First you use that Betacraft launcher to play.
…
You can use Tuta Mail to make a disposable email:
https://tuta.com/Verify the email + skip the Disc0rd tips / tutorial by dismissing the orange glowing exclamation points…
…
I don't think you have to download Disc0rd to use Dis0ord, but you can use Disc0rd on your browser. Make a throwaway Disc0rd with that Tuta Mail and join the Alpha Place server fbi.gov under v General Chats & #cracked-user-whitelist.
…
Submit a name from namemc.com
https://namemc.com/The name you submit under the Whitelist -might- already be taken, so you might have to check with a mod like GG (gavin) or Windows7Ultimate or Noggisoggi later to get whitelisted.
Whitelisting could take 1 or 3 days, so be patient.
…
Voilà, you can play Minecraft Alpha without giving a phone number!
>After Bokassa… we don't recognize ourselves anymore.
Sovereignty truly is the civil soul; take away the archstone, all sense of identity disintegrates; people don't recognize themselves anymore, lose touch with their identity & name.
When a country collapses and a new flag is adopted, people forget who they were.
A new sovereignty is a new soul, a new name, a new identity, a new form.
The formation of a new Leviathan (or, as Hobbes dubbed, a new mortal god under the immortal god), a new cult of personality.
In the process of that destruction of that pre-eminent force, the archstone that holds all the stones together, they begin to collapse:
>Tribalism came back; Nepotism came back; Regionalism came back; Tribal Wars came back.
1st pic: How it really is with Graceposter & neofeudalists>Graceposter: Holy fuck, these neofeudalists are insufferable and annoying, they are applying Aristotle's city to a map, they hate Monarchy and are almost tantamount to being Oligarchyfags, they idolize the Middle Ages too much, and some are traditionalist constitutional monarchists; why are there so many anarcho-capitalists ancaps neofeudalists everywhere? they keep talking shit about absolute monarchists like myself and citing their Medievalist contemparies like Alexis de Tocqueville, De Jouvenel, Ernst Kantorowicz, with a right libertarian edge in vain attempts to refute our notions of monarchical pre-eminence and majesty. Don't these people realize how their clutch on the centralization and decentralization dichotomy inherently works against Monarchy itself as a form of State? I don't think I ever want to hear the word Feudalism again because I'm tired of listening to neofeudalists. I can't stand these feudfags! I will cite Alfredo Rocco, a Fascist & Minister of Italy, against their contrived Medievalist historical narrative against absolute monarchy and try to refute them and form my own counter historical narrative! >:( That will show them just how much I HATE these neofeudalists!vs
2nd pic: How /leftypol/ thinks (via historical materialism) of Graceposter & neofeudalism<Graceposter: I love neofeudalists and feudalism! in fact, I only talk about the feudalism and the Middle Ages; land-based utility and neofeudalism forever! I like it because it is so decentralized and akin to Aristotle's views of State. I'm all about decentralization no matter what, haha! Every monarch should be one among equals with the nobles and for the nobles to limit him! since the monarchy is one private estate among other private estates and by no means is he the State or pre-eminent. The clergy should also be superior to the monarch right down to the altar boy because, uh, spiritual sword > temporal sword and obviously considerations of State are inferiour and no consequence to the formal integrity of society as a whole and our moral upbringing! and I'm an ultramontanist tradcath too, btw. Yeah, I love limited monarchy and constitutionalism so much under a Medievalist paint! Consider me an anarcho-monarchist, anarchy should be the ideal, monarchy because no man rules alone!(Our view of Monarchy is not wrapped up in the terms of historical materialism, I should add. Our terms of Monarchy are expressed as a form of State in the express terms of the Herodotus Debate and as Bodin & Hobbes elaborated are understood universally, not to a particular time period like the Middle Ages only, but all time. Neither do I see Monarchy as only possible under Feudalism or a land-based economic formula like I explained here
>>529736 but Monarchy is any state where there is the rule of one person held in pre-eminence, simple as. Not that leftists have to share those views or abandon historical materialism).
>>544657I would never allow that.
