism which arose as a reaction to Absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became an expression of the conscience and will of the people
>Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts
Alfredo Rocco in The Political Doctrine of Fascism also makes out a historical outlook sympathetic to monarchical absolutism:
>This innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle Ages. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement started by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution was directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as a negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and fulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages. Socially and politically considered, the Middle Ages wrought disintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual weakening and ultimate extinction of the State, embodied in the Roman Empire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to Germany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady advance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the State and reciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant particularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement of the 17th and 18th centuries was not directed against the Middle Ages, but rather against the restoration of the State by great national monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions that had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new states, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against the State. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The novelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and in its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the feudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations had been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the bourgeoisie and of the popular classes.
Alfredo Rocco brings up Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia & Aquinas De Regno:
>It was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest political writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of unity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the dangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the State, says St. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly than he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as far as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always one. In the physical body only one organ is dominant—the heart; in the spirit only one faculty has sway—reason. Bees have one sole ruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign—God. Experience shows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of disc0rd while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice, and plenty. The states which are not ruled by one are troubled by dissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which are ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are gladdened by affluence.
>Italy in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in practice the authority of the State was being dissolved into a multiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of State unity and authority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of the Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for centuries the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it existed no longer. Dante's De Monarchia deduced the theory of this empire conceived as the unity of a strong State. "Quod potest fieri per unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura," he says in the 14th chapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as an instrument for the attainment of the ends of the State, he concludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country. "Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars quaedam civitatis … homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum." (lib. II. 8).
For this reason I think much more highly of Fascism than our other RW counterparts, the right libertarians and traditionalists. The right libertarians and traditionalists are always spinning webs and bad narratives and ostracizing and gatekeeping absolute monarchists whenever we're in their circles.
Compare and contrast Mario and Alfredo narratives to De Jouvenel and Guénon's narrative.
De Jouvenel wrote scathingly–
>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.
-Bertrand De Jouvenel
<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:
No.472580
Personally, I'm convinced it the decentralization / centralization babble in essence goes back to Plato and Aristotle.
Aristotle disagreed with Plato, stating contrary to Plato that economical and political do have a contrary character, whereas Plato confers that they are no different and aren't of a contrary character.
Because Aristotle asserts that political rule is the rule of constitutional freemen, and that democracy is freedom; but also that monarchy is the rule of a household, and monarchy is only concerned with staying in power – Aristotle sets the record that monarchy is despotism over constitutional freemen and ought to be one among equals or always to stay with popular convention of freemen and not like a master.
Prior to the 1700s, there wasn't much talk of decentralization vs centralization like with left or right politics that's a staple of our more contemporary political lexicon–albeit we know the rudiments for this discussion in the past and how they came to be. Of course there was party politics and divisions of land and their concentration and separation. But after the colonization and constitutional debates between Americans over their colonial territory, after the French Revolution, & about the time of Alexis de Tocqueville and Bastiat, the terms decentralization and centralization were introduced with much more gravity and weight. They are words with no bearing on the concept of sovereignty.
Imo, the pretense of decentralization has always been that: the independent rule of freemen, as Aristotle puts it, contrary to Plato: the idea that political and economical are of contrary characters, and that we must respect the political estate differently. That independent heads of houses are set apart from the city itself as freemen: but in this context it's not heads of households as freemen, but autonomous regions making the pretense against the notion of states and any wider authority.
This is why Alexis de Tocqueville in the pretext of his work on the Old Regime sets it apart as the pretense of Liberty vs Despotism: that Liberty must prevail of Despotism. And despotism is the idea that the character of the political and economical are no different, like we say, back to Plato.
The followers of Tocqueville and his political legacy, like Hoppe and De Jouvenel, tend to be aristocratic apologists.
Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of the Ancien Regime brings up, however, that his study of the Middle Ages in search of the Old European Constitution is related largely to Germany / HRE (which, as we all know, muh border gore). It's what Ancaps and neofeuds always appeal to.
Jean Bodin classifies the HRE / Germany to be an Aristocracy or kind of Oligarchy, so while Alexis de Tocqueville starts his analysis for the Old Constitution of Europe and his appeal to decentralization – it's important to note how it begins with a form of state that had been recognized as aristocratic or oligarchical. Because Alexis de Tocqueville's big blurt is about centralization and decentralization: his entire critique is standing upon this chair, and if you kick this chair from beneath the feat of Alexis de Tocqueville – he will collapse and break his bones.
Alexis de Tocqueville notes in his work how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy, and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy
Which is important to see how this is related to his study of Germany and the Prussian influence.
Now I would babble about how these words decentralization / centralization are anathema to sovereignty and our political understanding, but suffice to say, that this pretense begins with Aristotle saying that the economy has a different character from the political will suffice enough, esp. when it comes to his idea of freemen (which Hobbes criticizes duly). A lot we see with American exceptionalism and democracy in terms of freedom and constitutionalism goes back to Aristotle. For a mixed constitution, it is largely attributed to Aristotle and Polybius, particularly Aristotle since Aristotle views whatever is whole to be a composite.
I ward off their pretense of decentralization / centralization for absolute monarchy by these four points:
1. Political economy, how they aren't of a different character: all my political ancestors would agree more w/ Plato there than Aristotle.
2. The general is accepted over the particular.
3. These two words have no bearing on the concept of Sovereignty, & they confound a union or bond or state – with an association or concord or alliance.
4. Like the Anarchist symbol with an A within a circle, they appeal to decentralization to have order without rulers or a circle without a point.
The doctrine of absolutism that Tocqueville slanders as the mother of all modern socialism has been acknowledged beforehand numerous times. He only begrudgingly admits that it had origins in the feudal system and his only pretense is the courts never admitted it – but if you read there's plenty of testimony behind the doctrine. – What I hate about Tocqueville here is the appeal to the Middle Ages and making a huff about how medieval royalism was different to renaissance and early modern royalism kinda originates with him and ancaps and anarcho-monarchists annoy me with it like Tocqueville does.
Alexander Hamilton, for instance, says this:
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.
>When a nation abolishes aristocracy, centralization follows as a matter of course.
-Alexis de Tocqueville
How do I see Tocqueville's political legacy today?
Tocqueville & Bastiat -→ De Jouvenel & Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -→ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
A big influence on right libertarians w/ these names.
They tend to be skeptical of democracy and monarchy and more forward w/ notions of aristocracy: it's b/c Hoppe has Tocquevillist reservations about monarchy that he doesn't consider himself a monarchist: but much like Tocqueville, Hoppe says he'd prefer an absolute monarchy to democracy in that way. It's very confusing b/c sometimes Tocqueville does appeal to democracy and patriotism and free cities (since right libertarians prior, again, appealed to free cities like Aristotle with freemen before the notion of the state and cities and commonwealth became odious to libertarians and they instead preferred free market).
In my 3rd screencap, you can see the context of what I'm talking about: with a notation for Plato and how Aristotle calls it an erroneous opinion.
My 2nd screencap is repudiations from my political ancestors over this doctrine, but they all seem to agree more with Plato than Aristotle on this issue.
No.472581
Thomas Hobbes tried to tackle this issue with Aristotle.
>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
<[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.]
In Leviathan:
>The Athenians, and Romanes, were free; that is, free Common-wealths: not that any particular men had the Libertie to resist their own Representative; but that their Representative had the Libertie 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 Libertie, 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 Libertie; and for want of Judgement to distinguish, mistake that for their Private Inheritance, and Birth right, which is the right of the Publique only. And when the same errour is confirmed by the authority of men in reputation for their writings in this subject, it is no wonder if it produce sedition, and change of Government. In these westerne parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the Institution, and Rights of Common-wealths, from Aristotle, Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romanes, that living under Popular States, derived those Rights, not from the Principles of Nature, but transcribed them into their books, out of the Practice of their own Common-wealths, which were Popular; as the Grammarians describe the Rules of Language, out of the Practise of the time; or the Rules of Poetry, out of the Poems of Homer and Virgil. 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.”
Those are my thoughts on the contemporary bug words decentralization and centralization, and how I think it originates with Plato and Aristotle, but Aristotle particularly for differentiating the political from the household rule on the basis of freemen.
No.472585
<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."
