>>490337Hooray, friends forever!
Grace perhaps you can give me some advice, I have a right wing Christian friend, he is morally opposed to homosexuality and promiscuity and so on, but we still RP together with him as a Pokémon and me as his master which involves us (gay) kissing and cuddling and sometimes sex, it's strictly an online thing but I have a boyfriend whereas I don't think he has a girlfriend (or boyfriend) and I'm not sure he ever has, I worry he will be lonely and I want him to try have a relationship. Am I just hurting him and giving him false companionship with our RP? Or should I just accept that maybe he's not interested in an in person relationship and this helps fulfil his needs?
Anyone else can answer too
>>490339I ask here because Grace is our honorary comrade like this guy is to me
>>490339Don't take anything too srsly online.
Your friend is a RW lifestylist, I guess.
No fake companionship.
Have a bit of integrity.
Grace have you read Reflections of a Russian Statesman? What do you think about Pobedonostsev? On /lit/ they were saying he makes de Maistre look like a liberal.
>>490713>you read Reflections of a Russian Statesman?It's in my reading list.
>On /lit/ they were saying he makes de Maistre look like a liberal.I'm not rlly trying to be so illiberal.
I bet Orthobros are going to adopt him.
I prefer Jean Bodin, King James VI & I, Thomas Hobbes, Robert Filmer.
>>490721I'm not too sure what Grace would do.
>>491274>>491301The first one and the last one are adorable,
SPAM THEM.
>>491315They are all so cute! But I don't want to post them as people would think I'm Graceposter.
>>491315saving them, I should organize my pictures folder but it's thousands of images and grace images gonna get lost
>>491348you can upload them to the leftybooru (maybe if you ask the site owner)
>>491348Make a Grace folder.
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.
>>491996that pantsu song goes hard
Does graceposter have an RSN? Add me.
>>492085I tried to get back into OSRS.
But I was banned because they thought I was a bot.
I was grinding lots of bones to level prayer and killing cows.
>>492085I did make an OSRS character.
8Grace8
>>492196what game is that?
>>492196oyasumi hime-sama
>>492199The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall
>>492087I'll gift her Majesty a bond. If you make another account.
>>491349>>491414nah I'm too lazy for that
>>492614as long as they still look royal
>>492614She's perfect the way she is.
>>495201Grace DESTROYED by Kara Boga and the slave boys of Turkish khans
>>495201Lol, I remember accidentaly entering one of his videos about the bolsheviks.
Basically he cried in entire video that the bolsheviki were minority/that they killed 'the poor royal family' and how it was stressing for his religious-moralism.
But, I think you are the only monarchie that I won't be happy if you depart from this state of life. Your company in this imageboard is nice.
>>495201Oh, man, that McCarthyist retard. I hate this guy. He's the ShortFatOtaku level of cringe.
>>495258People are not reducible to their political opinions after all. I disagree a lot with monarchism just like I disagree with any authoritarian ideology but the OP seems like a chill person. Kinda reminds me of Puyi. I'm willing to look over our differences as long as the OP keeps drawing, they're very talented.
btw, OP, why don't you draw Grace's blue uniform design anymore?
>>495264>as long as the OP keeps drawing, they're very talented.OP doesn't draw, but commissions.
>>495273>OP doesn't draw, but commissions.Okay, the OP can leave then.
Reading Bodin and Hobbes criticism of Aristotle, and having dabbled a fair bit in Aristotle's Politics myself, I think I understand why these absolute monarchists are harsh on Aristotle (at least, as far as monarchy is concerned).
…
I have greater political understanding, but there are still quite a few obstacles in my way, and insecurities I have in gaining a foothold for my absolutist agenda. –Lately I know what I'm looking to criticize, but how I justify the alternative and find a backing for it is still at odds. I've clung to the notion of an indivisible sovereignty and stressed how this justifies Monarchy on a political scale as opposed to Aristotle, and that it gives the state a unitary being: but I also relied heavily on all these authors purported agreement with Plato to disagree with Aristotle… but I'm not so sure about Plato himself and whether there is material in his works such as the Republic, Statesmen, or Laws to adequately support what I'm looking for. I want to find something that does support this sovereignty and simple state, but can I really say it's no less composite with regard to Plato's tripartite soul? maybe. –I should look into Plato and see if there is anything that suits this… but I'm pessimistic also, and can't say for sure it works altogether and I know that from certain parts I've read.
…
I gained a lot from reading other works and found a surprising amount of ammunition in Fascist works and even from Hitler in his criticism of the Austrian parliament.
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
This stuck out to me, because it reminded me of Aristotle's food argument against the wise man. And again, our problem with constitutionalism with regard to Aristotle's composite political state as opposed to a monarchical form of state.
…
I have considerable gains from all this, but still have so much to look into and re-think a bit. I always get far, but have many miles ahead of me.
>>495441Read The Unique and Its Property and Stirner's Critics. You seem to be pretty passionate about reading, I want to see your reaction to those books.
>>495454>When you're coming from a position like mine, where you have a lot going against you, in the history books and criticism from many pundits, and such a heterodox ideology compared to the classicsI mean that's what being a Stirnerite boils down to.
>I am desperate for any backing I can getThis is just confirmation bias. You're clinging to an ideology as a form of identity, it is not worth it. You will not spontaneously combust if you don't have a concrete ideological foundation, if anything it'll keep holding you back.
>>495531 (me)
Although I wouldn't say there's anything against Stirnerism in history books. Your ideology tries to justify your organization of society only. My anti-ideology sees everything as already justified. Stirnerism is quite friendly to history and science, not so much to historians and scientists.
tfw skimming Karl Popper's Open Society and its Enemies to find hints on where to look.
Still haven't found precisely what I'm looking for.
>>495531It could really be my fancy.
What prompts me is Hobbes' quote, paired with his criticism of Aristotle, and my conviction paired with these that Aristotle is the grandfather of the mixed constitution.
Because from Jean Bodin's analysis, before anyone else, it was Aristotle who came with the addition of a mixed constitution: Bodin said that Plato did not (albeit people would say he does in Laws, I think Bodin saw that more as a sovereign democracy than a truly mixed state). And albeit that Bodin testifies, that Herodotus named others who talked about a mixed constitution in his day, first named person that Bodin lists is Aristotle.
Following Hobbes singling out of Aristotle, I'm privy to think part of Hobbes' criticisms must be with the mixed constitution in relation to Aristotle as well. But finding what exactly that is, it isn't too transparent or clear-cut in Hobbes apart from the following quote.
Thomas Hobbes
>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.
It can't only be the distinction between a state an association (but I think this quote is valid for that too) – but also our understanding of what is meant by body politic or state.
I'm not sure it is as two-dimensional or simple between Plato and Aristotle, and we sometimes have a bit of both and neither: we have a love-hate relationship with Aristotle, and Jean Bodin's definition between state and association is also fairly akin to Aristotle's (and also, similarly, brings together various constitutions in his study of sovereignty like I hear Aristotle did), but with consideration of sovereignty. –But that is what I'm hoping is key for our understanding of what Hobbes means for understanding the word body politic and what it signifies.
That what I believe differs between a multi-party state and a one-party state in ideology is also connected to this. That the former (multi-party states) have in Aristotle that convention of freemen and estates in the political, a middle class and virtue in the midst of things, and composite character of the state – and this compositeness of the state as a whole to be its virtue and justice, I believe, might lend credence to this belief. –but before I try to contrast that with Plato, I'll add some doubts, because Aristotle was also a student and carried some things over from Plato, and not only criticisms, so it's not just that they're opposites (but this mentality prompts me to look into Plato). – What I hope to find in Plato is support for the State is to support an indivisible quality like sovereignty that is simple and one rather than composite – that might support the view of the state as a unitary being like one person, as opposed to the model of a mixed state.
I've had considerable success in making our notion of sovereignty more relevant and modern. I found that Fascism covertly holds a lot of the same ideas behind sovereignty in its true form and for totalitarianism in contrast to constitutionalism.
That's what people like Karl Popper say for Plato's Republic: that it is too friendly to totalitarian notions of the State.
But not only in Plato's Republic, but also Plato's Statesmen, that a state and household and said to be fundamentally no different, contrary to Aristotle also: which I think also adds to the unitary character (since Aristotle defines a household to have one head and makes it inappropriate for the political state) – it makes it more top-down than bottom-up, and that can also be seen in the notion of the philosopher king, as opposed to Aristotle's food argument against the idea of philosopher king (that many people can bring more food to the table).
…
And despite Plato's 3-part soul, I'd add that, 1st, I read that Socrates appeals to the immortality of the soul as incomposite, and, 2nd, that justice makes the state ideally one: the closer the state is to its ideal, it appeals to one and its unity. The State itself is a mirror to an individual person and his integrity – I think makes the State like a super-organism or like a person the way Hobbes makes his State into a monarch – whereas for Aristotle, the end of the state is its virtue and that I presume in relation to its composite character for the common good, and why I think Aristotle has more democratic undertones compared to Plato's philosopher king and metals.
Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.
Which reminds me of Hobbes in that they come to be not many men, but like one man, except with Plato, it is more like they are organs than Hobbes' Leviathan that is an avatar of them all. But the entire city as this body politic isn't a multiplicity or concord, but a unity: and I presume – justice bestows its oneness and indivisible character to not be so composite, but becomes simple – that might be a stretch.
Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.
To differentiate what Hobbes says about body-politic from Aristotle, there is no other passage from Aristotle's Politics that makes this more clear than here:
Aristotle Politics
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch…
I stop at the passages about how this is a despot or even absolutism (which are surprisingly relevant to Hobbes) – and how it is no constitution at all according to Aristotle – the point I'm aware of, is that for Aristotle, to make the State into a monarch is the furthest from his inclination, given that for him the political constitution cannot be arranged like a household under one head or like a monarch, but only for economic units – which by this corporation of the people, it is exactly at odds.
Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible
This passage I found at the front of Karl Popper's book, I guess, pointing out the Leader principle:
>The great principle of all is that no one of either sex should be without a commander; nor should the mind of any one be accustomed to do anything, either in jest or earnest, of his own motion, but in war and in peace he should look to and follow his leader, even in the least things being under his guidance; for example, he should stand or move, or exercise, or wash, or take his meals, or get up in the night to keep guard and deliver messages when he is bidden; and in the hour of danger he should not pursue and not retreat except by order of his superior; and in a word, not teach the soul or accustom her to know or understand how to do anything apart from others. Of all soldiers the life should be always and in all things as far as possible in common and together; there neither is nor ever will be a higher, or better, or more scientific principle than this for the attainment of salvation and victory in war. And we ought in time of peace from youth upwards to practise this habit of commanding others, and of being commanded by other.
But whether Plato fundamentally differs from Aristotle in his understanding of a body politic is uncertain to me. Apart from the quotes I plucked, but it doesn't for sure say that Plato doesn't also like Aristotle consider the state as a whole to be composite and have a common good therein: in fact, similar to Aristotle, I think Plato also goes to talk about the whole and parts in Laws. –But what Plato says about justice bringing them to oneness of mind, and his stress on unity, reminds me of how Bodin also stressed that it is their union under sovereignty that ultimately makes the State, not so much the walls and persons.
I don't think I can rely on Plato or Aristotle for what I have in mind, and I know for sure that's why many people are constitutional monarchists: the notion of absolute sovereignty is fairly heterodox under scrutiny of both these names, esp. without consideration of how Bodin sees the need for absolute power and his distinction between the sovereign and the magistrate, but also Bodin considers it a necessity if the laws can be changed and rescinded that there is an absolute power, and that it is the case for human laws for sovereigns in his account by divine and natural law from what I've read for Bodin. That is without a doubt one of our most pernicious issues in appealing to the community… but if I'm right and there is a fundamental difference in how body-politic is understood between Plato and Aristotle here, – it would be useful in pushing back against the notion of the mixed constitution.
This supports my endeavor here.
https://habib.camden.rutgers.edu/talks/plato-and-aristotle/
>According to Plato, unity is the desired end of both individual and state constitution.
>Plato’s overarching disposition towards unity asserts itself most pervasively and at every level, from the point of origin of a city to its formally articulated bureaucratic structure. What needs to be observed here is how unity — even more than the alleged goals of justice or the Good — is the ultimate teleological principle informing the interrelation of elements comprising the city’s overall constitution.
>Where the circularity of the concept of unity encompasses for Plato the origin and purpose of a state, Aristotle’s procedure in the Politics is strikingly different. To evince the overall contrast of both method and content between the two thinkers, it may be useful to consider firstly Aristotle’s metaphysical presuppositions, secondly his observations on the state in general, and finally his assessment of democracy as informed by these.
>To begin with, Aristotle’s self-proclaimed analytic and somewhat empirical method (I, i) is far less prone to the strategy of hypostatization which governs much of Plato’s thinking in the Republic. Aristotle’s method is to begin with the notion of a composite whole which is broken down into its smallest parts. Hence, where Plato sees democracy and the other forms of government as having a fairly determinate essence or set of defining characteristics, Aristotle is adamant that there are different types of democracy, oligarchy and aristocracy. In fact, his delineation of what he considers the best constitution, which he calls “polity,” is dependent on precisely this definitional malleability of each constitution and its ability to be mixed with other constitutional forms. More importantly, this analytic mentality underlies Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s view that the state should comprise a unity. Aristotle holds that a state is a composite whole made up of parts; he also defines the state as an aggregate of citizens large enough to secure a self-sufficient life; a further definition suggests that the state is an association of citizens in a constitution (III, i-iii). Aristotle’s entire text stresses the plurality of parts in any state and the need to reconcile these (IV, iii). Given these assumptions, Aristotle maintains, as against Plato, that the state cannot be a unity; unity, in fact, would destroy the state’s self-sufficiency given that the state harbours not only a plurality of numbers but different kinds of men existing in relations of reciprocal equivalence and mutually supporting diversity of function. The state’s plurality, and lack of natural unity, is further evident in the rotation of office whereby citizens take turns to rule and be ruled; Aristotle goes so far as to say that such rotation entails the same citizens becoming different persons at different times (II, ii), a view which contrasts sharply with Plato’s advocacy of a strict specialisation of function. Aristotle does not, of course, suggest that a state exists in a condition of unconstrained plurality; whatever unity a state achieves is given in its harmonisation of various interests and is also a function of education in the “spirit” of a given constitution, an education which entails training of both habits and the intellect (II, v).
Aristotle Politics:
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.
>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.
^This right here is exactly what I'm looking for.
…
With all the information I've gathered beforehand, and with reference to Hobbes quote from where I started, it does support that mixed constitutionalists do support rather a concord than a union – and although Aristotle is clear to distinguish his State from an Alliance, the nature of his State is still a plurality rather than such a sovereign union: and if it's said that they are composite nonetheless, the stress for our part is still on the unity that sovereignty bestows.
…
This helps to justify all I've said and why I've come to agree with Thomas Hobbes on this issue.
>>497417>Patriarchy and matriarchy are basedThe entire ideology of monarchism.
Plato Republic
>Can there be any greater evil than disc0rd and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the bond of unity?
I made observations on DPRK with consideration of Jean Bodin and Hobbes' Leviathan, but now I'm also starting to see Plato's Republic.
…
I recall, that I talked about appetites and aversions in Hobbes' Leviathan and a DPRK video reminded me of that – I also recently found the same is shared in Plato's Republic.
Plato Republic
>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?
>No doubt.
>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized–when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?
>Certainly.
In this DPRK video, the lyrics:
>his love is our love
>his aversion is our aversion
–I said that was Leviathanesque, and reminded me of how Hobbes talked about appetites and aversions, and how I knew earlier parts of his philosophy translated into his civil philosophy.
…
I'll pull over some posts from my last thread.
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.
<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.
>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.
<Hobbes / That a Family is a little City
>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."
I repost this above^
Because this is where it all comes together.
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.
And Aristotle said, that it was also an erroneous opinion for Plato:
>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state.
For the 1st and 2nd quote, it is stressed how the political and economical rule do differ. Not only that, but that constitutional or political rule is more appropriate for democracy or oligarchy than monarchy – (as government and freemen and equals).
…
Jean Bodin said that Aristotle rejected Plato's bringing together of democracy and monarchy. And Aristotle also said, that when the state becomes a monarch under a collection of people in a corporate unity like Hobbes' Leviathan, for him it ceases to be a State.