>First of all, if we speak of two powers, and if we do so in cases where it becomes necessary for various reasons to maintain a certain external symmetry between them, we prefer to use the word 'authority' rather than the word 'power' for the spiritual order. The word 'power' can then be reserved for the temporal order, to which it is better suited when taken in its strictest sense. In fact, the word 'power' almost inevitably evokes the idea of strength or force, and above all the idea of a material force, a force which manifests itself visibly and outwardly and affirms itself by the use of external means, for such means indeed characterize the temporal power by very definition. On the contrary, spiritual authority, interior in essence, is affirmed only by itself, independently of any sensible support, and operates as it were invisibly. If we can speak in this context of strength or force, it is only by analogical transposition, and, at least in the case of a spiritual authority—in its purest state so to speak—it must be understood that it is an entirely intellectual strength whose name is 'wisdom' and whose only force is that of truth.
- Rene Guenon, Authorité Spirituelle et Pouvoir Temporel (1929)
We should abhor a pretense of partiality like this, that brings imperfection of State and breaks it, divides it against itself with one community (the priests) against the other community (the warriors), and not only against each other, but both estates (which accounts for them both) under a political unity which no estate in the city should see itself detached from or for an estate to detach and become alien to it: this is far from ideal and perfection of the State and common good.
Many traditionalists know that the divorce between church and state is bad for them: that when the church is alien to the state, they are in a way divorced from the public. They don't want to become aliens and detached from political life, so neither should they under pretext of temporal and spiritual power, divide the state against itself, as a house divided against itself cannot stand: so for perfection of State, the sword and crosier must be united, and above all like in a household, under one person.
The political is by no means just mundane and the culture uninspired for its temporal location and identity: it would be a shame to label the greatest heroes and virtuous leaders in history, uninspiring and mundane, and beneath the office of an even an altar boy, for those reasons.
I always felt this song perfectly described the pre-eminent monarchy absolutism is infatuated with.
>That the earth and the heavens
>ring out the sound of his glowing glory
This pre-eminent prince has majesty, unites the temporal and spiritual glory with his unity of person.
>''It is in vain to trouble him, everything is united, all conspires
>It is in vain that leagues of kings envy
The pre-eminent one (the sovereign monarch) makes Tocquevillists and Oligarchists seethe, wanting to have Aristotle's City and the rule of a few, but we hold Homer's monarchist maxim, that there should be one ruler in the state and not many petty kings or one among equals, for there was a time when there were many kings and by no means not a monarchy albeit there were royalty, as many kings are not one king. So Caligula in having a monarchy said to his client kings who wanted to share a table with him, that there should be one ruler.
And these leagues of kings envy him.
>We must admire him everywhere
>Let's talk of his virtues, recounting his exploits
Like Aristotle described, a kind of pre-eminent virtue, majesty or sovereignty.
>Barely can we suffice
>With all our voices
Louis XIV's motto: Nec pluribus impar, not unequal to many. The pre-eminent monarch has the relationship of the whole State itself in his person. And as Jean Bodin says, not only equal to them all together, but even a superiour.
>Happy Empire
>Who follows his laws
He is a living law. As James VI & I said, he is a living law, and the law a dumb king.
>It must be said a hundred and one hundred times
Like Plato said, people are in a state of disbelief that there can be such a pre-eminent person and he should have the authority of an absolute & simple monarchy invested with majesty, so it must be said a hundred and one hundred times until people finally understand the pre-eminence of their king and dispel the doubt of an incredulous people.
–Which is why Bossuet says the public has to be dazzled with the royal splendour & there should be parades like in Aladdin to dispel their incredulity.
People are in a state of doubt naturally when thinking of monarchy, too eager to kill a person when in a state of disbelief, and to doubt a person at every turn and question it: but when a people are under the state of pre-eminence, they'll follow and won't be as eager to kill or stop at every turn and action… obedience being, as Xenophon says in Cyropaedia, the wheel of the State.
I compared this Wizard of Oz scene to Hobbes Leviathan.
Here you have this artificial man.
They are in a state of awe – Hobbes always described this Common Power for his pre-eminent monarchy to place them in a state of awe.
>Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei
<There is no power on earth to be compared to him.
Hobbes understood the nature of monarchical pre-eminence (this is a lost art among monarchists; many don't understand & how it is inherent to the question of monarchy) & also what he was responding to with Aristotle.