No.472588
Jean Bodin on Sovereignty
>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
And it can be, that there are lawful political bodies even with their own laws and even currencies underneath the sovereignty, btw, for the issue of decentralization / centralization within our political outlook – but ultimately they are under a final authority. The confusion with states like the HRE is that it is an Oligarchy with numerous princes, but they aren't independent of each other per say, but convene to enforce their rule – and because it is an oligarchy of a few persons, the few persons constituting it can have a degree of autonomy, but the harmony is in the oligarchical form so that they can altogether rule: in ways with the modern era, this is confused, because we adapt this principle of oligarchy with states as persons themselves and try to bring them under an association or concord on temporary grounds rather than a union or bond on perpertual grounds like states are – a state constitution must be built on a perpetual foundation that isn't conditional no less than hands or feet or other appendages have autonomy to decide their state is conditional and hop off the body – that's not the case with a state, but state as a union or bond cannot be confused with association or concord.
No.472590
Overall why I tend to outright disregard the terms Decentralization & Centralization – two words I think greatly contribute to our misunderstanding of politics – two words, that also, I believe, have no bearing on the concept of sovereignty.
We know that anarchists lately are big advocates of decentralization: because we take the anarchist A and circle, appealing to – Order without rulers – in the same way to have a circle without a point. As you'd imagine with me, that we draw a circle with a point and compass.
I shouldn't have to explain so heavily why I have a problem with the pretense of decentralization so much as a monarchist and why I feel it is in origin anti-monarchist:
I'll only point to what Jean Bodin says here & post a picture.
>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
Compare and contrast the first picture with the 2nd picture: the anarchist symbol of order without rulers and measure – is opposed to sovereignty as a guiding power. The appeal to decentralization is to not have a monarch – always opposed to having any unity – so they maintain we shouldn't draw and scale out human rulers as a measure and guidance for the people, repeating that pretense of Aristotle's freemen – when in reality, it's Plato's household rule no less mirrored in the political, that need for a sovereign power and guidance to be our measure and our ruler, a monarch.
No.472592
The pretense of Medievalism and Germany (muh HRE) and muh decentralization that's constantly hurled at us absolute monarchists by ancaps and traditionalists these days – it originates with Alexis de Tocqueville.
That BS with muh neofeudalism starts with Alexis de Tocqueville who looked into Germany for inspiration
He even says it was better preserved in Germany than in France.
We're justified in calling Alexis de Tocqueville an Oligarchist or a least a constitutionalist – because that's the overall tone of him and his followers.
He appeals to the so-called Old Constitution of Europe which to really say is Germany – which as we know Jean Bodin said was no less a sovereign state no less than others (despite the pretenses of decentralization), but an oligarchy of a few persons. That's partially why Tocquevillism has its strong pro-noble sensibilities: they're a kind of crypto-oligarchist. It's why Hoppe isn't a monarchist: Hoppe has Tocquevillist reservations about Monarchy.
Now, HRE (Holy Roman Empire) or Germans are presented as the ultimate foil against absolute monarchy and our notion of sovereignty:
But Jean Bodin already tackled the HRE & Tocquevillism's pretenses beforehand.
Albeit we hear over and over about the border gore and decentralization and it being a kind of anarchy with the absence of a state on the merit of these, Jean Bodin classified the HRE to have been a sovereign state, particularly an oligarchical state, where three or four hundred persons at most had sovereignty, by convention of the imperial council.
The pretense of decentralization stands upon the fact that an oligarchical state has similar attributes to democracy and monarchy: in the former, the assembly, but the latter great personal authority since an oligarchy is typically a plutocracy and rule of the wealthy, with great estates divested to great persons, acting in convention and unity with other great persons – hence the border gore and diverse currencies – this is a united sovereign body, but with diverse laws by the convention of the few, unilateral in their acceptance of each other.
In this sense, albeit people point to the border meme, they choose to see the trees for the forest.
Whereas Jean Bodin is able to see the forest for the trees in classifying the HRE: that is how we're able to bypass this misconception.
The never really was a foil to our idea of absolute sovereignty, neither does the peace of westphalia (which people use as the basis for territorial sovereignty, which as we know by Bodin's testimony, isn't defined by territory since it doesn't matter how scattered the lands be or how far apart, a family remains a family in its integrity regardless). A thorough reading of Jean Bodin debunks this: the origin of the HRE as a foil dates back to Alexis de Tocqueville seeing Germany as the old constitution of Europe and his model… but we have to keep in mind that Tocqueville wasn't directly addressing our political ideas, but what he thought of the Ancien Regime and his testimony of it – but the HRE isn't a foil and looking at Jean Bodin's classification of Germany and Alexis de Tocqueville's inclinations greatly towards the nobility, I'm further convinced in Jean Bodin was right about the HRE.
No.472593
When Alexis de Tocqueville marks out,
>how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy, and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy
Even an Oligarchical estate for the former point has a point of convention: as these nobles have a relationship with each other, that assists them to rule as a class. By the later, that decentralization is possible by aristocracy, it only comes to mean that the Oligarchy, by convention of the great person assembled or their representatives, allows its members considerable influence in convention with each other: that's why one great noble estate is different from the next and a considerable degree of autonomy, yet still a sovereign state. As a sovereign body can permit a multitude of currencies (that originate with the wealth of its members) and even laws, but still act as a united sovereignty.
Part of the confusion, again, is we look at our typical notion of an assembly, like a democratic assembly, think that's more centralized, because its members act in one room: but in an oligarchical estate, by the convention of great persons and landed elite, they could convene in one room and also return with their authority to their estates. This is what makes the pretense of decentralization, but nevertheless there is a sovereign power albeit these great members are scattered and dispersed.
As Jean Bodin says,
>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
>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.
So albeit they are scattered or decentralized, there is still a soul and sovereignty for them as a whole in relation to each other. Not an association, but a union.
>The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse
>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
As you see, it doesn't particularly matter whether it is a city-state, nation-state, or empire state, defined by its territorial size and integrity – since like Bodin says as an elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception… so the people making the pretense of city-states only as opposed to nation-states or empires only are merely nitpicking about the size and overlooking the main point: whether it's a small house or a mansion, there is a household rule.
It's a pointless charade to me and Bodin.
No.472594
Also, I think it's seemingly stronger with Aristocracy or Oligarchy primarily because it mirrors Aristotle's pretense of freemen most closely in contrast to Plato stating that the political state is like an economical household rule, and like we say a household is under one head: so the pretense of free regions or free cities or autonomous regionalism against a unilateral governance is no less than Aristotle appealing to freemen (who would be masters themselves) as constitutional rulers, as opposed to Plato who makes political and economical estate the very same in character.
Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.
This is why Alexis de Tocqueville in his book on the Ancien Regime appeals to Despotism vs Liberty beforehand in discussing centralization / decentralization: it's because he is opposed to the concept of a state being operated like a household rule… whereas the constitutional rule is freemen who are themselves masters. Alexis de Tocqueville is repeating that Aristotelian dynamic contrary to the Plato's assertion.
This is why ancaps and traditionalists of this sort lash out at absolute monarchists (who uphold Plato's doctrine that political and economical really aren't of different character).
And Aristotle himself oddly enough maintains that monarchy is squarely the economic or household rule: but doesn't mark it as political character.
Aristotle:
>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.
But absolute monarchists maintain a full political / economical character in monarchy, seeing monarchy itself as a political form of state: that's why Jean Bodin identifies three forms of state / commonwealth / republic (whatever you call it, and, yes, even republic) – monarchy, oligarchy, democracy.
That is essentially why I feel they conflict with us, but also why Hoppe could almost endorse us at the same time: since monarchy is a household management, Hoppe feels partial to it; but Hoppe being a right libertarian and partial to this Aristotelian pretense of freemen, cannot bear the household rule on a political scale itself and thereby clings to Tocquevillist reservations about Monarchy.
That's why I feel the centralization / decentralization debacle is another cloaked pretense of Aristotle's constitutional freemen, but no another level: not constitutional freemen as heads of families before the political city, but autonomous regions before the state.
And about Oligarchical states–
Great nobles in league with each other have considerable wealth and autonomy, so they are a league of many families, and have their own familial laws and even currencies. This is supported because the oligarchs or optimates in league with each other are great persons, so they can have great autonomy: but for them to maintain their form of state and governance, they have to convene with each other… it's no coincidence you see the state of affairs in something like the HRE without their convention to maintain that. While they might have civil wars or in-fighting (which is very prompt for democracies and oligarchies), there is still a sovereignty and convention of the oligarchs / optimates like a democratic assembly.
Another problem is decentralization also simply becomes merely a call for association.