Jean Bodin:
>And the ancients (to assure Popular estates) did strive to equal all citizens in goods, honours, power, and rewards: and if any one were more virtuous, more just, or more wise, than the rest, he was banished, as I have showed before, seeking to make an equality, if it were possible: and even Plato did wish, That wives and children should be common to all, to the end that no many might say, This is mine, or, That is thine: for those words of Meum, and Tuum (said he) were the breeders of disc0rd, and the ruin of states.
>By the which there will grow many absurdities: for in so doing, a city shall be ruined, and become a household (as Aristotle said) although that a household or family (which is the true image of a Commonweal) has but one head.
Bodin notes here, that Aristotle sees the ruin of the State to be ordered like a Monarchy or Household: albeit some constitutionalists will try to think otherwise, this is fundamentally why I believe right libertarians are at odds with absolute monarchy as an ideal. They hold fast to Aristotle's notion. And that's why they say centralization and say all these things about us absolute monarchists.
Jean Bodin somewhat criticizes Plato and Aristotle both.
>And for this cause, an ancient lawmaker, being importuned by some one, to make his country a Popular estate: Make it (says he) in thine own house. And if they say, That it is a goodly thing so to unite citizens and a city, as to make one household of it, they must then take away the plurality of heads and commanders, which are in a Popular estate, to make a Monarch, as the true fathers of a family; and to cut off this equality of goods, power, honour, and commandment, which they seek to make in a Popular estate; for that it is incompatible in a family.
How does this doctrine make sense? that the political state or city is like a household? Consider this. A household has a vast array of servants and rooms. There are many rooms for many purposes. As a city has many services and buildings. And buildings for different purposes.
Household / Economic:
A room for the master's children to be educated with teachers
A kitchen for the cooks to provide food
A room for laundry
A room for books.
The City / Political:
It has schools / universities for people to be educated
It has a restaurant for people to eat and be served by food workers.
It has laundromats for people to clean their clothes
It has libraries for their public books.
Public services where the people can be masters with public servants
Jean Bodin also calls out those who would prefer an oligarchy to democracy or monarchy, on account of its moderation between the two.
>Yet those who have come from his school approve more highly the rule of the optimates, which lies halfway between a democracy and a monarchy. They err, however, in this respect, that they seem to place virtue in the average thing or number, not in the mean proportional. Indeed, if this is true no prince will ever be good, nor will any oligarchy be quarrelsome, because between one and many they place the mean of a few, like the mean of virtue. Yet if there is any excellence in numbers, I suppose that unity is most to be praised of all, as Plato himself most divinely wrote, in the book about entity and unity.
North Korea is a great case study in this case.
For although Bodin didn't vibe well with Plato, in making the State as a household to mean equality of goods and no private property, bordering a popular estate.
North Korea is called a monarchy by the media (and I know leftypol still strongly protest this, but hear me out) – what interests me about North Korea is it seems to play into both sides of the discussion.
Since the household is said to be the image of the commoonwealth, but also the commonwealth the image of the household: it makes sense that North Korea seems to have both. In a way, Hobbes also played into both images: making the People to be One Person (or a Monarch): where North Korea ardently believes the People are Masters and their State is a great socialist family, but pair this also with their doctrine of the Leader.
This video related.
>Our father is Marshal Kim Jong Un, Our Home is the Party's embrace"
>With the Respected Marshal who loves people most and regards his trouble for the people as his joy as our father in the harmonious great family we are assisting each other in the warm cherished house, our socialist homeland
Indeed, in the other video, they have an assembly of mothers representing the mothers of the country, and they refer to the party as the mother party – and the leader, as their father. Representing the components of a household in a democratic fashion, but also the leader.
In a way, it is like they have them in common: but couldn't that also be said for other states? that we have our children in common with curfew laws, for instance, or other public mandates looking for their common good. – As Jean Bodin aptly says, we have things in proper, but also things in common. I don't see why we shouldn't also have both by his own reasoning.
That's what makes North Korea interesting to me.
Absolutism & Fascism have a lot in common. More than people would like to admit.
1st, Absolutism & Fascism view the State as a unitary being. Their corporatism is similar to Hobbes' corporatism: that the State is a corporation of one person. And that carries us back to Plato, who saw the State as a unity.
2nd, Fascism revives and stresses an absolute will for the State.
3rd, for Fascism the State is absolute, the groups relative; in their corporatist doctrine, associations and the sort are limited under the State.
Jean Bodin:
>Provided that they [the family] 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 [The State] has the final and public authority.
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.
Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan:
<In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power Of The Representative Is Limited
>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.
ᴉuᴉlossnW:
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.
Giuseppe Bottai writes in The Corporative State:
>However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers - relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger ".
>In this way, having as a solid basis the principle of functional subordination of the Associations to the State, the corporative arrangement, as it progresses by degrees proves itself to be the foundation of the high political structure.
>This, then, is the achievement of the Fascist State, in which there are no individuals or groups of individuals which it does not recognize, subordinate and regulate, according to its aims.
>Since as a truly sovereign State, it seeks to be adequate to the civil society which makes up its structure–
So when anons were saying in the Study Fascism thread – that there was no merit in studying Absolutism to study Fascism – imo they were wrong to dismiss it.
…
However, I am surprised at how much Fascism advocate privatization, esp. in early Fascism, calling to reduce State monopolies and privatize numerous institutions that I'm surprised right libertarians or Hoppeans hate Fascism.
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.
I look at this synthesis of "State" and "Individual" as something absolute monarchists brought about – because our concern was justifying the pre-eminence of one individual person such as a monarch: to make them on par or superior with the power of the State.
This 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:
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.
This is somewhat like Hobbes' view: that before the institution of the State, there was only a multitude and no such people. The State as a corporation of One Person, formally called "The People" in Hobbes' view.
Bossuet:
>To imagine now, with M. Jurieu, in the people considered to be in this condition, a sovereignty, which is already a species of government, is to insist on a government before all government, and to contradict oneself. Far from the people being sovereign in this condition, there is not even a people in this state. There may be families, as ill-governed as they are ill-secured; there may well be a troop, a mass of people, a confused multitude; but there can be no people, because people supposes something which already brings together some regulated conduct and some establshed law – something which happens only to those who have already begun to leave this unhappy condition, that is to say, that of anarchy.
Joseph de Maistre
>If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people of
But Bodin said that Plato didn't list a mixed govt as a form of State, and that I suppose Bodin believes either would be either a State and Government (which Bodin said is different from mixing them). Yet Jean Bodin also said that it was a simple democracy.
>>498073I keep seeing thi sgoofy-ass harem series, it genuinely makes me curious.
what a generic and shitty oc
>>498505shut the fuck up
>>498512Grace-chan is perfect! She does not need to change.
>>499000 (checked)
What is Grace-chan singing?
>>498551Her blue uniform with dark tights was awesome.
>>499014probably battotai or rule brittania
I agree with /leftypol/ that a left-wing side of Fascism is laughable, because from what I read they championed a great deal of privatization.
Also how hard it is to define Fascism compared to others: it is like this unicorn people cannot understand.
>>500370That is concerning, because the Church of England doesn't seem to be warming up well to his successor Prince William.
Isocrates on Monarchy:
>Thus it is clear that monarchy is the most efficient form of government. It is said even the gods are under the kingship of Zeus; even if this were untrue, yet the fact that we imagine that the gods are under a monarchy is an admission that we consider it the best form of government.
>In oligarchies and democracies, the rulers have private interests, further they only meet occasionally and opportunities for action are missed; monarchs are continually occupied in the public interest. Again, the former are jealous and wish to exalt themselves at the expense of their predecessors and successors, the latter seek the goo will of all. But the greatest difference is that monarchs treat public affairs as their own concern, other rulers transact them as if they were other people's business, and they choose their advisors accordingly.
>Those who hold office for one year only have to retire before they have mastered their duties; a monarch has the advantage of continuous experience. Again, he knows that he has to superintend everything; the oligarchic and democratic ruler has colleagues, and much remains undone because each thinks the other is doing it.
>Obey the laws which have been laid down by kings, but consider their manner of life your highest law. For just as one who is a citizen in a democracy must pay court to the multitude, so also one who lives under a monarchy should revere the king.
>>500478Thanks, anon.
Being sick has made me very moody.
You help me feel better.
Grace I think you got COVID you should get that shit checked out.
>>500977still sick.
I am recovering from some symptoms
(no more high fever or aches or throat pain, but still a little chested and runny).
>>501211I pray for your recovery. I caught Covid twice during the pandemic, having flu suck balls
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.
>>504268After reading Plato's Republic, I return to this political commentary with renewed understanding.
…
Like where Hobbes is concerned with outward motions and expressive gestures to signify worship and honor as the inward conscious thoughts.
>And of that opinion, the external signs appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latins understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifies properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestows on any thing, with the purpose to make benefit by it.>In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their minds. Hobbes continues with the distinction of civil worship (the external praises and magnifying, actions and expressions to give a sense of honor to the State, such as the use of its emblems in currency and pilgrimages to its sites like Mt. Rushmore):
>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.>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 humaneHobbes makes the distinction between civil and divine worship: the former any person makes in a way everyday, private and public, for ordinary things, and directed toward civil persons it is with the end of power; the latter is the worship of God, which does not proceed from want of power, but from our natural duty.
Thomas Hobbes Publique Worship Consisteth In Uniformity>And this is Publique Worship; the property whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship. And therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from the different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any Publique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all. This all this from Hobbes reminds me of Plato's Republic.
Among the chief reason Plato wanted to abolish private property was to accomplish a unity of feeling. Where the State should be unified, and people should be united in feeling, in pleasure and pain, private property fractures the State: where others rejoice at their gain, others feel sorrow and loss, pitted against each other, and to the destruction of State.
Plato Republic>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?
>No doubt.
>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized–when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?
>Certainly.In a way, North Korea does capture what Plato was talking about, and I somewhat relate Hobbes to it also: both advocate uniformity of these expressions and emotions… while Fascist critics (and in particular Carl Schmitt criticized Hobbes for leaving private feelings) – I do Hobbes also accomplished that ideal in his work Leviathan, and advocated uniformity the same.
As I noted earlier, in a North Korea video about the Revolutionary Arms supporting only Kim Jong Un, they stressed that his aversions were their aversions, and his love their love: which I also thought was Leviathanesique and how Hobbes talked about appetites and aversions. (Much of his philosophy translates to his civil politics, no doubt).
I think it gives me a new depth in understanding politics.
>>504318>Caligula wasn't even that badbruh, the guy who made his horse a senate wasn't that bad? at least you aren't defending Nero I guess
>>504376he was real for that
bump I need Grace-chan pics
>>508725How many monarchists are there anyway? I can't imagine it being a very big community.
>>508732Last I checked… r/monarchism had less people than r/abolishthemonarchy.
It's that bad, and r/monarchism is our biggest hub I know of.
You'll find smaller pockets of monarchists in social media, forums, and 4ch /pol/ (outside of r/monarchism there's that traditionalist fold of tradcaths).
A lot of right libertarians jumped on board with Hoppe and the blogsphere.
I only represent the most fringe minority of monarchists
and the only group that actually aspires towards the pre-eminent ideal of monarchy as a form of State
>>508735>the only merit to Monarchy is that it only takes one bullet to kill one monarch.sorry but this goes hard
>>509062Grace is the only one for us
Plato's plea to abolish private property, that the State is divided, that half the State is mourning, the other half celebrating, – it's pretty compelling.
I said before, that nations are cults of personality, working on the people's mind into the frame of one persona and identity.
It is the same with race, like Plato said: instead private property dividing the feels of people, it's diverse properties of persons dividing their feelings, causing them to be grieved at each other, and celebrating and mourning at different occasions.
Race is a cult of personality, taking a group of people, and giving them all traits and appearances like one person. Racism is all about trying to strive toward that unity.
I think what drew me to monarchy is the same feeling: in democracies, I see people disorganized and drawn against each other (the system encourages this)… but the unity of one person such as a monarchy abolishes that division.
>>509618>…but the unity of one person such as a monarchy abolishes that division.Hmm, but, why would monarchy 'abolish' that division instead of preparing the realized state which produces condradictions to itself, the revolution thus already sparked in monarchist regimes, if those monarchies already abolished the 'division', the people's exertions would be uniform, yet, it was not.
Isn't it solely 'your' feeling that you believe so? I'd say the same for the revolutionaries who believed that the emergence of a people's assembly taking the place of the royal court would manifest a progression sublimated by the human consciousness in it's journey of abstract freedom.
>>509926Wow, looking good!
>>512996>>512998>blacc gracenever knew I needed this until now
sad that Haiti never managed to catch a break, a violent revolution after another, then an invasion by the French, then another, and another, and another, then a blockade, then an embargo, then another, then a US invasion that stole from their treasury, then a plague doctor in charge, then lard ass joey from Vancouver writes on Twitter "haha Uyghurs can't create a nation"
this is the pistol henri used to an hero btw
>>513011>made barbeque hungry for powerterrible choice of words
>>513015At first, Haitian Grace was perplexed.
Why does Barbecue wear that?
But then I realized, their faction is called G9, and others wear it too.
The gang might be wearing the freemason necklaces for the letter G. It might be a gang symbol they appropriated.
>>513016The G stands for Grace-chan.
>>490348Where can I fetch that avatar?
>>513323Go to
>>>/draw/3811Or go to VRchat and search Alunya at the Prismic Avatar Search world.
Papa Doc was very much an anti-communist and hatec Castro. That's why the US was able to tolerate him.
Is Haiti your current hyperfixation?
>>514358Getting new Grace pictures is always nice, even if they are just paintbucketed.
What's up with cancer and the British royal family?
>>516734>>516735Thank you for the cute pictures!!
>>516992
this should be in the fanfic thread.
not here
>>497379these threads are such gem mines
>>518236monarchads can't stop winning
>>518236i don't like this image, she is smug, she is mocking me
Grace-poster do you have any of the Alunya-Grace rap battle saved?
>>517697>>516757We need more cute Alunya art too.
/leftypol/ needs drawfags like the old days.
>>518681Aww, why not? I remember the Grace verses being fun! They are badly needed over at
>>>/music/11533.
>>519015I thought it was for April's fools. They really need to switch it back to the jungle theme.
>>520135But isn't Grace-chan a pillow princess?
>>520471Very cute. Charlie was better in the pilot though where she still had a bit of crazy demon bitch in her. She's too boring in the actual show.
>>520470Gracedom confirmed??
>>520975Is Hazbin Hotel your current obsession?
>>520984Sorry I mean special interest.
Is the first images bacground cod2? I could recognize that style anywhere
>>521284looks like cod 1 to me
>>521287A sidenote, has anyone tried the spanish civil war mod for cod2 its kinda obscure but so well done it could be it's own game. It is as far as i know the only "game" about the civil war on the internet.
>>521300Bokoen1 made some videos of him playing this spanish civil war mod, right?
The most controversial point of absolute monarchists besides denial of a mixed constitution or mixed state – is the absolutism itself. Without understanding the pre-eminent notions of monarchy (which the absolutist ideal of sovereignty or majesty captures), it would have little to stand upon otherwise.
Jean Bodin - Quotes on absolutism
>If this is true [what Plato and Aristotle say], it seems to apply, not to princes, or to those who have the highest power in the state, but to the magistrates. For those who decree law ought to be above it, that they may repeal it, take from it, invalidate it, or add to it, or even if circumstances demand, allow it to become obsolete. These things cannot be done if the man who makes legislation if held by it.
>Indeed, it is a fine sentiment that the man who decrees law ought to be above the laws, for the reasons we have given; but once the measure has been passed and approved by the common assent of everyone, why should not the prince be held by the law which he has made?
>If it is just that a man shall be held by whatever he decrees for another, how much more just is it that the prince or the people shall be held by their own laws?
>Nay, not even the Roman pontiffs were willing to be held by any laws, and to use their own words, they were never tied their own hands.
>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, belongs an absolute power, not subject to any law.
>It behoves 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 others: which he cannot do that is himself subject to laws or others.
>The attributes of sovereignty are therefore peculiar to the sovereign prince, for if communicable to the subject, they cannot be called attributes of sovereignty… Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with Himself, since He is infinite and two infinites cannot co-exist, so the sovereign prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction.
>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 Fetus says) is so called of mightiness.
>And to manifest this point, we must presuppose that this word Law, without any other addition, signifies The right command of him or them, which have sovereign power above others, without exception of person: be it that such commandment concern the subjects in general, or in particular: except him or them which have given the law. Howbeit to speak more properly, A law is the command of a Sovereign concerning all his subjects in general: or else concerning general things, as says Festus Pompelus.