…
I'd say there are 5 keys to restoring confidence & obedience for royal monarchy:
1. The Monarch is a Teacher, source of Wisdom
2. The Monarch is a Provider / Caretaker, like a Father
3. The Monarch is a Protector, like a Soldier
4. Blood Relationship, that the Monarch is the lifeforce and sovereign of the State, & a royal bond
5. Majesty and pre-eminence secured, to be in relation of the whole State itself.
Now part of the problem is monarchists themselves are under no spell of pre-eminence, really, compared to leftists who follow their leaders and hold the very names of them. Unlike monarchists, I don't think I ever see leftists pondering when to kill their leaders, but monarchists do all the time and somewhat justify it because it is the only way – but how I see it with monarchists is they are in that state of doubt Plato described and if we must have monarchy that is an obstacle to overcome… as many people doubt royalty and see them as incompetent without a chance compared to the statesmen or experts. Which puts statesmen in a far greater place to become monarchs than royalty themselves.
…
Neither do they think Monarchy provides. The economic schools don't help with that. And because many rightwingers believe in the pre-eminence of the free market, they are reluctant and don't want to see a monarch as a provider to begin with.
…
Does Monarchy protec? another problem is rightwingers doubt royalty have their best interests in mind for being in bed with globohomo as they call it.
…
Blood relationship? as an ant queen is the lifeforce of a monogamous ant colony and Christ's flesh and blood is important for salvation, it is hard to say people see a monarch as essential to the well being of their State – if they killed or removed any royalty, they don't think it would change their identity or rock the ship of state. They also don't feel any kinship: many nationalists see royalty as foreigners and traditionalists unwittingly to their own stupidity encourage this mentality and say it is a good thing royalty should be seen as alien to the people they rule. The traditionalists do this in an appeal to go back to a time when religious affiliation mattered more than where you were from or what nationality, but those days are long gone and it pertained moreso to supporting Christ's kingship and not their own.
Xenophon Cyropaedia
>“When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves… You may see how the sick man will beg the doctor to tell him what he ought to do, how a whole ship's company will listen to the pilot, how travellers will cling to one who knows the way better, as they believe, than they do themselves. 'You would have me understand', said Cyrus, 'that the best way to secure obedience is to be thought wiser than those we rule?' 'Yes', said Cambyses, 'that is my belief.'
>“None quicker, my lad, than this: wherever you wish to seem wise, be wise.”
>“Well, my son, it is plain that where learning is the road to wisdom, learn you must, as you learn your battalion-drill, but when it comes to matters which are not to be learnt by mortal men, nor foreseen by mortal minds, there you can only become wiser than others by communicating with the gods through the art of divination. But, always, whenever you know that a thing ought to be done, see that it is done, and done with care; for care, not carelessness, is the mark of the wise man.
From what I have seen and experienced, Xenophon's advice is very true, but people don't see the throne as a seat of wisdom.
There is also two forces that compel obedience: love and fear, rewards and punishments.
gaming
Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Queen Bee
>Just as worker bees form a group and live in a disciplined way, centring on a Queen Bee, so the collective must have a centre and discipline.
Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Household
>If a family is to manage its household affairs well only one member of the family should control its finances. Likewise, if a nation is to manage its economic life properly it must use its finances on the principle of a single management system.
Kim Il Sung – Party Organization
>Kim Il Sung repeated this question to himself, picking up a pencil and tapping it lightly on the table. After a while, he asked the foreign quest: "Do you know how bees live?"
<"What do you mean?" asked the latter
>With a meaningful smile on his face, Kim Il Sung resumed: Bees are united around the Queen Bee. Of course, this mode of experience is a natural phenomenon based on their instinct, but it may provide an answer to the question of how to build up a party.
>He went on: "Just as bees live in an orderly fashion united around the Queen Bee, there must be a centre and discipline within a collective."
>He said that what was essential in building up a party was to unite all its members firmly around the leader, concluding that a party, which achieved the unity of all its members in ideology and will with the leader at the centre, would be ever-victorious.
Kim Il Sung – The Peach Story
>Kim Il Sung looked around the room, and picked up a peach from the table.
>Then he answered, "A party should be built like a peach."
<"Like a peach?"
<The guests looked at the peach.