For instance, looking at the imageboard community, the WeBring was described like a friend list:
A friend list is an association, but not a union. Alliance or defensive treaties don't make a state.
Where independent bodies meet up as a concord or association, they aren't a perpetual body or state.
You might have a multitude of many states associate and have alliances, but it's by no means a state.
When you have a multitude of states absorbed into bigger bodies or an assembled power already in one room as a nation, then it's not easy to go back: like snow clustering up into a ball for a snowman, it works against its formation and there's a great inertia against breaking up: at this point, it might as well be the destruction of a sovereign soul into new bodies, not old bodies: people maintain decentralization on this term as if it could do that and still remain the very same state, but what they really want is an association of many states and the destruction of that former state.
I find the terms centralization / decentralization disingenuous and harmful to political understanding for these reasons: that's why I disavow the terms in the first place and think they make a bad inclusion in our political lexicon. The introduction of the terms to politics is about as old as the Left vs Right distinction. Like Charles Maurras says, they're ugly terms (and he was a big advocate for the decentralization meme).
These terms decentralization / centralization are anathema to Majesty or Sovereignty. It lacks the soul and outlook of Majesty also, because it tends to be about whether things are close in proximity or scattered in proximity: but Majesty is about their soul and sovereign bond.
As a monarchist I feel like others (monarchists themselves) can attack the idea of monarchy itself without thinking too much about the terms also. I absolutely hate that: b/c they divide their conceptional and political thinking about the form of state to what they learn in history and textbooks as historical royalty & policies… without consideration… that's why the terms annoy me as a monarchist apart from how far you can take the pretense of decentralization against the idea of monarchy itself: until you abandon the idea of one ruler, because one is typically central and unifying and so on It is a source of frustration for me b/c it's my opponents main contention with absolute monarchy, so I hear it everyday and all the time.
No.472595
>We ought to obey God rather than men.
all government is idolatry and usurps God the true monarch.
>1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
>2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.
>3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
>4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
>5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
>6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
>7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
>8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
monarchism was a concession to the development in the modes of production and the corruption of men.
No.472602
Y' know for all their criticisms of absolute monarchy, they aren't too familiar with Jean Bodin.
For sure Jean Bodin criticized Aristotle and denied him separating the economical from political – as Jean Bodin says the household or family well ordered is the true model for the Commonwealth. Yet we use that term Commonwealth and Jean Bodin was still for the Estates-General and even acknowledged the Sovereign Monarch cannot tax without the Estates or else theft – yet the right to tax was with the Sovereign Monarch alone –
Jean Bodin makes the distinction between a Royal Monarchy and Lordly Monarchy and says that a Royal Monarchy respects the liberties of its peoples, yet still has the sovereign power and is a supreme and superior power indeed – so while Jean Bodin does this, Bodin doesn't make his Sovereign Monarchy into Despotism per say, albeit that the State is modeled after a household and they're no different. Jean Bodin acknowledges parliaments and assemblies under Monarchy and this altogether, but Jean Bodin doesn't make them equal partners.
Yet again – this is a Monarchy and an absolute monarchy. – Jean Bodin doesn't make the Estates-General equal with the Monarchy because the Monarchy is superior. Those heads of households assembling are subject.
<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."
<Jean Bodin / The Estates humble before their Monarchy
>For otherwise if the King should be subject unto the assemblies and decrees of the People, he should neither be King nor Sovereign; and the Commonwealth not a Monarchical State, but a mere Oligarchy of many Lords in power EQUAL, where the greater part commands the less in general, and every one in particular: and wherein the edicts and laws are not to be published in the name of him that rules, but in the name and authority of the states, as in an Aristocratical Seignorie, where he that is chief has no power, but owes obedience unto the commandments of the seignorie: unto whom they all and every one of them feign themselves to owe their faith and obedience: which are all things so absurd, as hard it is to say which is furthest from reason. SO when Charles the Eight, the French king, [being but so young], held a parliament at Tours, although the power of the parliament was never before so great as in those times, yet Relli, then speaker for the people, turning himself unto the King, thus begins his oration, which is yet in print. Most high, most mighty, and most Christian King, our natural and onely Lord, we your humble and obedient subjects, &c. Which are come hither by your command, in all HUMILITY, REVERENCE, and SUBJECTION present ourselves before you, &c. And have given me in charge from all this noble assembly, to declare unto you the good will and hartie desire they have with a most firm resolution and purpose to SERVE, OBEY, and AID you in all your affairs, commandments, and pleasures. In brief, all that his oration and speech is nothing else but a declaration of all their good wills towards the King, and of their humble obedience and loyalty.
Even John Fortescue gives testimony that the Kingdom of France was purely regal, even called it somewhat despotical, I think.
Jean Bodin makes this critical point against the notion of the constitutional freemen (for all his concessions):
>I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter [the state] has the final and public authority.
So the household or family is limited by the state authority, but on its own its unlimited.
This is why the estates general (or the assembly of all the estates of the people for the common weal or common good) are not on par with the monarchy.
Constitutionalists try to reverse this, I suppose.
Robert Filmer crucially adds,
>We are taught that a Father and a King are things mot diverse. The Father begets us, but not the King; but we create the King: Nature gives a Father to the people, the people give themselves a King; if the Father kill his son he loses his life, why should not the King also?
>Answer: Father and King are not so diverse, it is confessed that at first they were all one, for there is confessed paternum imperium et haereditarium, and this fatherly empire, as it was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by the parent, and seizable by a usurper as other goods are: and thus every King that now is has a paternal empire, either by inheritance, or by translation or usurpation, so a Father and a King may be all one.
>A Father may die for the murder of his son, where there is a superior Father to them both, or the right of such a supreme Father; but where there are only Father and sons, no sons can question the Father for the death of their brother: the reason why a King cannot be punished is not because he is excepted from punishment, or does not deserve it, but because there is no superior to judge him, but God only to whom he is reserved.
Where Jean Bodin takes steps, Hobbes also goes the extra mile at times.
No.472609
>>472595Government is how society functions.
Unless you mean a theocracy with the Church government and hierarchy.
Then it's a question of which denomination.
No.472675
>>472653>I'm feeling tired of the political discussion atm.Shushh, it's okay. ^^
Letz do an another thing, som fun stuff, what would you do in a scenario which…
(Part I) (+ u can imagine it in an anime world if it would make it cooler for u)
You've slowly opened your *insert your eye color* eyes with overwhelming drowsiness and have found yourself in a poorly lit room. With your slight vision , you've slowly look around your body parts, some look incredibly rotten, it made you feel some kind of nausea- the picture of your state was too disgusting, and… You incredibly feel an intense hunger consuming you and you see a corpse lying there and some rats consuming it… you cough a little as the room is pretty ashy as you even feel weaker with every cough, then- you sense a wooden and rusty door, which eventually start to quake-
And you see a Mauser pistol on the ground…
You feel too weak that you can't even properly aim and you'd waste time taking it, but the door seems to not be bulletproof.
What are you going to do!
1. Forget the Mauser, look for a hiding spot
2. Take the Mauser, Shoot at the door
3. Take the Mauser, Shoot at your head
No.472753
>>472675I'm not sure I want to play the game, but fine.
2. Shoot the door.
No.472772
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
Jean Bodin / The Kings of Persia
>And therefore the kings of Persia denouncing war, demanded the earth and waters to show that they were absolute Lords of all that was in the land and sea contained. Xenophon in Cyropaedia writes, that it is a good and commendable thing among the Medes, that the prince should be lord and owner of all things.
No.472773
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
No.472776
<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.
No.472806
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.
>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 the 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).
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
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 haughty court about him, of vast expence and luxury, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female
In the song Publions en tous lieux:
>Barely can we suffice
>With all our voices
Louis XIV the Sun King had the motto: Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many). As there is a maxim that the king is worth a thousand men in power.
Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan:
>This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence.
>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.” But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey;
>There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24
Jean 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.
No.472832
Bossuet in Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture adds.
>God, moreover, has put something divine into kings. "I have said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the most High." It is God himself whom David makes speak in this way.
>Even if the king should be an infidel [does this hold true], from the respect one should have for the ordination of God. "By health of the pharaoh, you shall not depart hence."
>Hence one must listen to the first Christians, and to Tertullian, who speaks as follows in the name of all of them: "We shall swear, not by the genius of the Caesars, but by their health, which is the most august of all geniuses. Do you not know that geniuses are demons? But we, who see in the emperors the choice and judgment of God, who gave them command over all peoples, respect in them what God has placed there, and we uphold that through a great oath."
