by invitation of bronies & Tania
<Avatard RP reactionary leech is oUr fWiEnD u GuIsE
170 posts and 279 image replies omitted.>Our Party regarded education in the monolithic ideology as its basic ideological task and carried it out energetically. As a result, a single ideology has prevailed throughout the Party, and all its members have been armed firmly with the Leader's revolutionary idea, the Juche idea, and have come to think and act as required by this idea.
>Another important factor in establishing the monolithic ideological system is to achieve the Leader's unitary leadership absolutely.
>The Leader is the supreme controller of a party, and the party's leadership is precisely his leadership. Our Party has set up a well-regulated system under which all its organizations and members act as one man under the unitary leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, give absolute authority to Party policies and defend and implement them without question.
- Kim Jong Il, The Workers' Party of Korea is a Juche type revolutionarty party which inherited the glorious tradition of the DIU
>Our Party equipped all our people fully with the Juche idea, united them closely behind the Leader organizationally, ideologically and morally, and thus made the revolutionary ranks a socio-political organism.
>Today the Workers' Party of Korea stands firmly in the centre of the revolutionary ranks in our country, and the masses of the people, who have withstood every manner of ordeal by sharing their destiny with the Party in the long revolutionary struggle, are united rock-firm behind the Party and the Leader, sharing one mind and one will.
- Kim Jong Il
>It is an essential requirement of a working-class party to ensure the unity of ideology and leadership. This is effected by establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system. Only when this is done can the whole Party be armed with the Leader's intention and become a living organism, breathing and acting in conformity with his idea and will.
>It is important in establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system to pervade the whole Party with the Leader's idea.
>The Leader is the embodiment of the organizational will of the whole Party and his idea is explicitly the guiding ideology of the Party. The ideological unity of the Party is brought about only on the basis of the Leader's idea.
- Kim Jong Il
—
>The revolutionary cause of the working class is precisely the cause of its Leader. The Leader is the top brain of the revolution and its highest Leader and as such he plays the decisive role in the accomplishment of the revolutionary cause of the working class.
- Kim Jong Il
—
>The Party's monolithic ideological system is, in other words, the Leader's ideological system and system of guidance. Without them the existence of our Party is inconceivable. The revolutionary idea of the Leader is the eternal guiding ideology of our Party and revolution.
- Kim Jong Il
—
>If the Masses are an Almighty Being, our Leader is the Sun of the Masses, who personifies the hearts of the People.
- Kim Jong Il
—
>The process of the building of our Party is a process of patterning it on the Juche idea. Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea is a continuation and a higher stage of our Party's historic struggle to model itself on that idea.
>Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea means, in essence, strengthening and developing our Party for all time into a party of Comrade Kim Il Sung.
>Strengthening and developing our Party into the party of the great Comrade Kim Il Sung implies having him eternally at its head and holding fast to his ideology and line and implementing them throughout all generations.
>The respected Comrade Kim Il Sung is the great leader who has, for the first time in their history of several thousand years, been acclaimed by our People; he is the Teacher and Father of our Party and People."
- Kim Jong Il
>The unity and cohesion of our Party are great and unbreakable because the entire membership is united around the great Comrade Kim Il Sung and because they are based on its infinite loyalty to the Party and the Leader. The Leader is the centre of the Party's unity and cohesion, and its strength depends on how firmly the entire membership is united behind him. The unity and cohesion of our Party are not just achieved out of duty. They are based on the membership's infinite respect for, and absolute trust in, the Party and the Leader, and founded on its unshakeable revolutionary belief and sense of gratitude which cause it to defend and protect the Party and the Leader politically and ideologically and to fight for them even at the cost of its members' lives.
>The unity and cohesion of our Party are great and unbreakable because they are based on unity of idea and purpose. The important thing in the Party's unity and cohesion is to achieve the unity of idea and will. Unity based on a single idea and purpose must be durable, otherwise it cannot achieve lasting unity. The single ideology means precisely the revolutionary idea of the Leader, the founder of the Party. The Leader's revolutionary idea is the basis of the Party's unity and cohesion; the unity and cohesion of the working-class party is the unity of idea and purpose based on the revolutionary idea.
- Kim Jong Il
>The Leader is, indeed, the infinitely benevolent father of our people and our children. We must give schoolchildren a clear understanding that their happiness is entirely due to the Leader's love for them and his consideration for them. Only then will the children remember the Leader's benevolence, support him from the bottom of their hearts and become revolutionary fighters who are unfailingly faithful to him, when they are adults.