>And as the Pope can never bind his own hands (as the Canonists say;) so neither can a sovereign prince bind his own hands, albeit that he would. We see also in the end of all edits and laws, these words, -Quia sic nobis placuit, Because it has so pleased us; - to give us to understand, that the laws of the sovereign prince, although they be grounded upon good and lively reason, depend nevertheless upon nothing but his mere and frank good will. But as for the laws of God and nature, all princes and people of the world are unto them subject: neither is it in their power to impugne them, if will not be guilty of high treason to the divine majesty, making war against God; under the greatness of whom all monarchs of the world ought to bear the yoke, and to bow their heads in fear and reverence. Wherefore in that we say the sovereign power in a Commonwealth be free from all laws, concerns nothing the laws of God and nature.
>For right certain it is, the first Commonwealths were by sovereign power governed without law, the prince's work, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman commonwealth to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the histriographer, in his second against Appian, desirous to show the most honorable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever write laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written never used this word.
>But it behoveth him that is a sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: which thing Tiberius wisely meaning in these words, reasoned in the Senate concerning the right of sovereignty, saying that – "The reason of his doings were no otherwise to be manifested, than in that it was to be given to none" -; whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, and in their stead to establish others: which he cannot do that is himself subject unto laws, or to others which have command over him. And that is it for which the laws says, That the prince is acquitted from the power of the laws; and this word the Law, in Latin imports the commandment of him which has the sovereignty. We also see that unto all edicts and decrees there is annexed this clause, "-Notwithstanding all edicts and ordinances whereunto we have derogated, and do derogate by these presents:" -a clause which has always been joined unto the ancient laws, were the law published by the present prince, or by his predecessors."
Jean Bodin elaborates on this point.
>Of the first kind are the kings who once upon a time without any laws governed empires most justly by prerogative. Such the kings of ancient Greeks are said to have been before Lycurgus and Draco, that is, before any laws had been made binding. Such, also, the ancients remember the rule of the kings in Italy. At that time no laws were promulgated by kings or by private citizens, but the whole state and the rights of citizens depended upon the will of the prince. The Latins were governed by the royal power, as Pomponius wrote, without any definite system of laws. Josephus inferred that Moses was the most ancient legislator, because Homer, in his long work, never used the word "law." Although afterwards statutes were introduced, yet they were bought forward by private citizens, not by kings; until somewhat late the princes were not willing to be bound by these regulations. Indeed, not even when the kings were driven from the city did the consuls allow their own authority and power to be limited legally.
>For right certain it is, the first Commonwealths were by sovereign power governed without law, the prince's work, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman commonwealth to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the histriographer, in his second against Appian, desirous to show the most honorable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever write laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written never used this word.
>So Ulysses, whose kingdom was contained within the rock of Ithaca, is of Homer as well called a King, as Agamemnon: for a great kingdom (as says Cassidorus) is no other thing than a great Commonwealth or Republic or State, under the government of one chief sovereign: wherefore if of three families, one of the chief of the families has sovereign power over the other two, or two of them together over the third, or all three jointly and at once exercise power and authority over the people of the three families; it shall as well be called a Commonwealth or Republic or State, as if it in itself comprehended an infinite multitude of citizens.
Jean Bodin on fundamental law
>But touching the laws which concern the state of the realm, and the establishing thereof; foreasmuch as they are annexed and united to the crown, the prince cannot derogate from them, such as is the law Salic: & albeit that he so do, the successor may always disanull that which has been one unto the prejudice of the laws royal; upon which the sovereign majesty is stayed & grounded.
It is more complex how this issue is handled. For those who would appeal to antiquity and the Greeks, like Plato, it is -somewhat- consistent but also understandably heterodox:
1. Plato's appeal to the rule of law is really an appeal to theocracy first and foremost.
>Which we're somewhat consistent with, stating the sovereign monarch is subject to the laws of God and Nature, which is also consistent with the fundamental laws preserving the monarchical form and sovereign majesty. The ideal of sovereignty or majesty in monarchy molds the State and has its virtues.
2. There is a story in light of how herds of sheep aren't guided by other sheep, but a superior force or herder, in like manner in a distant age – mankind was ruled by demigods like men over their herds of sheep. Which Plato calls the true government and the reason for following the rule of law – to capture that superior distribution of mind in laws – which is what the pre-eminent view of monarchy pertains to with majesty or sovereignty, formalized and enshrined as an ideal of monarchy on behalf of the State. Albeit Aristotle, like Plato, calls this into doubt.
>Yes, Plato would readily admit such a pre-eminent monarchy like that of the demigods over mankind, but Plato calls it into doubt: 1. Plato states that mankind naturally around the world isn't like a beehive or ant colony, with a natural superior immediately recognized in body and mind to rule them. States with monarchy like this are exceptional. 2. Also this pre-eminent person would be rare and extraordinary if he were to be found and readily accepted. 3. Even if there was this pre-eminent person, people would still be in disbelief and doubt.
Jean Bodin on pre-eminent monarchy, Aristotle, & laws
>Wherefore Aristotle is deceived, in deeming the Commonwealth then to be happy, when it shall chance to have a prince of so great virtue and wisdom, as that he both can and will with greatest equity, govern his subjects without laws. For why, the law is not made for the prince, but for the subjects in general, and especially for the magistrates.
So for absolute monarchists, yes, the sovereign monarch is considered a superior, & this should be true for all monarchies that are monarchies.
It is our controversial point w/ absolute power, but… pretty much everyone unwittingly agrees.
If it weren't the case, then the laws would never change at all: otherwise we'd still be stuck with the Code of Hammurabi to this day.
It's obvious to everyone there is a sovereign power that can change laws. People only grumble about it when it comes to monarchy, but in every other state in the world this happens.
Aristotle rebuffed–
>You can change particular laws, but what about the entire lawbook?
Or
>This adds some element of the beast
But like Hobbes suggests, so long as it has anything to do with governing people – then all political states have some element of the beast notwithstanding any perfection they could hope for.
In revolutions and change of constitution / state, even the entire lawbook and fundamental constitution are done away with – if not, there would never be any change of States and revolutions, but throughout history this happens…
Some monarchists want to retain the fundamental laws of dead monarchies, but when a state is dissolved – they must establish a new order and adopt new fashions in governing.
Should states have laws and have ideology and preserve their forms of State? Yes, a rule-maker or game master should be obliged to follow his own rules – that would be proper, but I'd go as far as to say absolute power is a necessity for any functioning state as much as having laws and absolute power is of the law of nature governing states. Absolute power is part of the ideal of sovereign majesty.
I'm an unapologetic absolutist, tbh, b/c everyone else really is for lack of better terms absolutist too.
>>521615>>521628I have read all that
>>521642i think we already had a thread on siberia where the OP asked would you suppurt capitalism if you were rich and some anons responded with "i 'm already middle class/a bit rich and i still do"
>>521644oopsy, sorry i meant would you support socialism if you were rich
>>521642it would really depend on what kind of bourgeois you're talking about, there are many levels
classical bourgeois; the guys whose family owns a really, really old company, depending on the nationality, never ask this guy what did his family do during the second world war
new bourgeois; the new player in the money game who has no family ties and works at applebees, but tries to climb the bourgeois ladder using new methods, internet coins, shell companies, investments, buying shit in the metaverse, selling a book on how to get rich, right now has a decent net worth to make him on top of half the population but still behind the richest men
government supported bourgeois; the kind who have the government on their back, may have developed their wealth in the 80s or 90s, now the state helps them with subsidies and contracts so long as they get a share of the data, depending on who you ask this guy is either a "entrepeneur" or an "oligarch"
the expat; the bourgeois class of a poor third world country, who either came for the low to zero tax rate or the cute ladyboys depending on his wealth
the champagne socialist; you already know the kind, the socialism for the rich kind, there are only two kinds of this bourgeois, streamer from the united states or Commuist billionaire, no contradiction
>>520171Grace is a Huge Pillow Princess Tsundere. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Also I am crashing this colony thread like the Hindenburg on a good day.
>>521644>"i 'm already middle class/a bit rich and i still do"That's not what bourgeois means.
>>523323I might get around to this later.
Rather I plan on putting together quotations from Louis XIV.
>>523545take your time, don't forget to tell us how would you have saved the ottoman roblox army from downfall
>>523323real shit roblox has some of the most fun neo-nazi communities of any gaming community, the indoctrination they do of kids on there is gross. i've only contacted one anti-fascist group on roblox, 5th international, and they seem pretty garbage. its big memes and shit but kids are rly getting indocrinated on this site its gotta be confronted
There are more potential quotes, but I'm lazy.
>>52543710/10, would use flamethrower on the parasol
(Many achievements of Louis XIV's reign were commemorated on the ceiling of the Hall of Mirrors in these portraits. It's why the Hall of Mirrors is so famous. This portrait in particular displays his help in the relief if a famine.)
<Louis XIV describes rescuing his subjects from a famine
>There arose soon thereafter an occasion, unpleasant in itself, yet useful in its outcome, that gave my people a clear indication of how capable I was of this same attention to details in regard to their own interests and their own advantages. The great dearth of 1661 did not actually make itself felt until the beginning of the year 1662, when most of the wheat of the previous ones had been consumed, but then it afflicted the entire kingdom in the midst of these first successes, as if God, who is careful to temper His blessings, had wanted to balance the great and joyful hopes for the future with a present misfortune. Those who in such a case are accustomed to profit from public calamity did not fail to close their stores, expecting higher prices and greater profits.
>One may imagine, however, my son, what effect markets empty of all sorts of grain, peasants compelled to abandon the cultivation of the soil in order to go elsewhere in desperate search for their sustenance produced in the kingdom, even causing apprehension that the misfortune of that year would continue into the following ones; artisans who raised the prices of their products in proportion to the cost of living, the poor making their complaints and their murmurs heard everywhere, middling families who held back their usual charities from fear of an impending need, the most wealthy burdened with their servants and unable to do everything – all the orders in the State, finally, threatened with the grave diseases that accompany a poor diet, and which, beginning with the people, subsequently spread to the persons of the highest quality; all this caused indescribable dismay throughout France.
>It would have been infinitely greater, my son, if I had merely agonize uselessly over it or if I had relied on the remedies at hand, on the ordinary magistrates, who are all too often weak and incompetent, lacking in zeal, or even corrupt. I became intimately acquainted with the needs of the people and with conditions. I obliged the more affluent provinces to aid the others, private individuals to open their stores and to put up their commodities at a fair price. I hastily sent orders everywhere to bring in as much wheat as I possibly could by sea from Danzig and from other foreign countries. I had my treasury purchase it. I distributed most of it free to the lower classes of the biggest cities, such as Paris, Rouen, Tours, and others. I had the rest sold at a very modest price to those who could afford it, and any profit from this was immediately employed for the relief of the poor, who derived, by this means, voluntary, natural, and imperceptible aid from the more wealthy. In the countryside, where distribution of wheat could not be effected so promptly, I dispatched money with which each one subsequently tried to relieve his need. I appeared, finally to all my subjects, as a true father of a family, who provides for his household and equitably distributes nourishment to his children and to his servants.
>I have never found any expense more useful than this one. For our subjects, my son, are our true riches and the only ones that we conserve purely for themselves, all the others being good for nothing unless we know the art of using them, that is, of spending them wisely. And if God gives me the grace to execute everything that I have in mind, I shall try to bring the prosperity of my reign to such a point, that in truth there should be no more rich or poor, for fortune, industry, and intelligence will always retain this distinction among men, but at least there should be no more indigence or begging throughout the kingdom; I mean no one, however impoverished he may be, who is not assured of his sustenance either through his work or through normal and regulated aid.
>But without looking forward, I was abundantly and immediately rewarded for my cares by the upsurge of affection that they produced for me in the hearts of the people. And this is how, my son, we may sometimes fortunately turn into blessings the greatest troubles of the State. For if anything can tighten the sacred knot that attaches subjects to their sovereign and awaken in their hearts their natural sentiments of respect, of gratitude, and of love for him, it is undoubtedly the aid that they receive from him in time of some unexpected public misfortune. We hardly note the admirable order of the world and the regular and useful course of the Sun until some disturbance in the seasons or some apparent disorder in the machine makes us give it a little more reflection. As long as everything in a State is prosperous, it is easy to forget the infinite blessings that royalty provides and merely envy those that it possesses. Man, naturally ambitious and proud, can never understand why another should command him until he feels the need for it. But habit makes him insensitive to this very need, as soon as it constantly and regularly satisfied. It is extraordinary incidents that make him consider what he ordinarily gains from this; and that, without authority, he would himself fall prey to the strongest, finding in the world neither justice, nor reason, nor security for his possessions, nor recourse against his losses; and this is how he comes to love obedience as much as he loves his own life and his own tranquility.
<Louis XIV on reforming finance (part one):
Removing the superintendant
>It was then that I believed I should give serious attention to the re-establishment of the finances, and the first thing I deemed necessary was to remove the principal officials responsible for the disorder from their positions. For ever since I had assumed the care of my affairs, I had every day discovered new evidence of their squandering, and particularly by the superintendant. The sight of vast establishments of this man and of his insolent acquisitions could not but convince me of his wild ambition, and the general distress of my entire people constantly urged my justice against him.
>But what compounded his guilt toward me was that, far from profiting from the kindness I have shown him by retaining him in my councils, it gave him renewed hope of deceiving me, and that far from being the wiser for it, he merely tried to be more skillful at it. but whatever artifice he might employ, I was not long in recognizing his bad faith, for he could not refrain from continuing his extravagant expenses, fortifying strongholds, decorating palaces, forming conspiracies, and purchasing important offices for his friends at my expense, in the hope of soon becoming the sovereign arbiter of the State.
>Although this behavior was assuredly most criminal, I had initially intended only to exclude him from affairs, but having subsequently considered that with his restless disposition he would not endure this change of fortune without trying something new, I thought it best to arrest him. I postponed, nevertheless, the execution of this plan, and this plan distressed me greatly, for not merely did I see that he was in the meanwhile employing new subterfuges to steal from me, but what disturbed me more was that in order to appear more influential, he made a point of asking me for private audiences, and that in order not to arouse his suspicions, I was compelled to grant them and to submit to his useless discussions, while I know all about his disloyalty.
>You can imagine that I was at an age when it required a great deal of self-control for me to act with such restraint. But, on the one hand, I saw that the removal of the superintendant was necessarily connected with transferring the farmed taxes, and on the other hand, I knew that it being summer, this was the worst season of the year for making such innovations, aside from wanting above all to have a fund of four millions on hand for whatever needs might arise. Thus I resolved to wait for autumn to execute this plan.
>But having gone to Nantes toward the end of the month of August for the meeting of the Estates of Brittany and getting a closer look from there at the ambitious enterprises of this minster, I could not refrain from having him arrested at that very place on September 5. All France, as convinced as I was of the misconduct of the superintendant, acclaimed this action and praised particularly the secrecy with which I ha kept a decision of this nature for three or four months, primarily in regard to a man who had such private access to me, who was in contact with all those who were around me, who was receiving information from within and from outside the State, and whose own conscience should have given him ample warning that he ha everything to fear.
>But what I believed I had on this occasion that was most worthy of being observed and most advantageous to my people was to abolish the office of superintendant, or rather to assume it myself.
>Perhaps in considering the difficulty of this undertaking, you will one day be astonished, as all France has been, that I have undertaken this labor at an age when it is usual to love only pleasure. But I shall tell you frankly that although this work was unpleasant, I felt less repugnance for it than another might have, because I have always considered the satisfaction of doing one's duty as the sweetest pleasure in the world. I have even often wondered how it could be that love for work a quality so necessary to sovereigns should yet be one that is so rarely found in them.
>Most princes, because they have a great many servants and subjects, do not feel obliged to go to any trouble and do not consider that, if they have an infinite number of people working under their orders, there are infinitely more who rely on their conduct and that it takes a great deal of watching and a great deal of work merely to insure that those who act do only what they should and that those who rely tolerate only what they must. All these different conditions that compose the world are united to each other only by an exchange of reciprocal obligations. The deferences and the respects that we receive from our subjects are not a free gift from them but payment for the justice and the protection that they expect to receive from us. Just as they must honor us, we must protect and defend them, and our debts toward them are even more binding than theirs to us, for indeed, if one of them lacks the skill or the willingness to execute our orders, a thousand others come in a crowd to fill his post, whereas the position of a sovereign can be properly filled only by the sovereign himself.