>Thus it is the spirit of Christianity to make kings respected in a kind of religious way–which Tertullian (again) calls very well "the religion of the second majesty".
>This second majesty simply flows out of the first, that is to say the divine, which, for the good of human affairs, has sent some of its brilliance to kings.
>Kings must tremble, then, in using the power that God gives them, and consider how horrible is the sacrilege of using for evil a power that comes from God.
>Let them respect their power, then, because it is not their power, but the power of God, which must be used in a holy and religious way. St. Gregory of Nazianze spoke thus to the emperors: "Respect the purple; recognize the great mystery of God in yours persons: He governs by himself the celestial things. He divides those of the earth with you. Be gods, then, to your subjects." That is to say, govern them as God governs, in a way that is noble, disinterested, beneficent–in a word divine.
Bossuet later adds.
>An undefinable element of divinity is possessed by the prince, and inspires fear in his subjects. The king himself would do well to remember this. "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." I have said: you are gods; this signifies that you possess in your authority, you bear on your forehead, the stamp of the divine. You are the children of the most HIgh; it is he who has established your power for the good of the human race. But, O gods of flesh and blood, of mud and dust, you will die like other men, you will fall like the greatest. Greatness divides men for a little while; a common fall levels them all in the end… O kings, be bold therefore in the exercise of your power: for it is divine and beneficial to the human race; but wield it with humility. It is conferred on you from without. In the end it leaves you weak. It leaves you mortal, it leaves you still sinners; and it lays upon you a heavier charge to render to God.
And if it is an evil government and deemed idolatrous, like King Nebuchadnezzar, Jean Bodin lays out:
>And least any man should think themselves to have been the authors of these laws and decrees, so the more straightly to provide for their own safety and honour, let us see the laws and examples of holy Scripture. Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria, with fire and sword destroyed all the country of Palestine, besieged the city of Jerusalem, took it, robbed and razed it down to the ground, burnt the temple, and defiled the sanctuary of God, slew the king, with the greatest part of the people, carrying away the rest that remained into captivity into Babylon; and yet not so contented, caused the image of himself made in gold, to be set up in public place, commanding all men without exception to adore and worship the same, upon pain of being burnt alive: and caused them that refused so to do, to be cast into a burning furnace: and yet for all that the holy Prophets directing their letters unto their brethren the Jews, then in captivity at Babylon, will them to pray unto God, for the good and happy life of Nebuchadnezzar and his children, and that they might so long rule and reign over them as the heavens should endure. Yea even God himself doubted not to call Nebuchadnezzar his servant; saying, That he would make him the most mighty prince of the world. And yet was there ever a more detestable tyrant than he? who not contented to be himself worshipped, but caused his image to be also adored, and that upon pain of being burnt quick. And yet for all that we see the prophet Ezechiel, inspired with the spirit of God, angry with Sedechia king of Jerusalem, greatly to detest his perfidious dealing, disloyalty, and rebellion against king Nebuchadnezzar whose vassal all he was, and as it were rejoiced him to have been most justly slain.
There are many things calling obligation to civil obedience that Christians in foreign lands should reasonably follow their laws and only abstain if it offends the Christian religion: still as it were obeying men, but obeying God first. So if you were to visit North Korea, for example, there is still an obligation even if you deem the ceremonies (like laying the wreaths and bowing to the statue of Kim Il Sung to be idolatrous) – at least not for the statue part, but even then Hobbes makes a distinction I'll talk about.
No.472835
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.
No.472836
>>472595This is my response to Christian anarchist
>>472595 anon
Hobbes makes a distinction between civil worship and divine worship.
>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. No.472843
>>472836Does he actually use the word "worship"? Yikes. This just reinforces my belief that everything after the Protestant revolution started going downhill. But Hobbes is a proto-atheist deist so I can't be that surprised. We can honor our leaders and monarchs, venerate them even if they're saints, such as Louis IX, but speaking of "civil worship" is too much, this is idolatry no other way around it. Unless Hobbes is changing the meaning of the word worship which still makes no sense, that word exists to mean a very specific thing.
No.472848
>>472843Yes, he uses those words.
<Honour And Worship WhatHonour
>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. Worship
>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 and worship
>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:
>nd 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.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 No.472871
>>472753>I'm not sure I want to play the gameHmm, I see. It's okay.
It was just a try~
No.472875
>>472864In fact, identifying with any respective State with a nationality is basically a Cult of Personality and another form of civil worship.
Giving yourself a name with the group: identifying with it and remembering the name of that political identity. Consider Hobbes and his nominalism (concerned with names). The Cult of Personality and Leviathan calls you to remember and honor the name it gives you, like parents expect you to honor the name they gave you: propaganda is remembering that name and working that culture on minds, as Hobbes says.
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."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.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". No.472880
These pictures are related to
>>472772 &
>>472773 No.472995
>>472875Very interesting
We are a narcissistic species arent we?
I especially like the dichotomy there between the greek and roman personae, between the "real" face and the performer's mask.
Another dialectical tidbit is that dionysus was considered the god of the play, yet the entrancing upon dionysus involved ecstasy (to come out of one's body) as a form of authentic gnosis.
So the more we press into ourselves the more we become distanced as abstract objects, hence the mask represents the "true" face; the abstract spirit. We can still see this in tribal areas in africa, where the mask is not a mere representation, but the very device of communion with the spirit. The minted face of the coin is this same divination. No wonder the indians thought the photographers were stealing their souls. Maybe they were… Still today most people dont like to be recorded on camera. Adam smith famously didnt like anyone to record his appearance, so all portraits of him are made from memory.
No.473241
>>473240Grace-chan is perfect!
No.473944
This is a simple way to play Sonic 1 and Sonic 2 without an emulator.
It's the definitive way to play both games & has controller support.
Sonic 1 Forever:
https://teamforeveronline.wixsite.com/home/sonic-1-foreverSonic 2 Absolute:
https://teamforeveronline.wixsite.com/home/sonic-2-absoluteBefore you install these, you'll need the apk files below.
Sonic 1 apk:
https://sonic-the-hedgehog.en.uptodown.com/androidSonic 2 apk:
https://sonic-the-hedgehog-2-classic.en.uptodown.com/androidTo install, simply make a folder and place the apk file inside and unzip the zip file and put its contents inside with the apk.
Then click the setup file and it's done. Super easy.
No.473957
>>473944There's a mod that adds the original mega drive music for Sonic 1 Forever.
https://gamebanana.com/mods/478046Simply put the folder in the Mods folder & enable activate it in-game mods menu.
No.473992
Mario Bros. in Sonic 1:
https://gamebanana.com/mods/441385(note: for best performance, use this mod only, although it is compatible with the original mega drive music mod)
No.473993
There's also the definitive way to play Sonic 3 & Knuckles.
Sonic3air
https://sonic3air.org/This time you need to get a Sonic & Knuckles mega drive rom & convert it to a .bin file with SBWin
https://www.romhacking.net/utilities/383/>Get SBWin here^ and use it to convert the MD files to .binThen like with the apk file, place it inside the folder and it should be ez from there.
Suggestion:
>>466338 No.474036
Sonic Adventure 1 (for Steam)
SADX Mod Installer:
https://sadxmodinstaller.unreliable.network/ No.474338
Install Sonic R:
Get the RIP version here.
https://www.myabandonware.com/game/sonic-r-a38#downloadUnzip and place Sonic R folder somewhere.
Download the Sonic R Updater.
https://gamebanana.com/tools/6325Install that and adjust accordingly.
Lastly, set your controls in-game.
No.474353
Who would have thought that Grace would like to kiss a blue hedghog rather that a cute cat girl.
No.474356
what does grace think of state shinto-ism and imperial divinity?
No.474776
>>474356I like it for what it was & its innovation.
Not since the Meiji Restoration.
State Shinto went steps further and beyond that & I'd approve of it.
But Japan hasn't been the same post-WW2.
I also have some reservations about the subject & I don't think Japan thinks of Monarchy the same way as the Western canon. Since the Meiji Restoration & later State Shinto are touchy subjects (& don't get me wrong, I like what had been done under State Shinto)
For example, it's difficult to fully embrace State Shinto w/o the inevitable controversy between the ceremonialists and neofeudalist traditionalists… where the latter abhors what happened with the Meiji Restoration and see State Shinto as another descent like they condemn Louis XIV & the ancien regime of his time for – & the ceremonialists like all constitutionalists don't like the descent into majesty & would prefer sticking to the Meiji Restoration and the direction of Taishō Democracy than State Shinto.