- Kim Jong Il
>Our Leader is the supreme revolutionary genius, the Sun of the nation and the benevolent father of our People, who has built a socialist paradise on this land and brought the People the happiness and glory we see today, by leading the arduous Korean revolution along the path of trials to victory without the slightest vacillation. Because of the immortal feats he has performed for mankind, his extraordinary intelligence, outstanding leadership ability and lofty communist virtues, the Leader is supported and boundlessly revered by the People. Our People eagerly desire to meet their fatherly Leader who, by devoting his entire life to the freedom and liberation of the People and leading the vanguard of the revolution and socialist construction, has provide them with the greatest happiness and continues to provide the condition for their lives to flourish, and once they have met him, they brim over with the resolution to give their wholehearted loyalty to the Leader, and are engrossed in infinitely solemn feelings and emotions.
- Kim Jong Il
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.
>>672259>alright, I'm gonna actually read grace's monarchy theoryI take big inspiration from Hobbes' Leviathan and Juche's stress on Kim Il Sung for my political views.
All linked here
>>672262In short:
People are a colony of monarchy and form a great family, along with everything absolute monarchy. Cult of Personality, or work of one person on the people, w/ a unitary mode of politics.
This is Graceposter in a nutshell, a 21st Century Caligulan.
First Monarchies by Conquest / Jean Bodin
>For before there was either City or citizen, or any form of a Commonwealth amongst men, every master of a family was a master in his own house, having power of life and death over his wife and children: but after that force, violence, ambition, covetousness, and desire of revenge had armed one against another, the issues of wars and combats giving victory unto the one side, made the other to become unto them slaves: and amongst them that overcame, he that was chosen chief and captain, under whose conduct and leading they had obtained the victory, kept them also in his power and command as his faithful and obedient subjects, and the other as his slaves. Then that full and entire liberty by nature given to every man, to live as himself best pleased, was altogether taken from the vanquished, and in the vanquishers themselves in some measure also diminished, in regard of the conquerour; for that now it concerned every man in private to yield his obedience unto his chief sovereign; and he that would not abate any thing of his liberty, to live under the laws and commandment of another, lost all. So the word of Lord and Servant, of Prince and Subject, before unknown unto the world, were first brought into use.
>Yea Reason, and the very light of Nature, leads us to believe very force and violence to have given course and beginning unto Commonwealths. And albeit that there were no reason therefore, it shall be hereafter declared by the undoubted testimonies of the most credible historiographers, that is to say, of Thucydides, Plutarch, Caesar, & also by the laws of Solon, That the first men that bare rule, had no greater honour and virtue, than to kill, massacre and rob men, or to bring them in slavery. These be the words of Plutarch. Yet have we more also the witness of the sacred history, where it is said, that Nimroth the nephew of Cham, was the first that by force and violence brought men into his subjection, establishing his kingdom in the country of Assyria: and for this cause they called him the Mighty Hunter, which the Hebrews interpret to be a thief and robber…. Which thing also Philo the Jew, and Josephus by their testimonies confirm, viz. by his wealth and power to have first exercised tyranny.
<And it is not yet past seventy years that the people of Gaoga in Africa had never felt or heard of any king or lord whatsoever, until that one amongst them a travel or had in his travel seen and noted the majesty of the king of Tombut: and thereupon conceiving a desire to make himself a king also in his own country, he at first to begin withal, killed a rich merchant; and so possessed of his horses arms and merchandise, divided them amongst his nigh kinsfolks and friends, acquainted with his purpose; by whose aid he by force and violence subdued now some, and after others, killing the richest, and ceasing upon their goods: in such sort that his son became rich with the robberies of his father, made himself king, whose successor hath so continued after him in great power, as we read in Leo of Africa. This was the beginning of the kings of Gaoga, which in short time greatly increased.
Bodin on Lordly Monarchy
>Wherefore a lawful or royal Monarchy is that where the subjects obey the laws of a Monarch, and the Monarch the laws of Nature, the subjects enjoying their natural liberty, and propriety of their goods. The lordly Monarchy is that where the prince is become lord of the goods and persons of his subjects, by law of arms and lawful war; governing them as the master of a family does his slaves. The tyrannical Monarchy, is where the prince condemning the laws of nature and nations, imperiously abuses the persons of his freeborn subjects, and their goods as his own. The same difference is also found in the Oligarchical and Democratic states: for both the one and the other may be lawful, lordly, and tyrannical, in such sort as I have said: for the greatest tyranny of all other is of Tully called the rage of the furious and turbulent people.