<Of all the functions of Sovereignty, the one that a prince must guard most jealously is the handling of the finances
>But to be more specific, it must be added to this that of all the functions of sovereignty, the one that a prince must guard most jealously is the handling of the finances. It is the most delicate of all because it is the one that is most capable of seducing the one who performs it, and which makes it easiest for him to spread corruption.
>The prince alone should have the sovereign direction over it because he alone has no fortune to establish but that of the State, no acquisition to make except for the Monarchy, no authority to strengthen other than that of the laws, no debts to pay besides the public ones, no friends to enrich save his people.
…
>And indeed, what would be more ruinous for the provinces or more shameful for their king than to raise a man who has his own private objectives and affairs, who claims the right to dispose of everything without rendering any account and to fill his coffers and those of his creatures constantly with the most liquid public funds? Can a prince be more foolish than to favor private individuals who use his authority in order to become rich at his own expense and whose squandering, although it gains him nothing, ruins both his affairs and his reputation? And putting it more piously, can he fail to consider that these great sums which compose the exorbitant and monstrous wealth of a small number of financiers always come from the sweat, the tears, and the blood of the wretched, whose defense is committed to his care?
>The maxims I am teaching you today, my son, have not been taught to me by anyone, because they had never occurred to my predecessors. But now that your advantage in being instructed in them at such an early age will come back to haunt you if you don't profit from it.
>Aside from the councils of finances and the boards that had always been held, I decided, in order to acquit myself more responsibly of the superintendancy, to establish a new council, which I named Royal Council. I composed it of Marshal de Villeroi, of two Councillors of State, D'Aligre and De Seve, and of an Intendant of Finances, who was Colbert, and it is in this council that I have been working ever since to disentangle the terrible confusion that had been introduced into my affairs.
>This was assuredly no minor undertaking, and those who have seen the point at which things were and who sees the precision to which I have no reduced them are astonished, with reason, that I was able to penetrate in so short a time into an obscurity that so many able superintendants had never yet clarified. But what must put a stop to this surprise is the natural difference between the interest of the prince and that of the superintendant. For these private individuals, approaching their position with no greater care than to preserve their own liberty to dispose of everything as they see fit, often put much more of their skill into obscuring this matter than into clarifying it, whereas a king, who is its legitimate lord, puts as much order and precision as he can into everything, aside from the fact that I was personally often relieved in this work by Colbert, whom I entrusted with examining things that required too much discussion and into which I would not have had the time to go.
>The manner in which the collections and the expenditures had been made was something incredible. My revenues were no longer handled by my treasurers but by the clerks of the superintendant who combined them haphazardly with his private expenses. Money was disbursed when, how, and as they pleased, and one looked afterwards at leisure for false expenses, orders for cash, and canceled notes to consume these sums. The continual exhaustion of the public treasury and the perpertual avidity for more money made for the easy awarding of exorbitant commissions to those who offered to advance it. The wild disposition of Fouquet had always made him prefer useless expenses to necessary ones, so that the most liquid funds having been consumed in gratituities distributed to his friends, in buildings constructed for his pleasure, or in other things of a similar nature, it was necessary, at the slightest need of the State, to have recourse to alienations that could only be negotiated at a pittance because of the extreme necessity. By these means the State had become so impoverished that notwithstanding the immense tailles that were levied, the treasury netted no more than twenty-one million per year, which had itself been spent for two years in advance, aside from my having been made liable for seventy millions in notes issued for the profit of various individuals.
(Pic related: Louis XIV against financial harpies)
<Part 2
>The thing that I was most eager to correct about this general abuse was the use of orders for cash, because these had assuredly contributed more than anything else to the squandering of my money; for in this way one gave freely to whomever one wanted, without shame and without any fear of discovery. To avoid this confusion in the future, I resolved to draw up and to record personally all the orders I would sign, so that no expenditure has since been possible without my knowing the reason.
>I also wanted to recontract my farmed taxes, which had not been brought to their just value, and in order to avoid the frauds that were so common on these occasions – whether through the corruption of the judges who awarded them or through the secret compacts between the bidders – I was present at the bidding personally; and this first effort of mine increased my revenues by three millions, aside from making the value of the contracts payable monthly, which then gave me enough to provide for the most pressing expenses and enabled me to save the State a loss of fifteen millions a year in interest on loans.
>As for the contracts for the direct taxes, I reduced the commission from five sols to only fifteen deniers per livre, a diminution that amounted to such a large sum for the entire kingdom that it permitted me, in my great exhaustion, to lower the taille by four millions.
<I was astonished myself that in such a short time and by such entirely just means I should have been able to procure so much profit for the public. But what might cause still greater astonishment in that those who dealt with me on these terms made almost as great and much more solid a gain than those who had dealt previously, because the respect of my subjects for me then and my care in protecting my servants in all their requests made them find as much facility in their collections than as there had previously been chicanery and obstruction.
>I resolved, a short time later, to reduce from three quarters to two the payments on the salary increases that the officials had acquired at the pittance and that had greatly diminished the value of my farmed taxes. But I have already explained the justice and the facility of this reduction to you now in passing as one of the good effects of the economy that was so necessary to my state.
>But my last decision of that year concerning the finances was the establishment of the Chamber of Justice, in which I had two principal motives: the first, that it was not possible, in the state to which things were reduced, to diminish the ordinary taxes sufficiently and to relieve the poverty of the people promptly enough without making those who had grown wealthy at the expense of the State contribute heavily to its expenses; and the second, that for this chamber to examine the contracts that had been made was the only means to facilitate the settling of my debts. For they had been raised to such prodigious sums that I could not have paid them all without ruining most of my subjects, nor cancel them arbitrarily without running the risk of committing an injustice, aside from not wanting to return to the abuse that had been practiced in the redemption of treasury notes, by which means influential people were paid sooner or later for sums that were not due them while the real creditors would have drawn only a small portion of their due. This is why I believe that I should liquidate exactly what I owed and what was owed to me in order to pay the one and to be paid the other, but because these discussions were delicate and because most of those concerned ha a great deal of influence and a good many relatives in the ordinary courts of justice, I was obliged to form a special one out of the most disinterested men in all the others.
>I have no doubt that from reading all these details you will get the impression that the effort required for all these sorts of things was not very pleasant in itself, and that this great number of ordinances, contracts, declarations, registers, and accounts that it was necessary not merely to see and to sign but to conceive and to resolve, was not too satisfying a matter to a mind capable of other things, and I will grant you this.
<But if you consider the great advantages that I have drawn from it later, the relief that I have granted to my subjects each year, of how many debts I have disengaged the State, how many alienated taxes I have repurchased, with what punctuality I have paid all legitimate burdens, and the number of poor workers I have supported by employing them on my buildings, how many gratuities I have given to people of merit, how I have furthered public works, what aid in men and in money I have furnished my allies, how greatly I have increased the number of my ships, what strongholds I have purchased, with what vigor I have taken possession of my rights when they were challenged, without ever having been reduce to the unfortunate necessity of burening my subjects with any extraordinary tax, you would certainly find then that the labors by which I have reached this position must have appeared very pleasant to me, since they have borne so much fruit for my subjects.
<For indeed, my son, we must consider the good of our subjects far more than our own. They are almost a part of ourselves, since we are the head of a body and they are its members. It is only for their own advantage that we must give them laws, and our power over them must only be used by us in order to work more effectively for their happiness. It is wonderful to deserve from them the name of a father and sovereign, and if one belongs to us by right of birth, the other must be the sweetest object of our ambition. I am well aware that such a wonderful title is not obtained without a great deal of effort, but in praiseworthy undertakings one must not be stopped by the idea of difficulty. Work only dismays weak souls, and when a plan is advantageous and just, it is weakness not to execute it. Laziness in those of our rank is just as opposed to the greatness of courage as timidity, and there is no doubt that a monarch responsible for watching over the public interest deserves more blame in fleeing from a useful burden than in stopping in the face of imminent danger; for indeed, the fear of danger can almost always be tinge by a feeling of prudence, whereas the fear of work can never be considered as anything but an inexcusable weakness.
>Louis XIV's close management of finances
>In working at the reorganization of the finances, I had already acceded, as I have told you, to signing personally all orders issued for the slightest expenses of the State. I found that this was not enough, an I was willing to go to the trouble of marking in my own hand, in a little book that I could always see, on one side, the funds that I was to receive each month, on the other, all the sums paid by my orders during that month.
<It may be, my son, that among the great number of courtiers who will surround you, some, attached to their pleasures and glorying in their ignorance of their own affairs, will someday portray this care to you as far beneath royalty. They will tell you, perhaps, that the kings our predecessors have never done such a thing and that even their prime ministers would have believed they were lowering themselves if they had not relied for these details on the superintendant and he, in turn, on the treasurer or on some lowly and obscure clerk. But those who speak this way have never considered that in the world, the greatest affairs are hardly ever concluded without the smallest, and that what would be baseness if a prince were acting through mere love of money becomes loftiness and superiority if its ultimate object is the welfare of his subjects, the execution of an infinite number of great plans, his own splendor, and his own magnificence, of which this attention to details is the most secure basis.
>Imagine, my son, what an entirely different thing it is for a king, whose plans must be varied, more extensive, and more hiden than those of any private individual, of such a nature indeed that there is sometimes hardly a single person in the world to whom he can entrust them all in their entirety. There are, however, none of these plans in which the finances do not enter somewhere. This is not saying enough. There are none of these plans that do not entirely and essentially depend on them, for what is great and wonderful when the state of our finances allows it becomes fantastic and ridiculous when it doe snot. Think then, I beg of you, how a king could govern and not be governed if his ignorance of these financial details subjects his best and most noble thoughts to the caprice of the prime minister, or of the superintendant, or of the treasurer, or of that obscure and unknown clerk, whom he would be obliged to consult like so many oracles, so that he could not undertake anything without obtaining their advice and their consent.
>But there are, you will be told, loyal and wise people who, without penetrating into your plans, will not mislead you about these financial details. I wish, my son, that these qualities were as common as they are rare.
wtf is this monarchist thread
>>526444 and
>>526482 kind of interesting though, who knows how historically accurate the content is.
>>526492The source is Louis XIV's instruction & memoirs for the dauphin, translated by Paul Sinnino.
https://archive.org/details/louisxivkingfran0000paul/page/n5/mode/2up
Grace & Alunya: Back to The Future
Grace and Alunya use a Time Machine to travel back into Harlem, the 1980s. they team with an African American named John Sideways, they must defeat Porky's current plan of flooding the streets with Crack Cocaine while fighting South African mercenary goons, Ronald Reagan, the CIA, Wall Street bankers, and creepy evangelical pastors
>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.
…
King Lear & King James VI & I
Shakespeare's King Lear is believed to have been first performed before King James VI & I in 1606; 1606, the same date Richard Knolles' translation of Bodin's Six Books of a Commonwealth was made into English (K. James VI & I owned a copy).
When Shakespeare in King Lear mentions "pre-eminence" and "all the large effects that troop with Majesty" – it is evidence Shakespeare himself was learned on the idea of Sovereignty I expound in royal colony.
We'll talk further on this.
Historians will regale you with how Absolutism & Sovereignty or Majesty was unprecedented and formed Modernity with humanism, nationalism, & liberalism, the Peace of Westphalia; how beforehand denominational / Church allegiance came before political ideas & allegiance, etc.
Before Majesty or Sovereignty, there was the name of monarchical pre-eminence; the pre-eminent notion of Monarchy is very old, but was informal and profound.
Majesty or Sovereignty was simply the re-emergence and formalization thereof… of monarchical pre-eminence as an ideal.
It goes back to antiquity; Aristotle also briefly covered the pre-eminent ideals of Monarchy, but later he denied it and said it was more synonymous with the Indian kings with their grandiose claims… so all will acknowledge the notions of monarchical pre-eminence found in absolutism are much older than their formality in the late 1500s.
…
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).
Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the Indian kings of the East.
–
>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed
I say, Aristotle, Aristotle, Aristotle; frankly, that is the chair Alexis de Tocqueville is really standing upon w/ his appeals to decentralization: Aristotle
There's a reason absolutists like Bodin & Hobbes were a bit course with Aristotle: (we have a love-hate relationship)
>"And I believe that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said… more repugnant to Government, than much of that he hath said in his Politics" says Hobbes
Jean Bodin also remarks against Aristotle's influence:
>"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."
That's why Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature.
>"What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king"
Of course, Aristotle has said a number of good things about Monarchy, like of its fatherly and kindred nature with blood; but his view of Monarchy as incompatible with the State is what we're most combative against.
The State & Laws of Aristotle's City is the convention of the Estates or Houses; it isn't indicative of the Family, but the Families that altogether form the City (as the city / democracy was considered superior to the Family).
Hence why the Nobility favors so much for Aristotle's constitutionalism of freemen & equals. They are heads and masters of their estates, together by their consent and virtue;
That view extends to regionalism, based on the view of the estates / houses and their heads in a city.
Yet where our understanding of politics differs is moreso rather than the assent of these estates, there is a bonding agent and unity called Sovereignty; a unity that transfixes and gives an identity to the entire body, like a soul or cult of personality imposed.
A civil soul that encompasses the entire body-politic, indivisible & simple, breathes life into it and gives them a common language, so that the estates can have any assent to begin with together: a majesty or sovereignty holding it all together than simply the coherence of them.
This is the nature of the general power and how our view of civics fundamentally differs.
Hobbes says
>"The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth."
Hobbes says again
>"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."
This 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:
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.
This is my response to the narrative of historians, but also the negative stigma surrounding absolute monarchy from other monarchists in our circles like the neofeud ancap people and other rightwingers.
The Royal colony threads should have the Alunya & Grace fanfic threads in their OP.
<Alexis de Tocqueville: The mother of modern socialism, – Royal Despotism
>Long before, Louis XIV. had publicly promulgated in his edicts the theory that all the lands in the Kingdom had been in the origin conditionally granted by the State, which was therefore the only real landowner – the actual holders having mere possessory rights, and an imperfect and questionable title. This doctrine sprang out of the feudal system, but it was never openly professed in France till that system was on the point of death; courts of justice never admitted it. It was the mother of modern socialism, which thus, strange to say, seems to have been the offspring of Royal Despotism.
<Admiration of China
>I do not exaggerate when I affirm that every one of them wrote in some place or other an emphatic eulogium on China. One is sure to find at least that in their books; and as China is very imperfectly known even in our day, their statements on its subjects are generally pure nonsense. They wanted all the nations of the world to set up exact copies of that barbarous and imbecile government, which a handful of Europeans master whenever they please. China was for them what England, and afterwards America, became for all Frenchmen. They were filled with emotion and delight at the contemplation of a government wielded by an absolute but unprejudiced Sovereign, who honored the useful arts by plowing once a year with his own hands; of a nation whose only religion was philosophy, whose only aristocracy were men of letters, whose public offices were awarded to the victors at literary tournaments.
>It is generally believed that the destructive theories known by the name of socialism are of modern origin. This is an error. These theories are coeval with the earliest economists. While some of them wanted to use the absolute power they desired to establish to change the forms of society, others proposed to employ it in ruining its fundamental basis.
>Read the Code de la Nature by Morelly; you will find therein, together with the economist doctrines regarding the omnipotence and the boundless rights of the State, several of those political theories which have terrified France of late years, and whose origin we fancy we have seen – community of property, rights of labor, absolute equality, universal uniformity, mechanical regularity of individual movements, tyrannical regulations on all subjects, and the total absorption of the individual into the Body Politic.
The doctrine Louis XIV promulgated that Alexis de Tocqueville is referring to was something numerous people have held.
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
Bodin / The Kings of Persia, lords of the earth & waters
>And therefore the kings of Persia denouncing war, demanded the earth & waters to show that they were absolute Lords of all that was in the land & sea contained. Xenophon in Cyropedia writes, that it is a good & commendable thing among the Medes, that the prince should be lord & owner of all things.
Egyptian Loyalist Teaching
>He is the sun in whose leadership people live
>Whoever is under his light will be great in wealth
>He gives sustenance to his followers
>He feeds the man who sticks to his path
>the man he favors will be the lord of offerings
>the man he rejects will be a pauper
>He is Khuum for every body
Hobbes goes further than others.