>Pointing at the peach in his hand, Kim Il Sung said: Success can be achieved in the revolution and construction only when the single-hearted unity of a leader, the party and the masses is achieved; compared with this peach, the masses are the flesh, the party is the stone, and the leader is the core in the stone.
Kim Jong Il – The leader is the life of the socio-political community
>The essence of the leader in all context lies in his being the centre of lthe life of the socio-political community. There is no doubt that the center of life is important for the existence and activities of the organism. Unless the masses are united, centring on the leader, they cannot acquire vitality as an independent socio-political community. We must understand and believe that the leader is the centre of the life of the socio-political community and that it is only when we are linked to the leader organizationally, ideologically and as comrades that we can acquire immortal socio-political integrity.
Kim Jong Il - Fatherly Leader & Motherly Party
>In order to have a deep understanding of the value of the organization, one must consider it in relation to one's own socio-political integrity. Only through the party organization, the parent body, can the popular masses be integrated into an independent socio-political organism and become the real masters of their own destiny. We must value and respect the Party organization as the parent body of our integrity. We refer to the leader as the fatherly leader and to the Party as the motherly Party because the Party organization with the leader at its centre is the parent body of our socio-political integrity.
>>543104>grace sonic mod?The mod is halfway done.
I will post it in /siberia/ later when it is playable.
Because /siberia/ is a colony of /monarchy/, /siberia/ also recognizes Alunya is canonically chocolate.
What do you make of people claiming that the recent ruling about presidental immunity in AmeriKKKa means that Biden is a king now?
>>550224I suppose you could say it is comparable to Sovereign Immunity basically.
>Biden is a king now?If you want my criteria, this pic related.
Now for the USA:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
>No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: So right off the bat, Joe Biden cannot formally be called a king.
Now, the question might be that if Joe Biden cannot have the title of a king, then what if Joe Biden is basically a king in all but name?
I've never been too invested in the semantics or aesthetics surrounding the name of king: I have seen a bunch of criteria for what makes a king in monarchist circles ranging from that such a person is sacred and upholds a denomination or ideology to that a king is a private property owner to a king is a king because he has his title.
I extol the virtues of kingship, but for me personally it's not even about whether said person has the name or title or designation of a king, but simply is a kind of monarch. As you can have two kings like a diarchy and kings who are in respect and power the same as the president really, like the kings.
I don't care what name you call it, my ideal is a monarch, jointly vested with the virtues of a king, to be a supreme & sovereign royal monarchy.
I would rather have a monarch (whatever name) than kings without monarchy: & much less numerable kings in the same state and not one king. Esp. if a king isn't really a monarch and has no business in ordering the State or relation to politics or is completely ceremonial.
WHEEEEEEZES. Are we clear? is that understood?
Now that this is out of the way, first I'll lay Bossuet's 4 Properties of Royal Authority:
1. Royal authority is sacred;
2. It is paternal;
3. It is absolute;
4. It is subject to reason.
Then I'll lay down my own 8 points I identify with Monarchy:
1. Monarchy is the majesty of one person, the rule of one person.
(This is the MOST essential criteria for me above all else: one person rules & is pre-eminent).
2. Is supreme & has the relationship of the State itself.
(This point basically re-iterates what it means to have Majesty: to be supreme & have the relation of the State itself).
3. A personal ruler & guide.
4. No rule by turns; perpetual.
5. Is a lifelong ruler.
6. Is a paternal figure & has kindred bond w/ the people.
7. The idea of political & economical not differing.
8. Blood relationship & being the lifeforce of the State, vitality.
1.
Is Joe Biden one ruler?
>As president, sure, you could say he plays the role like a limited monarch: many British commentators like Clement Atlee & David Starkey even said the US Presidency has that relationship like a constitutional monarchy… and being an absolute monarchist, I would agree, that a limited & non-sovereign monarch is basically a constitutional monarch and has the relationship of a part rather than the whole like the State itself… so the President isn't really pre-eminent: that is why his style is your excellency and not your majesty: the president might excel others in virtues and have some merit, notions of monarchical pre-eminence far outweigh any merit in its extraordinary nature: like Aristotle says, such a pre-eminent one is like a demigod and is entitled to your rule perpetually and have that ground of right the founders of states are entitled to… but neither is Joe Biden too sacred given the office with respect to religion or any ideology. I would say there is the capacity of a limited monarch like a dictatorship, but the State itself is not a monarchy.