Then you have the debate about the proper role and whether it's more comparable to the Pope as a spiritual role and not political.
…
All this I tend to strongly dislike about dealing w/ e-monarchist circles.
Monarchy comes with a lot of baggage that I find frustrating to deal with.
…
I prefer and believe without the Western political canon, monarchy wouldn't be the same – not without Homer's monarchist maxim and the Herodotus Debate or my own absolutist savants. The way we want there to be one ruler with pre-eminence or majesty. Yet I myself and my political ancestors always disliked dealing with the baggage that comes with royalism as a package.
…
For what reason Jean Bodin says–
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.Hence Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature.
>state shintoNgl I prefer talking about North Korea & Juche & their leader doctrine & the pre-eminence they seem to ascribe to them.
Why? because:
1. It's like a clean slate.
>I dislike the baggage that comes w/ traditional royalty>Here we have a clean slate2. It has many elements I like
>North Korea has many of the essentials in its propaganda3. It doesn't look like royalty
>they wear modern clothes, so the aesthetics fags are swept away>the communist ideology also sweeps away the factions I hate dealing with in e-monarchist circles4. It's relevant in the current year 2023
These are my feelings in a nutshell.
No.474783
Furthermore, it's often said that the Emperors of China and other mainland imperial dynasties were more familiar with a political role, but not the imperial dynasty of Japan. Which makes State Shinto experimental and innovative. –Yet I believe State Shinto adapted the majesty we're familiar with & it wouldn't be the same without it, but it's typically taken for granted w/ royalists*
No.474791
>>474787I find this conversation annoying.
Neofeudalists & ultramontanists are annoying to me.
Parallels with the Pope & dialogue w/ neofeudalists I'm not fond of.
It's why I tend to neglect State Shinto
b/c they'll give you a guilty conscience about the idea.
No.474793
>>474791guilty conscience about what? Absolutism usurping their power?
No.474794
>>474793There's a difference between what contemporary historians dub the Age of Absolutism and then Absolute Monarchy the political ideology imo.
Contemporary e-monarchists who like monarchy simply for /his/tory I tend to be skeptical of, b/c 1. they lack the political thinking and imagination 2. they get their views from the contemporary historians and not the political savants.
No.474798
>>465571Sonic '06 we deserve.
No.474806
majesty just seems like metaphysical simpage
No.474913
Thomas Hobbes laments the prevalence of mixed monarchy / constitutionalism
>Saving only that he [the Earl] was carried away with the stream, in a manner, of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament.
…
>You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers by profession, or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be thought so.
>Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy; all which governments they esteemed tyranny, and were in love with monarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy.
>And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such, if I have not been misinformed, as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but who when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's party.
…
>Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny.
>This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the victory for the King in a battle, when a battle could not be avoided, yet it weakened their endeavour to procure him an absolute victory in the war.
>And for this cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly resolved to take all kingly power whatsoever out of his hands, yet their counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer propositions to them of treaty and accommodation, and to make and publish declarations; which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great disadvantage to those actions by which the King was to recover his crown and preserve his life.
…
>Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul… For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the Kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so.
>To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact.
…
>And if there were a commonwealth, wherein the rights of sovereignty were divided, we must confess with Bodin, Lib. II. chap. I. De Republica, that they are not rightly to be called commonwealths, but the corruption of commonwealths.
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] 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.
No.474968
>>474961Grace likes Sonic because she has a high autism score like all other monarchists.
No.474969
>>474968Grace is unique in that regard.
No.474971
>>474969In what? In having a high autism score or liking Sonic?
No.474972
>>474971grace isn't like the other monarchists.
No.475068
>>474972Yeah, like,
We see that in her lore, the cruellity of the desire overwhelms her into a point that she losts her heart to Alunya- which should be pretty stressing to her 'ideals' , but as she's cruelly overwhelmed by her new state which is desiring to be born, it seems that she already have given up some ideals.
• She can't reproduce ( w Alunya ) , while the monarchal tradition ultimately suggests the continuation of the royal bloodline.
• As monarchial traditions are highly intertwined with the concept of a "god" from an abrahamic religion, having desires on your same-sex maybe have been considered has "heretical"
But, she defies them and is against them perhaps because of her special constitution
But, I can't think of anything besides that and her irreligious characteristics + also monarcho-bolshevism sympathy which is basically about "the instution of monarchy built on the base relations between things can both act as a "progressive" or "reactionary" matter and it isnt perhaps always the second."
No.475070
>>475068"Monarcho-bolshevism" is another word for Bonapartism.
No.475078
>>475068There really isn't a lore, anon.
No.475084
>>475078B-b-but thats what makes it s-sweet!
>>475070Idk like why we cant imagine a marxist monarch in a society with reactionary cultural hegemony HMM
No.475085
>>475084>marxistutopian socialist*
No.475253
Oswald Mosley
>It was not always so. In earlier times the King and his Government ruled the state and no man, however wealthy, could defy the King’s law and the ordinances of his ministers. Indeed, we now realize, despite the version of history taught us at school, that, when King Charles defied Parliament, he was, as he said at his trial, fighting for the freedom of the common people of England against the tyrannous demands of the purse-proud merchants of the City of London. Unfortunately, the national authority of Tudor England was broken on his scaffold, and ever since wealth has gained ever greater power over the people.
wtf Grace is a Fascism respecter now.
Sorry leftypol.
No.475291
>>475279WTF, I love Brittain now.
>>475253>wtf Grace is a Fascism respecter nowIt was only a matter of time, smh.
No.475794
ᴉuᴉlossnW
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.
Giovanni Gentile:
>It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs
Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself.
ᴉuᴉlossnW
>In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation.
>It is not the nation which generates the State
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.
Giovanni Gentile
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.
Aristotle:
>Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part.
Giovanni Gentile:
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.
Giovanni Gentile:
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
>The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.
Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State, in order to penetrate & direct the consciousness of its citizens, wishes to organize them in national unity; a unity possessed of a soul.
>That unity would manifest itself as a unitary being, possessed of powerful will, & conscious of its own ends.
Giovanni Gentile:
>So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses.
Giovanni Gentile:
<That Leader advances, secure, surrounded in an aura of myth, almost a person chosen by the Deity, tireless and infallible, an instrument employed by Providence to create a new civilization.
ᴉuᴉlossnW in A Diary of the Will (1927):
>Yes. The State is that unitary expression, absolute will, of the power and of the consciousness of the Nation
>This executive power–is the sovereign power of the Nation. The supreme head is the King
Then ᴉuᴉlossnW on his leadership doctrine for Fascist party members:
>Because in the subordination of all to the will of a Leader, which is not a capricious will, but a seriously meditative will, & proven by deeds, Fascism has found its strength.
>There should be no limits. We must obey even if the Leader asks too much.
No.475796
>>475291>It was only a matter of time, smhMost fascists won't settle for a hereditary leadership or having a dynasty.
& I know ᴉuᴉlossnW himself declined it.
Only b/c
>>472574 &
>>475794 these passages in particular invoke our political ideals and sense of majesty. Right libertarians and traditionalists don't. It gives me hope that a modern ideology has the potential to revive it, albeit I think Fascism is faded and irrelevant. Unlikely to return to those ideals since rightwingers are very jaded and disillusioned imo.
No.475798
>>475279dictatorship doesn't have the same majesty as monarchy to me.
No.475805
>>475253>MosleyThis fucking uyghur sold out to become a fascist just for capitalist money and because he wanted power more than sticking to actual principles and thought he could become PM much more easily and much more quickly as a rightoid.
He even made his aristocrat wife super depressed and drove her to an early death because she knew he was acting out a fraud and siding against the workers.
No.475806
>>475798I mean, the idea of a dictator is a one-man ruler.
The only difference is they are typically temporarily appointed and in that sense limited monarchs (from an absolutist pov).
Because a dictator has monarchical form, there's a good chance they get the sovereignty and establish their own monarchy. Sometimes without regalia. Sometimes they do become royalty & by chance become established.
The titles of Tsar and Kaiser are derived from that literal dictator Julius Caesar.
And there have been many such cases: King Zog I, Bokassa, Reza Pahlavi & Pahlavi Dynasty / Shah of Iran, Franco's regency, Napoleon I and Napoleon III, etc.
Royalism is stunted in the modern world. It cannot regenerate very easily these days.