Thomas Hobbes
>Which is so evident, that even Cicero, (a passionate defender of Liberty,) in a public pleading, attributes all Propriety to the Law Civil, "Let the Civil Law," says he, "be once abandoned, or but negligently guarded, (not to say oppressed,) and there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive from his Ancestor, or leave to his Children." And again; "Take away the Civil Law, and no man knows what is his own, and what another man's."
Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Soveraign, But Onely Of Another Subject
>From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Soveraign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same
Hobbes talks about this in another treatise (kinda like that meme where proletariat are asking a capitalist where did he get that property from?)
>The seventh Doctrine opposite to Government, is this, That each subject hath an absolute Dominion over the goods he is in possession of. That is to say, such a propriety as excludes not only the right of all the rest of his fellow−subjects to the same goods, but also of the Magistrate himself. Which is not true; for they who have a Lord over them, have themselves no Lordship, as hath been proved, Chap. 8. Artic. 5. Now the Magistrate is Lord of all his Subjects, by the constitution of Government. Before the yoke of Civill Society was undertaken, no man had any Proper Right; all things were common to all men. Tell me therefore, how gottest thou this propriety but from the Magistrate? How got the Magistrates it, but that every man transferred his Right on him? And thou therefore hast also given up thy Right to him; thy Dominion therefore, and Propriety, is just so much as he will, and shall last so long as he pleases; even as in a Family, each Son hath such proper goods, and so long lasting, as seeme good to the Father. But the greatest part of men who professe Civill Prudence, reason otherwise; we are equall (say they) by nature; there is no reason why any man should by better Right take my goods from me, than I his from him; we know that mony sometimes is needfull for the defence and maintenance of the publique; but let them, who require it, shew us the present necessity, and they shall willingly receive it. They who talk thus, know not, that what they would have, is already done from the beginning in the very constitution of Government, and therefore speaking as in a dissolute multitude, and yet not fashioned Government, they destroy the frame.
Hobbes is more notorious than others, but Bodin wouldn't really approve of what Hobbes is saying and was more staunch about private property rights as opposed to Hobbes.
>>523625What shall we do on this especial day? idk anons.
I feel out of touch, but I'm sure something will happen.
>>527755>chernobyl dogRelevance?
>>520143>>520141Where did you find this? Saved
>>527869푸옹 Phuong DPRK Daily
>>528517I love her so much
>>498016Neocamerialism isn't so far from the mark.
https://pcbwiki.net/wiki/Neocameralism–
https://pcbwiki.net/wiki/Cameralism
>Neocamerialism is a form of government proposed by the Neoreactionary writer Mencius Moldbug, largely inspired by the economic system of Cameralism as in place under the Prussian King, Frederick the Great.
>Neocameralism is the idea that a sovereign state or primary corporation is not organizationally distinct from a secondary or private corporation. Thus we can achieve good management, and thus libertarian government, by converting governments to the same management design that works well in today’s private sector.
>Neocameralism is a Monarchical system as enforced by the framework of the corporate joint-stock model that can be seen in the most companies in the western countries. In short, it believes a large joint-stock corporation should be chosen as rulers of a country, and the corporation's (large) shareholders should choose a "Monarch-CEO". It is close to the doctrine we espouse here:
>>498016But I wouldn't say it is entirely on the mark: because as political is no different from economical, so also the economical – or as Hobbes says, that the family is a little city. So the political State as we have it now is already to an extent like that corporation or the estate in its nature to begin with, but neocamerialism kinda talks as through it weren't – maybe they could bring it closer to their ideal.
>>529388
She should have an outfit based on The Emperor's New Clothes.
>>529436That dress picture is extremely cute. I like the skirt and I like the pants too. Why did you delete the other sketches, it was adorable to see her in one picture with shirt tucked in and on the next not.
What does Grace-chan do when Iranian diplomats accuse her of stealing their monero coins to buy lunch money?
Where does the Monarch have knowledge to govern the State?
There is Aristotle's food argument that discredits the idea of a wise man or philosopher king to rule the State. Stating that albeit one wise man could outwit particular members of an assembly, the assembly altogether brings more food to the table. So the City needs democracy for all the estates to bring food to civil policy.
This is the reason why Monarchists like Bodin & Hobbes & Filmer side with Plato, that there is no difference between the economical estate and political estate: if you know how to govern yourself and your own household, then you're well on your way to knowing how to govern all the estates altogether.
This is better to justify Monarchy.
Hitler writes in Mein Kampf in his criticism of parliamentarianism:
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
Jean Bodin wrote related to this topic:
>But Plato had another argument for an Aristocratical estate, saying, That it was very hard to find any one man so wise and virtuous, as was requisite for the government of an an estate, and by that means a Monarchy were not sure. But this argument is captious, and may be used against himself: for if it be hard to find any one prince so wise as he desires, how shall they find out so great a number as is needful in a Seigneurie?
And for Aristotle's water argument Bodin talks about salt (virtuous men) tossed and dissolved in water.
>for as well in all Aristocratical and Popular estates, as in all corporations and colleges, the greatest part does still over-rule the sounder and the better: and the more men there be, the less effects are there of virtue and wisdom (even as a little salt cast into a great lake, loses his force:) so as the good men shall be always vanquished in number by the vicious and ambitious: and for one tyrant there shall be a hundred which will cross the resolution of the lesser but of the sounder part
Hitler in Mein Kampf also describes his own disillusionment with parliamentary democracy. Many other people have been raised with a profound belief in the wisdom of statesmen: they are the experts:
>Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.
>But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.
>That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.
>The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.
>I could not refrain from laughing.
>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.
>A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.
>A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.
Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism:
>The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.
>The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?
>Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?
>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?
>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.
>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?
>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?
>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?
>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?
>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?
>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?
>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?
>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?
>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?
>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?
Hitler continues.
>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.
>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.
>The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority–which means the dunder headed multitude–hate nothing so much as a superior brain.
>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.
>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude
>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.
>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.
>There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.
>It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has today, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
Thomas Hobbes in De Cive:
>But perhaps for this very reason some will say, That a Popular State is much to be preferr'd before a Monarchicall; because that, where all men have a hand in publique businesses, there all have an opportunity to shew their wisedome, knowledge, and eloquence, in deliberating matters of the greatest difficulty and moment; which by reason of that desire of praise which is bred in humane nature, is to them who excell in such like faculties, and seeme to themselves to exceed others, the most delightfull of all things.
>Besides, there are many reasons why deliberations are lesse successefull in great Assemblies, than in lesser Councells; whereof one is, that to advise rightly of all things conducing to the preservation of a Commonwealth, we must not only understand matters at home, but Forraign Affaires too: at Home, by what goods the Country is nourished, and defended, and whence they are fetched; what places are fit to make Garrisons of; by what means Souldiers are best to be raised, and maintained; what manner of affections the Subjects bear toward their Prince, or Governours of their Country, and many the like: Abroad, what the power of each neighbouring Country is, and wherein it consists; what advantage, or disadvantage we may receive from them; what their dispositions are both to us−ward, and how affected to each other among themselves, and what Counsell daily passeth among them. Now, because very few in a great Assembly of men understand these things, being for the most part unskilfull (that I say not incapable) of them, what can that same number of advisers with their impertinent Opinions contribute to good Counsells, other than meer letts and impediments?
>Another reason why a great Assembly is not so fit for consultation is, because every one who delivers his opinion holds it necessary to make a long continued Speech, and to gain the more esteem from his Auditours, he polishes, and adornes it with the best, and smoothest language. Now the nature of Eloquence is to make Good and Evill, Profitable and Unprofitable, Honest and Dishonest, appear to be more or lesse than indeed they are, and to make that seem just, which is unjust, according as it shall best suit with his end that speaketh. For this is to perswade; and though they reason, yet take they not their rise from true Principles, but from vulgar received opinions, which, for the most part, are erroneous; neither endeavour they so much to fit their speech to the nature of the things they speak of, as to the Passions of their mindes to whom they speak; whence it happens that opinions are delivered not by right reason, but by a certain violence of mind. Nor is this fault in the Man, but in the nature it selfe of Eloquence, whose end (as all the Masters of Rhetorick teach us) is not truth (except by chance) but victory, and whose property is not to inform, but to allure.
>The third reason why men advise lesse successfully in a great convent is, because that thence arise Factions in a commonweal, and out of Factions, Seditions, and Civill War; for when equall Oratours doe combat with contrary Opinions, and Speeches, the conquered hates the Conquerour, and all those that were of his side, as holding his Counsell, and wisedome in scorne: and studyes all meanes to make the advise of his adversaries prejudiciall to the State, for thus he hopes to see the glory taken from him, and restored unto himself. Farthermore, where the Votes are not so unequall, but that the conquered have hopes by the accession of some few of their own opinion at another sitting to make the stronger Party, the chief heads do call the rest together; they advise apart how they may abrogate the former judgment given; they appoint to be the first and earliest at the next convent; they determine what, and in what order each man shall speak, that the same businesse may again be brought to agitation, that so what was confirmed before by the number of their then present adversaries, the same may now in some measure become of no effect to them, being negligently absent. And this same kind of industry and diligence which they use to make a people, is commonly called a faction. But when a faction is inferiour in votes, and superiour, or not much inferiour in power, than what they cannot obtain by craft, and language, they attempt by force of armes, and so it comes to a civill warre. But some will say, these things doe not necessarily, nor often happen; he may as well say, that the chief Parties are not necessarily desirous of vain glory, and that the greatest of them seldom disagree in great matters.
>We cannot on better condition be subject to any, than one whose interest depends upon our safety, and welfare; and this then comes to passe when we are the inheritance of the Ruler; for every man of his own accord endeavours the preservation of his inheritance. But the Lands, and Monies of the Subjects are not only the Princes Treasure, but their bodies, and active minds.
Thomas Hobbes - Introduction of Leviathan: Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self
<Concerning the first, there is a saying much usurped of late, That Wisedome is acquired, not by reading of Books, but of Men.
>But there is another saying not of late understood, by which they might learn truly to read one another, if they would take the pains; and that is, Nosce Teipsum, Read Thy Self: which was not meant, as it is now used, to countenance, either the barbarous state of men in power, towards their inferiors; or to encourage men of low degree, to a sawcie behaviour towards their betters;
>But to teach us, that for the similitude of the thoughts, and Passions of one man, to the thoughts, and Passions of another, whosoever looketh into himselfe, and considereth what he doth, when he does Think, Opine, Reason, Hope, Feare, &c, and upon what grounds; he shall thereby read and know, what are the thoughts, and Passions of all other men, upon the like occasions. I say the similitude of Passions, which are the same in all men, Desire, Feare, Hope, &c; not the similitude or The Objects of the Passions, which are the things Desired, Feared, Hoped, &c
>He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himselfe, not this, or that particular man; but Man-kind; which though it be hard to do, harder than to learn any Language, or Science.
That is how Monarchy is justified like vid related to govern the whole State & not only his own private estate (like Aristotle & constitutionalists want) – to be like Tsar Paul I overlooking the City.
Like I was saying earlier, look at all the rooms of any estate, then you'll easily know all the buildings of any city.
Household / Economic:
A room like a library for the master's children to be educated with teachers
A kitchen for the cooks to provide food
A room for laundry
A room for books.
The City / Political:
It has schools / universities for people to be educated
It has a restaurant for people to eat and be served by food workers.
It has laundromats for people to clean their clothes
It has libraries for their public books.
Public services where the people can be masters with public servants
Even if we concede Aristotle's talking point that we'll want more food for the table, it can still be reconciled under monarchy in any assembly.
This quote from Robert Filmer is actually from Jean Bodin: who also praised the wisdom of council. The power of Monarchy still has the power of unified command to make precise work of the council without dissolving into factions and mitigating the effect of all that food compiled together. Like Hobbes says (in his empiricist fashion) that the head is to council and the senses with all parts of the realm responding to it like nerves in the boy, and the sovereign like the soul to command. The sovereign will have the final will and determination to deliberate and is the final authority, weaving it altogether.
I disagree with Bodin and Hobbes a little bit in putting too much wisdom in the councils. Xenophon in Cyropaedia explains that being thought wise gains obedience. The problem is not that we don't trust the authority of particular men (/leftypol/ is proof of that; so many leftists identify with the names of proper men like Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc) – people believe the authority and wisdom of statesmen and other men "the experts", but they're taught to doubt the wisdom of kings. A monarchist should seek to restore trust in the throne as a source of wisdom, make the monarch respected like a teacher. That along with procuring a belief for them to gain sustenance and protection will restore people's trust and obedience.
I believe Monarchy can persist into the modern world.
Some might say, that the institutions backing royalty, like the Church, have lost confidence in their wisdom.
Yet even if we have monarchy without Christian crowns, and return to this Caesarism, re-introduced in the Fascist and DPRK Leader principle, or in secularized dictatorships as one-man rule and hereditary dynasties, Monarchy can persist the monarchical form of one person in States well into Modernity with these political ideologies and totalitarianism instead of theocracy. Even if people believe in the Dr. Fauci and the Science now. Yet there are still traditionalist regimes with monarchy well into the current year as well and other examples of modern regimes.
And I'm not saying the age-old Victorian ideal of constitutional monarchy, but the pre-eminent ideals of Monarchy – may persist into Modernity.
>what about feudalism and landholding elite – isn't Monarchy tied to this?
I wouldn't say so, because while the doctrine of the lord of all goods and distribution of lands was associated with feudalism, and replaced with industrialism, the sovereign power also accounts for the distribution of money which is responsible for the transfer of commodities and capital. It is true that monarchies with great power also tend to be those with great wealth (like Saudi Arabia or Thailand or the little monarchies). Those with wealth have power to provide and gain obedience of people and retaining monarchical power. Although Hobbes says the public shouldn't be dieted in a monarchy to only his own assets and estates, but tax and rely on the distribution of funds from the entire land and people, a monarchy having a lot of wealth helps and can even be done without being a staple lordly monarchy, but even with public institutions and assemblies in other royal monarchies. The palace economies do persist into the modern day.
>what about socialism?
In socialism, isn't masterly power usurped rather than abolished? In North Korea, for example, they say the people are masters. –Masters, still. The ordering of the State under democratic centralism still resembles that relationship of sovereign power in the State – the bourgeois corporate State is hijacked and replaced with a proletarian kind, retaining the functions of the previous State in many ways, retaining the State / Republic, which can account for numerous forms of State and methods of governance. Places like primitives like the Native American empires Inca or North Korea, they tend to be called military democracies. –So all the maxims mentioned above about political and economical are no different apply even to socialism (maybe more appropriately because Plato also wanted to abolish private property).
>even hereditary monarchy?
Yes, because when States fall into monarchical form, they'll want to preserve it. It ultimately comes to a question of trust: do you trust a stranger or someone who takes after yourself with the keys of State? A son (or daughter???) have better incentives to preserve the State of their ancestors than strangers do, who tend to be rivals and want to undo the effects of his predecessors government time and time again – the loyal son generally wants to preserve the heritage of his ancestors and will be held in the image of his progenitor and the founder of their State.
Only Monarchy will transform the State from a community of strangers into a community of kindred people; they will know true loyalty, the familial kind, not only for the Monarchy, but also amongst each other.
>>529520>Why did you delete the other sketches?To avoid going back and changing my mind.
I regret having so many sketches to end up at square one>>529536Grace is into crypto-currencies?
>lunch moneyDoes Grace also take the bus to get around?
if you were to convert all of /siberia/ to monarchism, this board would still be better and more leftist than leftypol.
Ideally an Iranian style elected supreme leader plus socialist republic combo would be better than monarchism which is gay and faggy Euroshit. We should have a occultic socialist republic with a messianic supreme leader elected from a bunch of practicing mystics to serve a life term. Grace is useless. She has no grasp of economics or gnostic Christian mysticism.
>>530054You smoking crack? The average porn addicted women obsessed si/b/erian incel poster would rather genocide all women before assassinating a single capitalist.
>>531468Noooooo why is Grace so sad ;__;
>>530993Gay faggy euroshit monarchies suck. Only eastern style mandate of heaven spiritual emperorships are good. Grace is a worthless loser she should be overthrown already. She lacks virtue and righteousness. You will end up like the Shah inshalla
>>532188If I remember 8chan correctly, Grace is canonically a huge fan of incan empire, neither west nor east, but south
She must really like Cusco and the emperor's new groove
>>5321883rd worldists:
You WILL carry Grace around on a chair, and you WILL be happy.