2.
Has the relationship of the State itself?
>I don't believe the President has pre-eminence.3.
Is a personal ruler & guide?
>I believe in a way the presidency does act like a king in giving personal guidance and speeches. Adds a human face to the republic.4.
No rule by turns; perpetual?
>We'd be quick to acknowledge there are term limits in the Amendment 22 & invariably the office of president is swapped between the parties. In a noble oligarchy, the high ruler sometimes is swapped by various heads of noble houses: the same function happens in democracy with political parties. Sometimes people confuse so-called elective monarchy with noble oligarchy on the sample principle: the estates simply elect a member of one of the estates to temporarily preside, to preside over them like a president does: but a sovereign monarch is not one among equals like in Aristotle's City, neither is he Aristotle's king – all the estates owe their existence to him and he alone is imbued with a perpetual power not only for his life but beyond him, by the maxim that the King never dies or that his own blood will carry his image by inheriting after him.>So not one family is pre-eminent in the nation: you have names such as the Kennedys, Clintons, Trumps, etc, like you would with aristocratic families in an oligarchic state: but a royal monarchical state, one family tends to overrule and dominate the other estates & invariably this family is pre-eminent above all others. >Another example: In Malaysia, there are many kings in the same State – like Homer warned us about – they take turns being the high king with terms and not one family is pre-eminent and function like a noble oligarchy as the Tocquevillists want to return to under pretense of Medievalism…>So for a pre-eminent monarchy one household or one party rules.5. Lifelong ruler?
>I believe the life of a ruler is works with being a personal guide and a paternal figure and also represents the vitality expressed in #8. The presidents cannot & don't typically rule for life. An elective monarchy is closer to being monarchy simply b/c they are elected for their entire life, then it is swapped to another estate upon expiring, but not perpetually invested in one estate… a dictator is temporarily chosen sometimes but also can be elected for life like Caesar was. 7. Is a paternal figure?
>There is a royal bond or familial kind of loyalty attached to the president, except for his own sons and his servants.7. Is the State modeled like a household & the household respected like a State?
>You could say, that the White House is a form of household rule, but invariably like Aristotle's Politics suggests this isn't carried into modeling the State. The presidents are swapped in and out of the White House like pieces in a puzzle or parts in a machine. Like the name implies, the president simply is supposed to preside over the other heads of estates like in Aristotle's City and the other parties aren't taken into being one party. A one-party state is closer to this ideal imo because one party is closer to being like one house.8. Is the president the lifeforce of the country? is there a blood bond or any kinship?
>Invariably, popular sovereignty is maintained & the president's person isn't tantamount to the entire body of the people even like hobbes' leviathan, so neither is the president a kind of popular sovereign. The country is racially divided, so the office of presidency falls under scrutiny of race and kinship and is fractured by the racial sensibilities. Neither in the religious sense like Christ's blood or the artificially done.
>>550233Bodin's marks of sovereignty1. Make laws
2. Declare war / peace
3. Appoint magistrates
4. Hear last appeals
5. Give pardons
6. Receives fealty & homage
7. Coining of money
8. Regulations of weights & measures
9. Imposing or removing taxes
10. Power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punish
Thomas Hobbes: Civil Sovereign is the Head, Source, Root, & Sun>The Civil Sovereign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, and the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civil Sovereign. Thomas Hobbes: Sovereign Power, Generalissimo>For the power by which the people are to be defended consists in their armies, and the strength of an army in the union of their strength under one command; which command the sovereign instituted, therefore has, because the command of the militia, without other institution, makes him that has it sovereign. And therefore, whosoever is made general of an army, he that has the sovereign power is always generalissimo.This is my most comprehensive criteria with my 8 points & Bossuet's 4 properties, combined with Bodin's marks of sovereignty & what Hobbes says here.
>>550233Every point on the list I have a source for.
2. King is supreme: (screencap from Aristotle's Politics)
3. & 4. – personal rule & no rule by turns.
5. Lifelong ruler – 3rd screencap.
>>550289What if the king was a plural system?
Unique IPs: 7