The best way to get back into the monarchy game in the world today of republics and democracies will likely be dictatorships.
No.475807
>>475799Not gonna happen unless it's the hoppean physical removal fascism because of muh borders.
No.475809
>>475801I already criticized that Wilhelm II quote in a Royal Colony thread.
>there is a man aloneA monarch is a man alone, for crying out loud.
The problem is for all Wilhelm II says about Hitler, we're in a very secular age.
& when it isn't, a religiously divided country with a divided Church–means that we're all the more divided on what church would crown this royal. Not only that, but because the institution is backed by Christianity, and the wisdom of Christianity is doubted at times, – so too is the wisdom of royalty, let alone that democracies are the way.
Dictatorship can thrive in democracies and secular environments and theocratic kinds.
No.475813
>>475809>>475809Fascism doesn't believe that the nation is family
No.475814
>>475809The monarch is not a man alone, he's the father of the nation.
No.475818
>>475814>>475813Yeah, no.
MONarchy is ONE person. Mon as in mono. Mon - arch.
https://membean.com/roots/mono-one/I severely hate "monarchists" who don't agree on this simple point.
The majesty of one person is what defines Monarchy for me.
>The monarch is not a man alone, he's the father of the nation.You clearly don't understand what kind of monarchist I am.
If a dictator comes to represent the idea of one ruler more than royalty, then I'll respect the dictator as a monarch rather than the royalty.
You can have two royals and that's diarchy; many more royals in convention is a form of oligarchy – all this is not monarchy despite being royalty.
No.475826
MOOOODS Grace is being a fascist again!
No.475828
Does Grace have a evil twin sister? this is imposter Grace.
No.475837
When I say the majesty of one person, I mean in accordance with our absolute monarchist notion of majesty – the majesty that means having pre-eminence, formalized as sovereignty. It means that one person with majesty has the supremacy and is a superior. It means the highest power to command.
>Mark these words.Pre-eminence. Majesty. Sovereignty.
They all point to the same notion of a supreme monarch.
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.
>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.
<We have said that this power [Majesty or Sovereignty] ought to be perpetualNow I bring up the word Pre-eminence: prior to our formalized notion of pre-eminence [Majesty or Sovereignty], people simply referred to this kind of thing as the pre-eminence of a monarch: meaning his greatness and extraordinary power that comes to such grand heights.
The rest about what Majesty or Sovereignty is I related
>>472588Jean Bodin's Marks of Sovereignty:>1. Make laws>2. Declare war / peace>3. Appoint magistrates>4. Hear last appeals>5. Give pardons>6. Receive fealty & homage>7. Coining of money>8. Regulation of weights & measures>9. Impose taxes>10. The power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punishJean Bodin>So also is it proper unto sovereign majesty, to receive the subjects appeals, and the greatest magistrates, to place and displace officers, charge or exempt the subjects from taxes and subsidies, to grant pardons and dispensations against the rigor of the law, to have power of life and death, to increase or diminish the value and weight of the coin, to give it title, name, and figure: to cause all subjects and liegemen to swear for the keeping of their fidelity without exception, unto him to whom such oath is due: which are the true marks of sovereignty, comprised under the power of being able to give law to all in general, and to every one in particular, and not receive any law or command from any other
>Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongeth an absolute power, not subject to any law.
>It behooves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish other: which he cannot do that is himself subject laws or others
<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 heavensJean Bodin on Sovereignty>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. No.475839
>>475836Ngl, I did start out liking Stalin in particular.
I watched the JosefVStalin YT channel too.
https://www.youtube.com/@JosefVStalinThat's probably why I'm a bit cozy with /leftypol/ of all places.
Back then it was not out of any real leftist convictions. I just liked the cult of personality and leader vibe.
I even said so earlier,
>If I had to describe my political journey, I used to definitely like strongmen dictatorships (like ᴉuᴉlossnW and Stalin) or learning about the antics of Caligula, and feeling the need for leadership – that this gradually evolved into a monarchist politics.It really should be a cautionary tale for leftists: because that is partially how I became a monarchist, but not the full story. It also has to do with my own fixations.
No.475844
>>475839>a monarchist liking Stalin because he's a strong leaderWho would have thought?
/leftypol/ isn't just Stalinites though. There are actual anarchists here, you know.
No.475845
>>475842Christian "anarchist" without the mask.
No.475846
>>475843God gave us free will to create utopias
No.475848
>>475839Are you even a monarchist?
No.475850
>>475843summary of ontological argument to get the gist of it:
>its possible that maximally great being exists>a maximally great being exists in some possible world.>if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.>if a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.>a maximally great being exists in the actual world.>therefore, a maximally great being exists No.475851
>>475842God isn't a dictator. A sovereign dictator is seen everywhere but present nowhere; "God' is seen nowhere but present everywhere, Divine sovereignity is perceived in the absolute lack of it.
No.475854
>>475842It's cute how all the ideologies in this thread.
Are trying to appeal to me all of a sudden.
By competing who can out do one another.
>does that mean you like God the greatest dictator ever conceived?Ngl, in a way, my fixation on Monarchy also started with the Christian God: but primarily in the sense that I found the idea of a power able to render all people in humility very attractive.
Esp. whether they be the rich or poor:
And that's something that appeals to me in particular, but other monarchists find abhorrent–they hate that idea of an absolute monarch humbling everyone, but I see in an individual person the capacity to steer the ship of state without partiality. Like Hesiod says in his praise of kings.
I already explained why I'm a monarchist and not a theocrat:
I want a person in the flesh to lead us: sure, Christ incarnated, but his images are icons. Or his vicar, the Pope. Or the Eucharist. For the former, I can't expect an icon to lead us or speak or bond in comparison to a living person among us and mortal like us. For the latter, I said I want a political leader and hereditary one. For the Eucharist, I want a blood relationship that reflects human society like bees or in terms of a great family… which I feel Monarchy has the potential to realize in ways Theocracy cannot.
My view of monarchy is a political ideal. The hereditary succession plays an important role in that fruition of that view.
>>475848I've been a monarchist since 2014.
Yes, I am. I don't know how much more transparent I could be.
This is the 9th Royal Colony thread. I work the /monarchy/ board. I've spent time and resources on monarchist pamphlets. And a monarchist tan: Grace.
No.475857
>>475856don't bring lao tzu into this. he busy
No.475864
>>475862it would help if you archive ur threads so things dont have to be rehashed every time, I guess people just get complacent because the board is relatively slow.
No.475867
Another reason about theocracy is this:
I think conservatives in particular would prefer society to stay with a set of rules and never change.
They appeal to precedent, custom, and religion to achieve this:
Yet human politics changes accordingly to circumstances and problems arising.
It's the same thing with ideology: I've talked with national socialists and many of them think by simply following partylines they're guaranteed to get the results.
I'm an absolutist in particular b/c I'm not too partial to whichever standard, whether it's the right libertarian free market or more authoritarian rightwing business. Or even social democracy. I recognize the ship of state can potentially be steered in all kinds of directions.
A monarch is potentially more pragmatic for this. When constitutionalists say they want someone non-partisan – it's not what I particularly want – I want someone non-partisan to lead in particular for the sake of policy. Willing to entertain a bunch of ideas: but with democracy especially multi-party democracy, people are forced into camps and have to catfight.
Aristotle says, surely, the laws might be changed, but what about the whole lawbook? And my answer is yes, even the whole lawbook could be changed – the form of state itself can change – not that there shouldn't be laws, and we don't advocate a state without laws, but we recognize that the laws can be changed and like Bodin says there comes a power that can change them. This is a position unsavvy to hold because both Aristotle and Plato and much of the classics aren't of that opinion – but that's what makes some absolute monarchists in particular unique… but we say this with the exception of other laws, of course, and that the monarch would follow the laws he instituted.
Hobbes notably said that he disagreed with Aristotle and believed in the rule of men. Albeit Aristotle says that for the law it appeals to God and for men the beast. But Hobbes sees men behind the laws. & Jean Bodin makes the distinction of human laws and the law of nature and the law of God. So in a way, those other laws are taken into account and it's not entirely without law: and the fundamental law also, although Hobbes remarks–
Hobbes:
>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.
And I think it's our most controversial and sensitive area, no doubt. But I also think is misunderstood in some ways like other things.
No.475873
>>475846>anarchy is when utopiaRead Godwin.
No.475876
>>475867>A monarch is potentially more [centrist]Got it.