>>532359We need a picture like that of Grace being carried by Alunya, Rodina, Tania and uhh some fourth character.
>>532361Stirner chan, NKVD chan, or Communism chan.
>>532362I want NKVD-chan to shoot me
>>490337Thoughts on having the fanfic thread (
>>415467 ) added to the OP?
>>532188>She lacks virtue and righteousnessPretty comfy here.
Meanwhile u:
>oooooh maaaauh gaaaawwd cool ninja mystic cult! it's so esoteriiiic and eluuussive, we're gunna have an elective messssiah, there's going be chinese dragons and zoomer shit, eurocuck monarchists can't cope!! xDDDD mandate of heaven so churl peasants will overthrow my socialist mystic gnostic zoomer cult of personality next sign of famine or foreign invasion x) heh, no virtue, no righteousness, eurogay monarchy 1st worldist!!>>532589idk, anon.
>>534440Hmm, what is the difference between the embassy and the royal colony?
If you think about it, mixing communismtechnically dictatorship of the proletariat with monarchism(instead of having a republic) is actually possible, the monarch just needs to be part of the working class and not part of the bourgeois class
I'm not shilling monarchism I swear
>>534456The embassy is basically a leftypol colony.
On Simple & Absolute Monarchy
Jean Bodin explains why absolutism here.
The sovereign is absolute, as Bodin explains the nature of Majesty in parallel to the infinite power of God.
It needs to be absolute to have sovereignty over the vast expanse of the State or The City (Political).
Sovereignty is indivisible and simple: so absolute.
Jean Bodin said, that while the Sovereign Monarch is absolute in the State, this does not account for the laws of God and Nature.
All corporations & entities under the sovereignty proceed from his unity as a monarchy. All their power ceases in the presence of their monarchy.
There's also the simplicity of the State in its unity and corresponds to how we derive an absolute power: the simplicity of form lends itself to it and the constituents depend upon it.
The simplicity coincides with the absolute nature of sovereignty. The form, simple & absolute, defines & thereby limits what proceeds.
The Monarchy is the final public authority: the estates are limited, the monarchy is absolute; we maintain the simplicity of the State (hence absolute), only while his method of governing may be mixed.
Sovereignty is the simple unity of State, so it is unlimited, but the corporations proceeding are limited / defined / depend on it.
We support fundamental laws for Monarchy.
Yet absolute monarchists support for fundamental laws in accordance to the law of nature & what is fundamental for monarchy & sovereignty.
Absolute power is warranted for states in their simplicity & unity via the Law of God & the Law of Nature as Jean Bodin sees it: Bodin denies the Monarch is absolute over the law of God & Nature itself: yet the law of God & Nature gives States an absolute power, families in original.
We see the Monarch absolute w/ respect to his -own- laws. Yet we are obliged to say a monarch should nevertheless rule by example and follow his own laws: if need be, yes, his own laws can be changed. Not the fundamental laws, no, but not every law is fundamental.
We absolute monarchists also maintain the original power of the Pater Familias retained in the State and that Political & Economical don't differ: for the former of the Pater Familias, it's important to understand its basis in justification of royal monarchy: as the city becomes a colony from the estate of the family or household, the power of the Pater Familias in the original was preserved and unfurled into the Stately Majesty – to repeat, the natural bond of the parent in original which is Majesty in the State – as the sons and daughters and servants left the estate of their father and master in search of more rooms, instead of rooms we had buildings, and eventually a colony of The City (Political). That original power of the Pater Familias was preserved in States and even over adults as it developed into the image of the City or State which became Royal Monarchies in political form (as a form of State). Then the case that the Economical and Political don't differ is a basis for knowledge of the Monarch to govern and works well with Monarchy: because when a Monarch knows how to govern himself and his own estate, that Monarch is well on the way to governing the State itself.
Against Mixed Constitutionalism & so-called Constitutional Monarchy:
We (absolute monarchists) are also stridently opposed to Mixed Constitutionalism.
Mixed constitutionalism as opposed to simple & absolute monarchy tries to view the Monarch like a president: as someone who presides among the other estates & takes his turn in being governed.
Mixed Constitutionalism stresses locality and the plurality of laws by mutual concord b/c like Aristotle's City, the stress is more on plurality than unity: this is inherently at odds w/ Monarchy ruling the State.
For Mixed Constitutionalism the laws are outcome of their mingling & common benefit as opposed to being the offspring of sovereignty and its formal unity giving them a common ground.
It is inherently incompatible with Royal Monarchy as a form of State: because like Aristotle asserts, the political and economical do differ: what is proper for Monarchy is to stay to its own private estate as opposed to to governing the state itself, and proper for a political constitution to be a concord of freemen and equals mingling to form the laws and inspire virtue. With this view in consideration, monarchy is forbidden to become a form of State and it destroys the groundwork to have a monarchical State. It follows from this notion that right libertarians inherently abide with Aristotle's constitutionalism and complain of centralization everytime a State comes under monarchical governance and under one rule / one person and strongly within his bond. This complaint stems from the same sentiment with Aristotle. So absolute monarchists are opposed to Mixed Constitutionalism and Right Libertarianism for these reasons, as they are opposed to the pre-eminent ideal of monarchy like Louis XIV stated Nec Pluribus Impar (Not Unequal to Many) and the Monarchy having the whole power of the State aligned with his person as the State itself: the Monarch -is- the State.
Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch:
>Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States
>It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person
>[We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed
>He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part
>He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience
>Is like a demigod among men
Of course, Aristotle denied this.
Nevertheless, we have cared about this since the dawn of time concerning monarchy. Achieving monarchical pre-eminence is important to absolute monarchists and this is basically where we begin with our ideal of monarchy (well, not only from Aristotle, but Aristotle's description here is sufficient and is OLD). This is important to use more than anachronistic or Medieval appeals – (*ahem* Ernst H. Kanotorowicz' King's Two Bodies) – monarchical pre-eminence is what we strived for with Bodinian Sovereignty / Majesty. It must be indivisible. It ought to be united in one body with the Sovereign and aligned with him alone. It must be in respect of power entire and not like a part: so not like two bodies, but but united like one body, an indivisible power and binding agent, making the Monarch on par with the Whole. This high bar Aristotle set here, for instance, absolute monarchists have responded to appropriately. This is older than Medieval, so no pretense of traditionalists there. It's why Hobbes called his Leviathan a moral god, why Louis XIV says Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many), why Bodin has established Majesty, why many other monarchies have made their own case for being pre-eminent with this ideal in mind. To make one person on par with the whole, to make it indivisible like one body, to make that person pre-eminent is a calling we absolute monarchists answer.
Touching on the King's Two Bodies doctrine. First the whole issue that "the natural body is inferior to the political body" – is not what we're about, because the case for monarchical pre-eminence is that we've made the natural person on par with the well being of the political body. So maintaining the natural person of the king is not so inferior – because then it's just back to square one with the issue of monarchical pre-eminence: then he is an inferior to the State and not pre-eminent, so when we say that these are united, that doesn't necessarily make the king inferior to the body-politic, but rather on at least par with it: he embodies it, as opposed to him having a share and being inferior to it (which we want to avoid).
Second, while there does seem that my reference to Plowden is recognized here, that it is indivisible, yet there is this comparison to the head – I agree rather with Hobbes, that it is not the head, but the relationship of the soul to the body – it is more all encompassing, because the head still has a relationship as a part of the body as opposed to the whole (which the pre-eminent monarch is), in personifying it.
Criticism of Kantorowvicz' King's Two Bodies from these excerptsLet me say on this issue critical of Kantorowicz that the emphasis isn't so much on how it's made lesser, but rather made greater with or on par with the Body-Politic when these are united:
Too much stress on the inferiority of the natural person of the King runs counter-productive to the notion of monarchical pre-eminence to begin with. As that's besides the point: when the King is made sovereign, his natural person indeed is very well associated with the State itself, it is no longer simply inferior.
The other cases in point relating to the King like a part or member of the whole that Kantorowicz such as the head is exactly why Hobbes counter-argued that the Civil Sovereign is not like the head to the body, but like the soul. Because this cuts any ambiguity that the Sovereign is in the relation of a part, that Kantorowicz seems to suggest in other passages (albeit he also acknowledges that soul, but again with the body-politic). This I feel is what Kantorowicz does misunderstand about monarchical pre-eminence as described here in his appeal to more organicism: is that the natural King is not like any other part, in this union his natural body -is- associated with the body-politic, I should add.
So I should add that while Kantorowicz places a lot of stress on the inferiority and two bodies, I feel there isn't adequate stress on the union thereof made indivisible and the equilibrium made. And if this is contrary to Plowden, yet still Aristotle's qualities of a pre-eminent monarch deem him at the very least on par with the whole body-politic and not like a part (so not like a head or any other limb) and like a demigod among men.
So I apprehend Kantorowicz's rhetoric tries to unfurl us back out of that union to remind us of the inferiority: albeit that desired purpose of the union (if we know the case for monarchical pre-eminence) is the opposite: to furl into the natural body of the king a supreme quality incomparble to others. As Aristotle intended that such a person in natural capacity was supposed to be like a Hercules truly, so the emphasis where this dilemma beings with Aristotle most certainly is not to stress the inferiority of the natural body since as a consequence then there is no pre-eminent monarch.
But when Kantorowicz appeals to the head, I feel more inclined to repeat Hobbes and appeal to the soul: because it feels more appropriate and all encompassing and singular where one person has relationship of the whole to the part as Aristotle's maxim on a pre-eminent monarch goes – which cannot be said for the head which is technically a part of that body. The head is still in the relationship as a part of the body, but simply the most salient part.
>As a member of the body politic of France he, like every other Frenchman, was obliged to defend this very body, the patria.If Kantorowicz here means by -he- to be the King in this context, his understanding of him as a mere member in relation to the body-politic is the prime example of what I mean with respect to monarchical pre-eminence: -he- is no longer regarded as merely such.
Then later Kantorowicz seems to reinforce the notion of the pre-eminent monarch more like an appendage or limb even with reference to the head – so that runs against the grain of the notion of monarchical pre-eminence too. & that seems to be alluded to with his example of self-sacrifice with Christ, where he says not -only- as members, but >also< as heads – which again it's not that they are held as simply the relation of the members also thereof. That isn't what the intended end of monarchical pre-eminence is – it is -not- to also be a member, but primarily to be like the entire State itself even aligned through his natural capacity.
The last part I presume is aimed at Hobbes with the "fictitious person" remark – which imo misunderstands Hobbes and corporatism. This corporatism is well distinguished in Hobbes' political philosophy as well in his artificial person of Commonwealth. Kantorowicz here I feel tries to invalidate it by appealing to more organicism. The friction here is that the unity of the body-politic is not as composite, but simple.
This is my criticism of what I read in Kantorowicz & excerpts from his book. Because when we go to the original description of this issue and also look at Aristotle's description of monarchical pre-eminence, what Aristotle meant was truly that the natural capacity of the prince was like that of a demigod and that he was such an extroardinary natural superior like Hercules that people became subordinate like hares to a lion – natural examples – and his relationship was not also a member, but strictly as the whole in relation to the part – he was himself the state and it was on par with his person…
From this context we have seen various cases for monarchical pre-eminence and the intended end is indeed that the Monarch is viewed in relation of the entire State itself, not like any member, but the State itself. It was intended, yes, that in natural capacity even he shouldn't be seen like any other member, so stress on the inferiority here and how the king should die for the commonwealth like any other member is a little counter-productive to that whole idea of monarchical pre-eminence. So I think in some ways Kantorowicz is indeed right that there was this distinction, but I don't altogether agree with where he places the stress here. The stress shouldn't be on the how inferior the prince is in relation to the body-politic, but rather how on par or superior.
As for self-sacrifice or self-preservation (which I see as another jab at Hobbes), I just feel that it's irrelevant.
What I'm responding to are passages here:
https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/ideologies/resources/kantorowicz-the-kings-two-bodies/So imo Hobbes does have two valid passages on this doctrine.
>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.This passage matters because I feel Hobbes is right to say that the head is not a right comparison. I agree because a head is still in the relationship of a part or member: whereas this notion of a soul seems to encompass the entire form of the body itself.
>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.These other two quotes are adequate from Hobbes imo for Kantorowicz' appeal to organicism. As Hobbes says, >It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth.
This is a better foundation for recognizing the pre-eminence of the monarch since it does view him in respect -not- as also a member, but more like the soul and having that superior relationship. That union of the natural body with the political body was a union intended to give the monarch the pre-eminence and not stress his inferiority as merely another member, but rather to literally put him in relation to the State itself. And this is something I don't think Kantorowicz stresses enough because these later passages I read here seem to detract from that in certain ways. So while there is a stress on two bodies, there should also be further stress on the union thereof b/c that is what is more important here for monarchical pre-eminence.
>>536601>absolute monarchyif the mode of production inside an absolute monarchy is socialism instead of capitalism/feudalism, then I wouldn't see an issue with having an absolute monarchy tbh, it would actually be better than a capitalist republic or any other alternative that isn't socialist
>>536601>I hate trying to reach out to people.>I feel as if I get no love, no respect in the monarchist scene.Well, Grace-anon, idk if this would be soothing for your sorrow, but, I usually read your texts here in numb stillness, i wander around them slowly. Dunno if it is 'sufficent' or equal compared to a fellow monarchist admiring you but here it is.
>>536631>>536612Thanks anons.
At least I have e-celeb status on /leftypol/.
>>538742The second one, but the first one will look better after tweaking. Try to make it closer to S3&K's art style. For example, her eyes look too square and there isn't enough lighting and volume. Look at Sonic's eyes, gloves and shoes. They're fat, shiny, well-lit and very detailed.
>>538919Wh-what? I thought Grace-chan loved Alunya…
>>538919grace and alunya 4 ever
Why did Grace have Alunya raped? What kind of love is this?
>>538921>>538925I probably should get a pic with Grace and Alunya.
There is enough material in this thread to turn Grace into a vtuber
>>538921Monogamy is bourgeois. Polyamory, yeah!
>>539223>>538921It is merely diplomacy.
>>539004Certainly like the increase in detail. She has more discernable fingers now. I'd still round out her head and eyes and thicken the top of her shoes. Maybe make her left eye wider too so it's not just a black line.
>>539227>It is merely diplomacy.This is unacceptable. Alunya not being in a polyamorous relationship is reactionary propaganda.
>>539231The Grace in Green Hill Zone is the final rendition.
>>539232Still like the second sprite more. Reminds me of Sonic 2's art style (Sonic 3's art style is still the GOAT tho).
>>539223Throughout history, the bourgeouise was always more likely to have sexual actions with more than one people. The proletariat is poetic, it longs for a treasure that is absolute singularity which dominates all.
>>539388Stop fetishizing the workers plz and read Engels's work on the origins of marriage.
I genuinely think some kind of Platonic Farabian communism is compatible with a monarchy of a kind. Al-Farabi said ruler, leader, king etc. are all synonymous so in his eyes any life term leader would have counted as a monarch. The roots of communism in the east are Confucianism and Platonism in the West. Both of these traditions are fine with some kind of permanent king. But you uyghur commies have to do your "nooo hes not a king hes a dear leader get it right" bullshit. What difference does it make?
The greatest mistake in China was abolishing the emperor. In fact, every paramount leader of China should be technically declared emperor and made to do all the imperial duties handed down from the Yellow Emperor. His proletarian recognized heavenly mandate should be revocable by popular decree. The PRC is a legitimate successor state to the Ming dynasty. The Hongwu Emperor was the original peasant guerrilla rebel leader turned master of all China. Mao was simply a reincarnation.
>>540256Grace is blushing?!
>>540106 This was indeed the case before the Republic of China. The Mongols, who ruled the Central Plains, considered the Han people to be inferior but still adopted the system of Chinese emperors. The Manchus did the same.
在中华民国之前确实如此，统治中原的蒙古人认为汉人是下等人，但是仍然借鉴了中国皇帝的制度，满族人也是如此。
From Robert Filmer citing Edward Coke:
<The first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands
>That the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demean [or Domain / Dominion].