No.475877
>>475862Isn't Linkin Park leftist?
No.475879
>>475857Confucius: "Repay your debt, Zhuang Zi. Or Lao Tsu will have to pay instead!"
Zhuang Zi: "Don't bring Lao Tzu into this."
No.475893
>>475888>A family ought to be loyal to each other despite their differences.But you just said that the monarch is not the father of the nation.
No.475894
>>475885NGL, pharaohs had the coolest aesthetic. I find the aesthetic of medieval kings to be rather sterile.
>treating people as sheepleWow, you statists don't even hide it anymore.
No.475896
>>475888>A family ought to be loyal to each otherMoralist nonsense. What if the family is abusive? Sounds like masochism.
No.475901
>>475893Only that the monarch alone is sovereign.
>>475896Yep, still loyal.
Siblings can abuse each other.
And get into fights.
Still, that they can stay together despite that is worthwhile.
No.475905
>>475901Were you abused as a child? Or what kind of trauma made you like this?
No.475907
>>475905graceposter is perfectly normal and became a monarchist through facts and logic and grace is the objectively superior boardtan
No.476283
>>476281Princess reeducation camp for suspected fascist sympathies
No.476325
>>476316Shadow is the true revolutionary. Sonic is a monarchy sympathizer (literally married a queen in Archie Comics). The flag of anarcho-communism is LITERALLY red and black.
EMBRACE THE EDGE OF COMMUNISM No.476377
>>476369Those are pretty cute!
No.476378
>>476281She does not seem to mind.
No.476386
>>476377Glad you like them.
there will be a few more No.476704
>>476698Nooo don't cry ;~;
No.476734
>>476698The first picture is when Grace sees a nightmare and tries to find Alunya for calming her unstable being
No.477770
>>477737I'll always prefer Louis XIV and an unapologetic royal monarchy.
I'm not altogether content with how traditionalists view Napoleon, i.e. this Maistre quote. I can't say I hate Napoleon b/c he's egotistical otherwise like Maistre suggests I'd be hating on Louis XIV.
I like how Napoleon tried to establish his own dynasty and family across all of Europe.
But I have mixed feelings for what Napoleon represents.
Unlike those other royalists and severe legitimatists, I welcome fresh blood.
I see it as a great hindrance to monarchy that monarchists can be stubborn legitimatists and I think that mentality greatly hinders the reproduction of monarchy. Esp. if we're talking about a dynasty and old constitution that's 100+ years old – by that point we really should consider settling for new blood.
Most people are unaware how great the French royal monarchy was and how people loved their kings. It was a tragedy we lost that royal heritage. Without the Kings of France it isn't the same anymore. I really lament their fall.
The French monarchy upheld the standard of royal pre-eminence and sovereignty the most in the West imo and that's particularly why I lament it. Lately the Spanish and Austrians came to be the quintessential Catholic monarchies. The British for constitutionalism. And the Russian monarchy came to represent monarchical absolutism after France.
Yet tbh I'd settle for Napoleon.
No.477782
>>477779It's complicated how we define AEM.
I distrust contemporary historians and authorities on how they come to define this.
I feel they take Montesquieu's definition and not Bodin's in how they divide the world in constitutional / absolute monarchies. By that definition, absolutism simply means a lordly monarchy – but by our definition and Bodin, it could be much more than that.
Like I said, it's more like a different worldview how we define monarchy.
No.477783
>>477770>Being sympathetic to NAPOLEONalright Grace time to stop larping as a monarchist you just outed yourself as a revolutionary.
no self respecting monarchist would ever support the freemason scumbag who tore apart the ancien regime and spread infinite bloodshed to all other monarchies in existence
napoleon single-handedly did more to bury the idea of monarchy than all other figures in history combined.
it's why socialists have a sympathetic view of him because they see him as ushering in the next stage of history.
No.477784
>>477770>reproduction of monarchismThe LARP.
No.477785
>>477783>Napoleon>revolutionaryMarx hated Napoleon, all you "Marxists" are just reactionary pseuds.
No.477790
>>477785Napoleon has always been seen as progressive by socialists. Trotsky called Stalin a Bonapartist figure because he thought the Stalinist regime represented an advance in history even though he quibbled over the particulars. Likewise Marx saw Napoleon as an overall improvement over the French monarchy and the consolidation of the bourgeois regime despite his personal objections to glorifying the figure himself.
No.477792
>>477783Not entirely that I'm sympathetic.
More like I'd rather take a revolutionary monarch than no monarch at all.
No.477810
>>477805the queen should have a harem guarded by trans
No.477811
>>477790>Likewise Marx saw Napoleon as an overall improvement over the French monarchyHe literally vewed him as representing the lumpenproletariat.
<This Bonaparte, who constitutes himself chief of the lumpenproletariat, who here alone rediscovers in mass form the interests which he personally pursues, who recognizes in this scum, offal, refuse of all classes the only class upon which he can base himself unconditionally, is the real Bonaparte, the Bonaparte sans phrase. An old, crafty roué, he conceives the historical life of the nations and their performances of state as comedy in the most vulgar sense, as a masquerade in which the grand costumes, words, and postures merely serve to mask the pettiest knavery.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch05.htm No.477812
>>477810the whole kingdom should be the harem
No.477815
>>477807>I don't see Monarchy as married to conservatism or traditionalism.And conservatism and progressivism are moral spooks anyway, the nihilists will always be outside of your consent manufacturing.
No.477816
>>477810>the queen should have a harem guarded by transAn interesting suggestion…
No.477818
>>477790>>477811There are two differents Napoleon. The "progressive" one was the first, the one Hegel creamed his pants over because muh ruse of History. The one Marx talks about in
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch05.htm is Napoleon III.
No.477821
>>477784>reproduction of monarchism>The LARP.I don't know how this is hard to understand.
Empires rise and fall.
At some point we might as well accept new blood.
In effect all legitimatism is doing is clinging to a dead tree stump.
Once a state is overthrown and effectively demolished.
There's no reason why monarchists shouldn't consider a new monarchy at this point.
Once a state is destroyed, the old constitution is rendered obsolete.
Treating an old constitution from a long dead state as relevant is kinda stupid.
No.477831
>>477818Very well, I'm trash at historical dates. Though I still remember Marx getting pretty disappointed with the first Napoleon but don't quote me on that.
No.477833
>>477831 (me)
Though all that just shows that monarchy never fucking worked, putting retards like Napoleon III in power.
No.477838
>>477790I'm sorry, my friend, you are not a pseud, I was too brash, I apologize.
I guess I was the real pseud after all.
No.477878
>>477839It's OK, you are a monarchist for me!
No.477898
As far as the State exists, it has the potential to change its form.
& we reckon three forms. Simple forms. Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy.
It's not like the progressive narrative: where there shall be only democracy forever and we're stuck there due to this entropy effect locking us in place.
As far as the modes of production are concerned, I'm not sure why Monarchy has to be only feudal: for instance, you might concede Monarchy can for slave society as well as feudal, but even industrial capitalist countries might have monarchies: you could say, how does that reflect the political structure? but monarchy is not only lord of the land, but also money and facilitates this.
Aristotle also phrased it in a sense that Monarchies would become obsolete as societies grew, but that was way back c. 300 BC and there had been plenty of monarchies since then.
I obviously don't subscribe to this view that Monarchy is now done for and perpetually lost henceforth. Only recently has there been a decline thanks to the world wars and cold war era. It might be wondered that now it's really dead and buried because of secularization and so and so – but like I said earlier, I don't think that necessarily forbids monarchy either.
No.478087
>>477898>As far as the State exists, it has the potential to change its form.I mean, that's the exact problem.
<Up to the present day, the revolutionary principle has gone no further than to fight against this or that existent, to be reformative. As much as is improved, as strongly as “reflective progress” may be held to, there is always a new master set up in the old one’s place, and the overthrow is a reconstruction. It remains at the distinction of the young philistine from the old one. The revolution began in a bourgeois way, with the uprising of the third estate, the middle class; in a bourgeois way it dries up. The individual human being—and this alone is the human being—does not become free, but the bourgeois, the citoyen, the political human being, who for that very reason is not the human being, but a specimen of the human species, and more particularly a specimen of the bourgeois species, a free bourgeois citizen. No.478142
>>478087I don't think Marxism has much to do with our politics or really considers it per say.
It's more about class than forms of state, I reckon.
Albeit for one time–
In the archived royal colony thread, I brought up how Engels contested Homer's monarchist maxim and talked about bronze age kings. Engels said those kings weren't modern princes and it was military democracy. And to support my case, I brought up Caligula referencing Homer's Illiad for Monarchy & how Jean Bodin believed ancient sovereign monarchies worked by commissions. It's complicated that we can agree with Engels, that generals called kings commissioned by the people or nobles for war aren't sovereign monarchs. & we acknowledge that that it would be military democracy. Not only for bronze age kings, but this debate extended to indigenous native american states – which we considered monarchies, but again, Engels -I think- asserted were military democracies. I thought this whole discussion was pretty relevant to North Korea and how our views interact.
No.478168
>>478142My point is that the ideology does not matter since revolutions merely change one ruler for another. And since the proles rely on the state for their survival they can't become self-reliant and thus a stateless, classless society is impossible.
No.478171
When Marx does engage absolute monarchy, for him it's "semi-feudal" or associated with the petty bourgeois. Yet his view is basically Alexis de Tocqueville's view imo.
Us absolute monarchists don't advocate rule by the few or the nobility.
That's a form of Oligarchy.
Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians & Cities of Gauls – Oligarchies, not Monarchies.
>"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."
The same goes for Venice, the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland – all these we considered Oligarchies.
Yet we're not anti-nobility so much as we are pro-monarchy.
Imo Alexis de Tocqueville is the quintessential Oligarchyfag & simply rebuffed Aristotle's constitutional freemen (or independent heads of households as freemen and equals) as opposed to our view of the State being like a household in itself.
I consider Alexis de Tocqueville the political ancestor to modern-day Hoppeans and right libertarians who make that appeal: they've got their Alexis de Tocqueville & Bastiat -→ De Jouvenel -→ Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -→ Hans-Hermann Hoppe – and lately those types are flirting with Von Haller (patrimonialism) which again, it's the same fundamental problem we have – we consider the state or commonwealth to be like a well ordered household and no different from it… but Von Hallerism laments civil society and the confounding of the household with the political… in the end following that trend of Aristotle who says that Monarchy is inapporpriate for political rule and ideal rather for economical rule – absolute monarchists sidestep this by stating how a city-state or political body is much like a household… Moldbug and his Neocamerialism is somewhat closer to our view.
It's interesting b/c BAP for instance might agree w/ Engels analysis of bronze age kings – that they were and always should have been generals only & not involved in administration – but again, our ideal of monarchy stems from the well ordered household to the state itself. We embrace Monarchy as a political administration and as a form of republic or commonwealth on political grounds.
No.478187
>>478171Imagining as if a monarch can ever not be accountable to the nobility or the military. The absolute power of a monarch is an illusion that has no basis in reality. Might makes right, therefore the power of the monarch is nothing without a strong military/oligarchy on their side, the only people the absolute monarch is not accountable to are the serfs, the peasants, i.e. the lower classes. And this relationship doesn't change, even if you write some made-up laws to "restrict" the king. The constitution is a joke, modern states are not that different from monarchies in practice, if they need some privileges they'll make up an excuse to pass the law that enforces them (the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act).
The problem with absolute monarchies is that their oppression is too obvious, too easy to trace. You absolutists have a terrible opsec, you'll piss off the proles more than you'll satisfy them.
No.478192
>>478187 (me)
I must mention that the Church can also be considered an oligarchy so you literally cannot extend your power on those who put you in power in the first place unless you backstab them and try to appeal to another power-hungry group so they'll purge them.
No.478194
>>478187>therefore the power of the monarch is nothing without a strong military/oligarchy on their sideI don't think leftists have any obligation to acknowledge Monarchy as a reality.
Sure, they could say there really is no such thing as Monarchy (i.e. no man rules alone).
You could say that for the oligarchy themselves.
What are these people (nobles / bourgeois) rule without their lower classes?
Jean Bodin basically said, that just because a master has slaves/servants, doesn't mean that he doesn't rule.
No.478196
But Marx does say that the bourgeois are the cornerstone for these monarchies. And yet also talks about feudal absolutism also. So it's in this limbo – semi-feudal.
Like I said, there's overlap between Marxists and those traditionalists / right libertarians (who both have that Tocquevillist view in this regard). For instance, the video
>>472574 in this post references Marx.
No.478198
>>478194>Jean Bodin basically said, that just because a master has slaves/servants, doesn't mean that he doesn't ruleThe master has their slaves because they are able to overpower and fool them. It doesn't work that way with the ruling classes, they do it themselves. So the monarch will have to fulfill their interests either way. With the slaves, the only interests the master has to fulfill is food but they don't want their slaves to die either. On the contrary, the monarch would rather do whatever they want but they can't, there is a conflict of interests. Sure, the serfs have some limited power.
If and only
if they are able to fight back but that rarely ever happens, only when they're driven to despair. The influence of the masters and the slaves is drastically unequal, otherwise there wouldn't be any masters, there wouldn't be any monarchies.
No.478201
>>478198Again, it's falling into that outlook of freemen:
>you cannot rule the state or political itself like you would a householdOr
>a master cannot rule other masters like a masterLeftists won't see it the way absolute monarchists do b/c they believe class rules the state and an absolute monarchist appeals to an individual power and independence of the State. The way leftists view monarchy again is basically on par with the medievalists b/c they see it as a relic of a time period – which to Marxists is now past – the feudal mode of production – and another stage of history… which I'm possibly butchering it since there's probably more to it than that (we still can have societies in different modes of production in the same time period).
No.478204
>>478201Again, how are they wrong? You seem to conflate "rule" and "influence" since by your logic we all rule over each other and are all monarchists. This analysis is no less of an oversimplification than that of right-libertarians, it only confuses people of where the political power actually is and gives it almost an ephemeral, transcendental meaning, although unsurprisingly since you equate the will of the king with that of the people. My will is not that of the king, I defy his authority and I don't care about the made-up social contract whatsoever.
No.478218
This is a hallmark of absolute monarchist ideology.
I've had the debate with right libertarians in our circles: they strongly try to contest that a father doesn't rule other fathers like a father – so that a monarch cannot meddle in their estates like a house father does his own.
This I find subversive about right libertarianism within our group.
Robert Filmer
>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.
So as you can see, it's not one among equals: it's not that our sovereign monarchy is merely one head of estate among many other estates general, merely of high esteem among them – no, this sovereign monarch is a superior and absolute power, they are limited in capacity by his Sovereignty.
Right libertarians among us try to argue otherwise: but they misinterpret Filmer and absolutism.
The Sovereign Monarch -does- govern them like they were a well ordered family, but they would maintain that there's a difference… but every one of the authors I bring up states that there's no fundamental difference and that to govern the State is to govern all them like a family itself.
Again, the sovereignty adds the limits and draws the lines in the sand.
>I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter [the state] has the final and public authority.
No.478224
This conversation gets really complicated when you zoom out / zoom in.
For instance, what about other sovereigns?
To which it's been said that the world itself is like a commonwealth without anyone to rule.
Then what about universal monarchy? Is the Pope the universal monarch?
Or the Orthodox Church.
Then you swap between variables of universal monarchy: the emperor of japan, the kings of egypt, mesopotamian rulers, the roman emperors, and the pope.
It all gets tiresome that I say anyone claiming universal monarchy better do it by the right of conquest (but even that complicates things).
No.478257
>>478249For a monarch, you're very subby.
No.478260
>>478218>a king rulesover oligarchs like like he rules over fathersFalse equivalence again, patriarchy is subservient to the oligarchy as well. I'm starting to think that monarchists are no different than lolberts in their mental gymnastics.
No.478261
>>478257grace is condescending to the plebeians
No.478403
>>478292I love her so much!
No.478404
Grace-poster
Would you ever make a cartoon of your OC?
No.478407
>>478403Same, I'll only be a reactionary for grace
No.478418
>>478411I would never say anything that makes Grace-chan cry!
No.478436
>>478411>dogs arent better than humanswhite woman disagree
No.478443
>>478411Reactionary or not, to me you'll always be a spooked counter-revolutionary anti-individualist.
No.478571
>>478476As much as I like the DPRK and KJU, they can be a bit weird–which is good enough to genocide them with nuclear hellfire according to your average burger. However, but what if the opposite is true *schniff* and they are one of the few honest humans on Earth.
No.478891
heh, gotta go fast!
No.479223
>>479218>>479219So heckin' kewt!!
No.479228
We peasants don't deserve to be Grace'd by Her majesties presence
Unique IPs: 53