William Blackstone / Sir Edward Coke:
<The Absolutism of Parliamentary Sovereignty
>The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds. And of this high court he adds, it may be truly said "si antiquitatem spectes, est vetustissima; si dignitatem, est honoratissima; di juridictionem, est capacissima." It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal: this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms. All mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. It can regulate or new model the succession to the crown; as was done in the reign of Henry VIII and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land; as was done in a variety of instances, in the reigns of King Henry VIII and his three children. It can change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves; as was done by the act of union, and the several statutes for triennial and septennial elections. It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it's power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo. So that it is a matter most essential to the liberties of this kingdom, that such members be delegated to this important trust, as are most eminent for their probity, their fortitude, and their knowledge; for it was a known apothegm of the great lord treasurer Burleigh, "that England could never be ruined but by a parliament:" and, as sir Matthew Hale observes, this being the highest and greatest court, over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom…"
Francis Theobald on Absolute Power with Cambden & Bracton
>We have, I say, absolute Monarchy, and herein we differ from the Lacedemonian Kings, who were subject to their Ephori, which had a power above them: No, ours agrees with the Persian-Government; for, their King had plenary power in all things, not subject to be called to account by any person whatsoever: and so ours, if you will believe Cambden, a famous Antiquary; who saith, That the King of England, supremam potestatem, & merum imperium habet, He hath supreme power and absolute Command in his Dominions–; and so, Bracton, a sage profound Lawyer, in ancient time, speaks to the same purpose, Omni quidem sub Bege, & ipse sub nullo, sed tantum sub Deo: So that it is an unquestionable truth, that the King is subject to no over-ruling power of man, and that he is free from all humane Coercion and Restraint, I do rather insist upon this.
Archibald Kennedy
>There is, in every Family, a Sort of Government without any fixed Rules; and indeed it is impossible, even in a little Family, to form Rules for every Circumstance; and therefore it is better conceived than expressed; but perfectly understood by every Individual belonging to the Family. The Study of the Father or Master, is for the Good of the Whole; all Appeals are to him; he has a Power, from the Reason and Nature of Things, to check the Insolent, or Indolent, and to encourage the Industrious: In short, the whole Affairs of the Family are immediately under the Care or Direction of the Father or Master; and this is a natural Prerogative, known and acknowledged by every Man living, who has ever had a Family, or been any Ways concerned in a Family, in all Ages and in all Places. His Majesty, as he is our political Father, his political Prerogative, from the like Circumstances and Reasons, is equally necessary. And this political Authority has been allowed the supreme Director, in all States, in all Ages, and in all Places; and without it, there would be a Failure of Justice.
Robert Filmer / Directive Power
>The first Father had not only simply power, but power monarchical, as he was a Father, immediately from God. For by the appointment of God, as soon as Adam was created he was monarch of the world, though he had no subjects; for though there could not be actual government until there were subjects, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity: though not in act, yet at least in habit. Adam was a King from his creation: and in the state of innocency he had been governor of his children; for the integrity or excellency of the subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the governor.
>but as for directive power, the condition of human nature requires it, since civil society cannot be imagined without power of government: for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done; yet things indifferent, that depended merely on their free will, might be directed by the power of Adam's command.
It all belongs to me~, that stray and waif
North, south, east, and west – sturgeon, swans and whales
I caress it, because I posses it, I seize it and it's mine!
Hey, hey, hey, hey!
The floor and ceiling are mine,
All your property's mine
And the royal gold mine
–Gold & Silver!–
You always knew it, that's all there is to it
It's mine, mine, mine, mine, mine!
<Archaic Royal Prerogatives
Guardianship/wardship of infants|
>''As parens patriae, the monarch is ex officio guardian of “infants, idiots and lunatics”. This jurisdiction was:
<not a jurisdiction to determine rights as between a parent and a stranger, or as between a parent and a child. It was a paternal jurisdiction, a judicially administrative jurisdiction, in virtue of which the Chancery Court was put to act on behalf of the Crown, as being the guardian of all infants, in the place of a parent, and as if it were the parent of the child, thus superseding the natural guardianship of the parent
>The parens patriae prerogative is reserved by section 100 of the Children Act 1989. The “inherent jurisdiction” of the High Court also includes wardship powers “to ensure that a child who is the subject of proceedings is protected and properly taken care of”.
Right to bona vacantia
>In cases where there is no legal owner, property may become bona vacantia (“ownerless property”) and revert to the Crown. Bona vacantia may include the estate of a person who dies intestate, assets that were beneficially owned by a company that has been dissolved and, in certain circumstances, assets that were the subject of a failed trust (for example, on the dissolution of a club). This is now largely statutory in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.
>Depending on where they are located, bona vacantia pass to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall. The Bona Vacantia Division of the Government Legal Department is responsible for this function in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Bona vacantia in the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are dealt with by Farrer & Co Solicitors.
>Bona vacantia also exists in Scots law although the first category above is known as ultimus haeres, which refers to an estate where a person has died without a will and with no known or traced relatives. In the other two categories of bona vacantia, the King’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer pays the value of the assets into the Scottish Consolidated Fund (the main bank account of the Scottish Government).
Right to sturgeon, swans and whales
>The Prerogativa Regis of 1322 (an act of the English Parliament) declares that the:
<King shall have […] throughout the Realm, Whales and [great Sturgeons] taken in the Sea or elsewhere within the Realm, except in certain Places privileged by the King.
>The Wild Creature and Forest Laws Act 1971 abolished “any prerogative right of Her Majesty to wild creatures (except for royal fish and swans)”. “Royal fish” historically referred to sturgeon and porpoise.
>The Crown can still claim the right to claim ownership of all mute swans in the UK that are unmarked and swimming in open waters. This applies to dead as well as live birds and to any parts thereof.
Right to waifs and strays
>Under the prerogative, the Crown has a right to “waifs” – things stolen and thrown away by a thief in flight – and “[e]strays”, valuable animals of a tame or reclaimable nature found wandering and whose owner is unknown.
Right to mint coinage
>The Royal Mint owes its origins to the prerogative. The Royal Mint Design Advisory Committee was also established under the prerogative in 1922.412 The Coinage Act 1971 grants the King the power to regulate coinage by Proclamation while preserving “any matter relating to coinage which was, before the passing of the Coinage Act 1870, within the prerogative of the Crown and is not provided for by this Act nor was provided for by that Act”.
>New coin designs are “personally approved” by the King.
Royal Mines
“Mines Royal” is the historic name for naturally occurring gold and silver, virtually all of which deposited in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is owned by the Crown Estate.
For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) which is but an Artificial Man… and in which, the Sovereignty is an Artificial Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body.
-Thomas Hobbes in his introduction to 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. For by this Authority, given him by every particular man in the Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so much Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is enabled to forme the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad.
-Thomas Hobbes on the Generation Of A Common-wealth
And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is “One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”
-Thomas Hobbes on the Definition Of A Common-wealth
>>541279you're only making the thread even more monarchist
>>541279I've been saying for years MLP is monarchist propaganda. twiggers is shown breaking up a strike in one episode
<Thomas Hobbes on Petty Namecalling & Tyrannophobia
>There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other Forms of Government, but of the same Forms misliked. For that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, call it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under Democracy, call it Anarchy (which signifies want of Government;) and yet I think no man believes, that want of Government, is any new kind of Government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the Governours.
>From Aristotle's Civil Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner of Commonwealths but the Popular, (such as was at the time the state of Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants… A Tyrant originally signified no more simply, but a Monarch: But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that kind of government was abolished, the name began to signify, not only the thing it did before, but with it, the hatred which the Popular States bear towards it: As also the name of King became odious after the deposing of the Kings in Rome, as being a thing natural to all men, to conceive some great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is given in despight, and to a great Enemy. And when the same men shall be displeased with those that have the administration of the Democracy, or Aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their anger in; but call readily the one Anarchy, and the other Oligarchy.
>From the reading, I say, of such books, men have undertaken to kill their kings, because the Greek and Latin writers in their books and discourses of policy make it lawful and laudable for any man so to do, provided before he do it he call him tyrant. For they say not regicide, that is, killing of a king, but tyrannicide, that is, killing of a tyrant, is lawful. From the same books they that live under a monarch conceive the opinion that the subjects in a popular Commonwealth enjoy liberty, but that in a monarchy they are all slaves. I say, they that live under a monarchy conceive such an opinion; not that they live under a popular government: for they find no such matter. In sum, I cannot imagine how anything can be more prejudicial to a monarchy than the allowing of such books to be publicly read, without present applying such correctives of discreet masters as are fit to take away their venom: which venom I will no doubt to compare to a mad, rabid dog, which is a disease [rabies] that physicians call hydrophobia, or fear of water. For as he that is so bitten has the continual torment of thirst, and yet abhorreth water; and is in such ane state as if the poison endeavoured to convert him into a dog; so when a monarchy is once bitten to the quick by those democratical writers that continually snarl at that estate, it wanteth nothing more than a strong monarch, which nevertheless out of a certain tyrannophobia, or fear of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhor.
>And because the name of Tyranny, signifies nothing more, nor less, than the name of Sovereignty, be it in one, or many men. saving that they that use the former word, are understood to be angry with them they call Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a toleration of hatred of Commonwealth in general, and another evil seed, not differing much from the former.
>>541936Rarity, the Element of "Generosity",
generously exploits her workers in later seasons
I don't get the fireball meme.
Will Grace impose a state religions? Is she a Christian monarchist divine right of kings?
>>542056https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religioSome monarchies practiced religious tolerance more than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutismYet uniformity is the preferred state policy.
>>504269Theocracy and Totalitarianism are like two sides of the same coin.
>Is she a Christian monarchist divine right of kings?Grace is indeed an allusion to De Gratia Kingship.
Among a few other things.
While we're talking about this topic, I'd like to note a radical doctrine of Hobbes that was controversial.
Everyone is familiar with Hegel's quote on how the State is the march of God on Earth.
I was keen to point out that the closest Western doctrine to North Korea's "The People are God" motto is Hobbes' Leviathan and his popular sovereignty: the Leviathan is one person formally called the people.
<Thomas Hobbes on De Jure Divino Authority
A controversial doctrine of Hobbes is that only the Civil Sovereign is De Jure Divino, and Pastors / Clergy Jure Civili.
>All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute their charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili.
>But the King, and every other Soveraign executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God, that is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but Kings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely ) Dei Gratia Rex,
>&c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their Mandates, “By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a Diocesse;” or as Civill Ministers, “In his Majesties Name.”
We might think this idea is more tolerable with royal supremacy or a monarch in general like the Pope. –But with Thomas Hobbes, he radically said only the State which is "The People as One Person" has De Jure Divino authority: So not only did Hobbes say that the Leviathan ("The People") was a Mortal God under the Immortal God, but also that it is the only De Jure Divino authority: That is North Korea tier in how much divine authority it places in the name of "The People" if you think about it.
He also said that the Civil Sovereign had the respect of a Master in the Household & Chief Civil Pastor, the Pope & Clergy were in respect to being like Teachers that the Master hired to teach his children and under his authority.
While people think of Thomas Hobbes' political idea of Leviathan as exclusively popular sovereignty, it also has a radical notion of divine right and merging temporal and spiritual authority: for the Leviathan holds the sword of Commonwealth representing temporal authority, but also a crosier representing spiritual authority, the unity of political and spiritual dominion in one person. That atheist meme of religion being used to control the masses is also something pretty Hobbesian & it was a pretty Enlightenment tier book dictating how the state and religion coincide with fear.
So when people think of Hegel's quote
>The march of God in the world, that is what the State is
Think of Thomas Hobbes.
>>542068This doctrine is less controversial with a monarchy in mind like the pope or the king*
Keep in mind, also, when Thomas Hobbes talks about De Jure Divino authority – this applies to all forms of State.
To monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy: so a democracy would be considered de jure divino authority and bishops would basically be instituted "by the People".
There is a fine line between having a Monarchy with a Nobility and having an Aristocracy or Oligarchy with a petty king involved.
<Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy
>"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."
Every movement away from Nobility / Aristocracy, Tocqueville calls centralization; every movement towards Nobility / Aristocracy, – decentralization. (The latter is where is stress is – so the Nobility is stressed above Monarchy and Democracy to achieve this aim, but not stressed on Monarchy itself which he dubs centralization).
…
De Jouvenel also stressed, following the lead of De Tocqueville, "Liberty's Aristocratic Roots" & against Caesarism (Monarchy) which he linked with Monarchy itself.
Following Tocqueville's lead, De Jouvenel placed all liberty and appeals to the Nobility and rule of a few.
<De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial
>According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considere to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense.
>Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle. On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will.
…
<De Jouvenel / Securitarian vs Libertarian
>The conclusion is that there never was a time in any society whatsoever when some individuals did not feel themselves to be insufficiently protected, and others did not feel themselves to be insufficiently free. The former I call "securitarians" and the latter "libertarians".
De Jouvenel also tackled the issues I pointed out earlier about Plato (& where the more unitary vs pluralistic views of State come into being – Aristotle, for his part, is more senatorial and many of the like appeals De Jouvenel makes are found in Aristotle's City, which is the senatorial kind of assemblage of heads of estates and of families – the political constitution stresses the estates of the city rather than the unity of the city itself under one head like a family – I touched on this issue with the doctrine that political and economical don't differ).
In my sincere opinion, De Jouvenel obviously appeals to the "old republic" and those senatorial ideals – it doesn't matter if it be a landed, hereditary nobility with their estates OR a bunch of senators in one room – we are simply adjusting the scale from Aristotle's City projected onto nobles and their estates spread apart like in Aristotle's City the various estates of the city converging.
–So this is why I look at Tocquevillism with immense annoyance when so many monarchists, be it constitutional monarchists and right libertarians and ancaps, spurn absolute monarchy in order to achieve "decentralization" and "liberty" as ascribed here, because it bears that stamp of the heads of the estates which are always few and resemble an oligarchical form.
Why is this like rocket science to explain to other monarchists? I don't think, but I believe it is because they don't take Monarchy seriously or believe what Darius says in the Herodotus Debate or Homer's monarchist maxim in the Iliad. They've been collectively taught to embrace the Nobility as opposed to Absolute Monarchy on these grounds of decentralization and libertarian ideals… this sentiment permeates the monarchist community so thoroughly and is everywhere and is unanimous for these monarchists whether constitutionalist or libertarian, but it's very popular with traditionalists.
>De Jouvenel covering Plato's politics
>…Hegel turned it to good account: recalling that Plato in his Republic had rigorously stressed the importance of the citizens remaining undifferentiated and had seen in that the essential condition of social unity, Hegel asserted that the characteristic of the modern state was, contrarywise, to allow a process of differentiation, by which an ever growing diversity could be rangedd within an ever richer unity.
>But there would be grave dangers in so avowedly normative an approach as this. It would in the first place build an ivory tower which was so remote from reality that advice issuing from it would be unable to influence the citizens of the real world: so it was with Plato's Republic, which was built on just these foundations. Worse still, the attraction exercised by pretty pictures of this kind lures men into importing them into reality and leads them on to tyrannical actions to achieve their ideals: there is a tyranny in the womb of every Utopia.
>(Footnotes): For a denunciation of the oppressive character of the institutions conceived by Plato, see my Power, Book III, ch. VII. Almost simultaneously there appeared in London a work of vast erudition and great intellectual vigour by Professor Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies. The ideas developed in the present chapter often join hands with those of Professor Popper's fine book.
While it's true that we are critical of Plato ourselves, we do have this view of the State as a unitary being (which Plato calls in his organicism of all members of society acting like one man) and that political and economical don't differ. You've seen how De Jouvenel is opposed to these unitary views. And when it comes to Monarchy itself, the stress on the chiefs and senatorial view is akin to Aristotle's City and notion of Politics. You could say, however, that I am misrepresenting De Jouvenel and I'd be fine if anyone would say so, but the overall sentiment I feel from the Tocquevillists (De Jouvenel & Alexis de Tocqueville) is this stress on the Nobility and for all the aforementioned reasons I disapprove of it and wish monarchists would stop with their Tocquevillism and with the influx of right libertarians and constitutional monarchists in agreement with those right libertarians and all this flirtation with the traditionalists about the clerical estate, have turned themselves into a hate train against absolute monarchy. I deal with their snubbing way too often and can't stand the majority of the monarchist community because they're drunk with it. The same with NeoAbsolutists who formed a cult around De Jouvenel with their blogs (but thankfully died down when Von Hallerism took over). I swear the monarchist community is so stupid.
De Jouvenel - Republic of Old
>The republic of old had no state apparatus. It needed no machinery for imposing the public will on all the citizens, who would have had none of such a thing. The citizens, with their own wills and their own resources – these latter small at first but continuously growing – decide by adjusting their wills and execute by pooling their resources.
>We do not find anywhere in the ancient republic a directing will so armed with its own weapons that it can use force. There were the consults, I may be told. But to start with there were two of them, and it was an essential feature of the office that they could block one another's activities.
>Only those decisions were possible on which there was general agreement, and, in the absence of any state apparatus, their execution depended solely on the cooperation of the public. The army was but the people in arms, and the revenues were but the sums gifted by the citizens, which could not have been raised except by voluntary subscriptions. There was not, to come down to the essential point, an administrative corps.
>In the city of old, no public office is found filled by a member of a permanent staff who holds his place from Power; the method of appointment is election for a short period, usually a year, and often by the drawing of lots, which was called by Aristotle the true democratic method.
>It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one piece. On the contrary, the magistrates, great and small, discharge their duties in a way which verges on independence.
>How was a regime of this kind able to function at all? Only be great moral cohesion and the inter-availability of private citizens for public office.
And that last point is also Aristotle's point: about moral cohesion and inter-availability like a rule by turns. (Albeit the former point is not too unlike Plato who said Justice was the bond of the State, like Aristotle calls virtue).
Like Aristotle, along with rejecting the rule of a wise man like Plato's philosopher kings, also counterpoised a strong middle class and that an oligarchy would invite the poor into assembly to help preserve the oligarchy and pass any conflicts, but keeping the main advantage.
Tocqueville thought the same with a middle class.
Aristotle also acknowledged the advent of the middle class as the decline of monarchies and that is where that meme comes from… like in that interview with the Shah of Iran asking him about whether there are other hereditary monarchies in the world and how he expects to rule when people get wealthier.
<De Jouvenel on Middle Class
<How can men whose authority rests on Power's guarantee oppose to it the proud independence which honourably distinguished the ancient aristocracy? Lacking now all strength of their own, they no longer uphold Power; no longer upholding Power, they have become incapable of limiting it. The notions of aristocracy and liberty have parted company.
>The heirs of their libertarian aspirations are the middle class. We will define the middle class, if we must, as composed of those who have enough social strength to stand in no need of any special protection and to desire the largest measure of liberty, but have on the other hand not enough strength to make their liberties oppressive to others.
De Jouvenel on chiefs of clans
>However it may be with these conjectures, it is a certain point of historical development we meet with the ambitious king who aims at extending his own prerogative at the expense of the chiefs of clans –"the absolute monarchs of their families," as Vico calls them–and is jealous of their independence.
Rather, Aristotle paints the other picture around – of a usurping middle class and oligarchy not standing the pre-eminence of one person like an absolute monarch.
Aristotle – No longer bearing the pre-eminence of one
>The first governments were kingships, probably for this reason, because of old, when cities were small, men of eminent virtue were few. Further, they were made kings because they were benefactors, and benefits can only be bestowed by good men.
>But when many persons equal in merit arose, no longer enduring the pre-eminence of one, they desired to have a commonwealth, and set up a constitution.
And this Aristotle reins in as the inevitable decline of monarchy with chiefs of equal merit wanting a constitution and aristocracy.
Now remember De Jouvenel is famous for his HLvM (Monarchy + Democracy vs Aristocracy) where Power advances by this conflict of the High meeting with the Low to screw over the Middle. This is the paradigm that many in the right libertarian circles see: and De Jouvenel himself goes along with the narrative that Marx has that absolute monarchy merged with the bourgeois to institute itself. So be mindful of that.
This is something we see in the advent of NRx terms like BioLeninism: where those in power usurp the superiors with the funs for their slave loyalty.
The Herodotus Debate
Between Otanes (Democracy), Megabyzus (Oligarchy), & Darius (Monarchy)
As told by the Father of /his/tory, Herodotus
Among the oldest sources of Monarchist politics there is, next to Homer's monarchist maxim: Let there be One Lord, One King
Jean Bodin revives the spirit of Herodotus in our political discourse in maintaining 3 forms of State only, denying a mixed State, but only a govt to be mixed.
Others imitated Herodotus such as Josephus, Cassius Dio, & Philostratus, to follow the discourse between one, few, many.
Otanes (Democracy)
Otanes was for giving the government to the whole body of the Persian people. "I hold," he said, "that we must make an end of monarchy; there is no pleasure or advantage in it. You have seen to what lengths went the insolence of Cambyses, and you have borne your share of the insolence of the Magian. What right order is there to be found in monarchy, when the ruler can do what he will, nor be held to account for it? Give this power to the best man on earth, and his wonted mind must leave him. The advantage which he holds breeds insolence, and nature makes all men jealous. This double cause is the root of all evil in him; he will do many wicked deeds, some from the insolence which is born of satiety, some from jealousy. For whereas an absolute ruler, as having all that heart can desire, should rightly be jealous of no man, yet it is contrariwise with him in his dealing with his countrymen; he is jealous of the safety of the good, and glad of the safety of the evil; and no man is so ready to believe calumny. Nor is any so hard to please; accord him but just honour, and he is displeased that you make him not your first care; make him such, and he damns for a flatterer. But I have yet worse to say of him than that; he turns the laws of the land upside down, he rapes women, he puts high and low to death. But the virtue of a multitude's rule lies first in its excellent name, which signifies equality before the law; and secondly, in that its acts are not the acts of the monarch. All offices are assigned by lot, and the holders are accountable for what they do therein; and the general assembly arbitrates on all counsels. Therefore I declare my opinion, that we make an end of monarchy and increase the power of the multitude, seeing that all good lies in the many."
Megabyzus (Oligarchy)
Megabyzus' counsel was to make a ruling oligarchy. "I agree," said he, "to all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he bids you give the power to the multitude, his judgment falls short of the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; to save ourselves from the insolence of a despot by changing it for the insolence of the unbridled commonalty — that were unbearable indeed. Whatever the despot does, he does with knowledge; but the people have not even that; how can they have knowledge, who have neither learnt nor for themselves seen what is best, but ever rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in spate? Let those stand for democracy who wish ill to Persia; but let us choose a company of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be of that company; and where we have the best men, there 'tis like that we shall the best counsels.
Darius (Monarchy)
Darius was the third to declare his opinion. "Methinks," said he, "Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them; for each one wishing to be chief of all and to make his counsels prevail, violent enmity is the outcome, enmity brings faction and faction bloodshed; and the end of bloodshed is monarchy; whereby it is shown that this fashion of government is the best. Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; so his case also proves that monarchy is the best government. But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom — from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done."
Jean Bodin on Herodotus:
>It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms
>Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities.
>Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written.
Caligula made a good point in quoting Homer's monarchist maxim.
People have forgotten that once there were many kings in one State, but our ideal is a return to one ruler as monarchists.
That is why he stressed the need of one king instead of many kings: let there be one ruler.
The Tocquevillists want us to reverse this: to go back to many kings on pretense of Medievalism. De Jouvenel will regale you with how Sovereignty is a modern thing and how we need to be more Medieval: but it was never for the sake of Medievalism, but Monarchy, that we uphold the Herodotus Debate, Homer's monarchist maxim, and notions of monarchical pre-eminence as opposed to this Tocquevillist ideology of petty kings that Jean Bodin described and what they want us to revert to – to this Oligarchism, backed by the auspices of Aristotle's City.
<Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy
>"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."
Remember the Herodotus Debate.
Do not forget the Herodotus Debate & Homer's monarchist maxim & the grounds of monarchical pre-eminence.
Fuck these tocquevillists, medievalists, and right libertarians.
Robert Filmer lamented same as I do.
We had them back then.
<Robert Filmer – Slavish Royalty of the Oligarchies
>We do hear a great rumour in this age, of moderated and limited Kings; Poland, Sweden, and Denmark are talked of for such; and in these kingdoms, nowhere, is such a moderated government, as our Observator means, to be found. A little inquiry would be made into the manner of the government of these kingdoms: for these northern people, as Bodin observeth, breathe after liberty.
>First, for Poland, Boterus saith, that the government of it is elective altogether, and representeth rather an aristocracy than a kingdom: the nobility, who have great authority in the diets, choosing the King, and limiting his authority, making his sovereignty but a slavish royalty: these diminutions of regality began first by default of King Lewis, and Jagello, who to gain the succession in the kingdom contrary to the laws, one for his daughter, and the other for his son, departed with many of his royalties and prerogatives, to buy the voices of the nobility. The French author of the book called The Estates of the World, doth inform us that the princes' authority was more free, not being subject to any laws, and having absolute power, not only of their estates, but also of life and death.
You look like pretty stirred about it. =/
Hans Hermann Hoppe is well known for saying he preferred Monarchy to Democracy.
But so did Alexis de Tocqueville say he even preferred a Monarchy and even despotism over a democracy. (3rd pic)
Did that stop him and his ilk from re-writing historical narrative against absolute monarchists? –No.
In fact Hoppeans and right libertarians hate on us most of all in spite of how much they supposedly love monarchical rule.
So much for thinking monarchy is the least bad – we're back square one with Aristotle like I've been saying w/ these right libertarians.
Considering the right libertarian to monarchist pipeline – it's an unhappy marriage, but absolute monarchists are the minority so much that anarcho-monarchists outnumber us.
I hate it. Deeply resent it.
>>542176Because the right libertarians and traditionalists and constitutional monarchists eat this up.
Everywhere I go in monarchist circles I have to put up with their historical narrative and their hate train on absolute monarchists.
They dominate the show in the monarchist scene and I hate it.
>>542156>>542159>>542161>>542162>>542173I only post my cringe compilation to give context to what I'm saying and why I feel the way I do.
That way I don't look like an old man yelling at clouds.
Jean Bodin's remarks on rule of Oligarchy or Optimates:
>Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes.
<But since many men of this age, serious and learned men, prefer the rule of optimates, and some even a democracy, we must speak briefly about the best type of government, after we have repudiated their opinion.
>Yet those who have come from his school approve more highly the rule of the optimates, which lies halfway between a democracy and a monarchy. They err, however, in this respect, that they seem to place virtue in the average thing or number, not in the mean proportional. Indeed, if this is true no prince will ever be good, nor will any oligarchy be quarrelsome, because between one and many they place the mean of a few, like the mean of virtue. Yet if there is any excellence in numbers, I suppose that unity is most to be praised of all, as Plato himself most divinely wrote, in the book about entity and unity.
>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.
I bet Jean Bodin had a big DICK
>>543098Her grace sonic mod?
<Want to play Oldschool Alpha / early Beta Minecraft from early 2010s?The Minecraft version is b1.1_02
1. Download MultiMC
https://multimc.org/(Use 7zip or Winrar to open the zip file)
2. Open & right-click white background to "create instance".
–
3. Under "Filter" in the Create Instance window, check "Betas" & "Alphas".
(I do version b1.1_02 as an old beta)
…
4. Go to settings → Account – and add your Mojang or Microsoft account
…
5. Right-click your instance → do "edit instance" → Go to "Version" → Then on the side, click "add to minecraft.jar" → and add the AlphaPlace Client as it is zipped.
(do not unzip it).
…
6. Also on "Edit Instance" go to Settings and enable java arguments and paste
-Djava.util.Arrays.useLegacyMergeSort=true -Dhttp.proxyHost=betacraft.uk
This under Java arguments^ to fix skins + sound + crashfix
…
7. Go to "Servers" under Edit Instance, add a server, & set for address alpha.place OR alphaplace.net
>>544022Your build is pretty nice!!
…In the hall of the mountain king…
It looks pretty quiet, as well… such an interesting imagery.
I am not very into the first versions of minecraft tho, i guess i only play modded minecraft lately, "Create" mod is just awesome!
>>544112Aristotle does note that taller regions or maybe suggesting mountainous ones are preferable for monarchies and oligarchies, Aristotle's Politics:
>As to strongholds, what is suitable to different forms of government varies: thus an acropolis is suited to an oligarchy or a monarchy, but a plain to a democracyThat doesn't explain Switzerland or monarchical empires ruling vast swaths of land, but I guess there was Montenegro and King of Haiti building his citadel on the height of Haiti: keep in mind this is also in light of a city-state, I suppose.
…I read in footnotes somewhere about Plato's Laws that for Plato didn't want his city on the sea because–
>because "exposure to the outside world would cause much diversity and perversity of manners"…I'm not altogether sure about this. I think I read in the Republic also about the importance of trade (but I think somewhere too about coastal cities, so I can't say for certain).
They also stressed a smaller size or population, but I believe Hobbes or Bodin disregards this somewhere and says a commonwealth can be any size really. –I know that a State being reduced to a city-state was also disregarded.
>>544114It was a reference to this though XD
https://youtu.be/kLp_Hh6DKWc
>>544114Very pretty Grace-chan painting!
>>544022>>544023>>544024>>544025Fucking awesome.
What server is this?
>>544167Alpha Place
You can visit it by following these instructions
>>543587MultiMC is safe to use, btw.
Here are tutorial screenshots for using multimc:
Tutorial + Alpha Client:
>>543587
If not MultiMC, I believe betacraft is also viable.
This video related has 2 tutorials for using betacraft.
Betacraft Launcher -
https://betacraft.uk/downloadsMultiMC:
https://multimc.org/As a launcher, you'll have to add the Mojang / Microsoft acct to use MultiMC–
But MultiMC as a launcher is safe, imo, and I've used it for years no problem.
If anyone is worried about those things, these threads talk about this issue:
https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/discussion/3134405-is-it-safe-to-login-with-microsoft-in-multimcDo your own research, if you must: but I've used MultiMC & I'll testify it's safe & good to use from my experience.
Ok, I looked into playing the cracked version without a microsoft account or buying Minecraft:
If you want to play a cracked version for free and play Notch's old Minecraft alpha for free and without a microsoft account–, follow the instructions here
How to play Alpha Place without a MS acct:1.
Go to
https://betacraft.uk/downloads2.
Do "Download Latest Windows Version" or the other one.
3.
Do "Select version" and select b1.1_02
4.
Enter whatever name in the login – it doesn't matter – no account is needed.
4.5
To login to Alpha Place, write in the Multiplayer login: alpha.place
5. OPTIONAL
–If you want to find a skin, the skins come with names:
https://namemc.com/You can browse skins here^ with the names for Login.
6. OPTIONAL
–This tutorial video will also give you extra details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKsLLNLhUbsThis is the version of Notch's day before Microsoft.
It might ask you to install the latest java and send you to get the latest version when installing.
The more I'm digging into this, the more unpalatable it seems for anons to get into. I'm not for certain you'll have to do this, but you might have to get whitelisted in order to play as a cracked user on the server?
But if you are a cracked user & want to play on the server w/o having Minecraft or a MS Acct, I think you'll have to get whitelisted.
https://alpha.place/how-to-join/There is a Disc0rd invite on their website^
I think whitelisting works by choosing a random username & making a login for the server when whitelisted, but I'm not sure.
There is a whitelist section at the Alpha Place fbi.gov.
I know anons hate fbi.gov, so this is probably not viable. I don't think you have to use a phone number for fbi.gov, but you could make a throwaway account.
From what I have tested tonight, I think it is possible to make a throwaway Disc0rd account.
I tried protonmail and protonmail wouldn't get any verification email from disc0rd, so I tried another:
Tutanota or Tuta Mail
Tutanota or Tuta Mail did work for me.
but
1.
I had to verify the email + I had to skip the fbi.gov tutorial / tips to make it work.
>(Had an issue where I couldn't click on the whitelist button until email was verified + I skipped the tips / tutorial exlamation points and orange glowing tutorial on Disc0rd)2.
When you join Alpha Place to get whitelisted, you should also test to make sure you can log in the name first? I had this strange message when trying to join with the test account that the max number of accounts was reached.
3.
I'm not sure how long it will take to get verified in whitelisting, but make sure you can log on with the name first – then get -that- name whitelisted.
…
Tuta Mail doesn't require a phone number + I think you can still use Disc0rd without a phone number (but it will require email verification & skipping the tutorial).
At least enough to get whitelisted.
…
Make SURE the name you pick
https://namemc.com/Here^
Can log-in to the server at the very least or doesn't say "you have enough accounts 3/3"
…
The last stepping stone to this whole process is that I'm not sure how long it will take to get whitelisted.
You should get direct messaged (or DM'd) with a message about whitelisting sometime AFTER you write the Name you chose from namemc.com.
…
But I fear this is too much effort for anons to play Alpha Minecraft, let alone making a Disc0rd, even if it is throwaway and without a phone number using Tuta Mail.
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: 77