>Now as concerning the lordly Monarchy, it is convenient for us first to entreat thereof, as of that which was first amongst men: for they are deceived which following the opinion of Aristotle, suppose that golden kind of men (more famous for the poets fables, then for that there were any such in deed) to have made first choice of their heroical kings: seeing we find, and all men are persuaded that the first Monarchy was established in Assyria, under the power of Nimrod, whom the Holy Scripture calls the Great Hunter; which is a common phrase of speech amongst the Hebrews, by which word they signify a thief, or robber. For the ancient writers, viz. Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon, have put robbery among the kinds of hunting, as we have elsewhere noted. For before the time of Nimrod no man is found to have had power and rule one over an other, all men living in like liberty; he being the first that took upon him the sovereignty, and that caused free borne men to serve: whose name seems to have been given him according unto his quality, for asmuch as Nimrod signifies a terrible lord. Soon after the world was seen full of slaves, Some one of the sons of Noe yet living. And in the whole course of the Bible, the Scripture speaking of the subjects of the kings of Assyria and Egypt, calls them always slaves: and not the Holy Scripture only, but the Greeks also, who always in their writings term themselves free, and the Barbarians slaves; meaning by the Barbarians the people of Asia and Egypt.
>But yet here might some man doubt whether the Lordly Monarchy be not a Tyranny, considering that it seems to be directly against the law of nature, which reserves unto every man his liberty, and the sovereignty over his own goods. Whereunto I answer, that of ancient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaves, and to possess himself of other men's goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by just war should be the conquerours own, and that the vanquished should be slaves unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchy so established is tyrannical: seeing also wee read that Jacob the Patriarch, by his testament leaving unto his children certain lands that he had gotten, said that it was his own, for that he had got it by force of arms. And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice (which is put in practice against the greatest princes, and imperial cities of Germany, who be proscribed by the empire, for not making restitution of that which belonged to others) shows right well, that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just. For otherwise, if we will mingle and confound the Lordly Monarchy, with the tyrannical estate, we must confess that there is no difference in wars, betwixt the just enemy and the robber; betwixt a lawful prince and a thief; betwixt wars justly denounced, and uniust and violent force; which the ancient Romans called plain robbery and theft. We also see tyrannical states and governments, soon to fall, and many tyrants in short time slain: whereas the seigneurelike states, and namely the Lordly Monarchies have been both great and of long continuance, as the ancient Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Medes, Persians, & Egyptians; and at this present that of Ethiopia (the most ancient Monarch of all Asia and Africa) whereunto are subject fifty kings as slaves, if we may believe Pau. Iouius, who all are, and term themselves the slaves of the Grand Negus of Ethiopia. And the reason why the Lordly Monarchy is more durable than the royal, is for that it is more majestical, and that the subjects hold not their lives, goods, and liberty, but of the sovereign prince, who hath by just war conquered them
Bodin on Royal Monarchy
>A Royal Monarch or king, is he which placed in sovereignty yields himself as obedient unto the laws of nature as he desires his subjects to be towards himself, leaving unto every man his natural liberty, and the propriety of his own goods. I have put to these last words for the difference of a Lordly Monarch, who may be a just and virtuous prince, and equally govern his subjects, being himself yet nevertheless lord both of their persons and goods. And if it so chance the Lordly Monarch having justly conquered his enemies country, to set them again at liberty, with the propriety of their goods: of a lord he becomes a king, and changes the Lordly Monarchy, into a Monarchy Royal. And that is it for which Pliny the younger says unto Trajan the emperour, Principis sedem obtines, ne sit Domino locus, Thou holdest the seat of a prince, Lord it not. This difference (betwixt a Royal Monarch and a Lordly) was well noted by the ancient Persians, calling Cyrus the elder (which overthrew the Monarchy of the Medes) by the name of a king: but terming Cambyses a lord, and Darius a mar∣chant; for that Cyrus was a gentle and courteous prince towards his subjects, but Cambyses his son was haughty and proud, and Darius too great an exactor and couetous. So it is also reported Alexander the Great to have been advised by Aristotle, to bear himself towards the Greeks as a father; but towards the Barbarians as a lord:
>We have moreover said in our definition, that the subjects ought to be obedient unto the Royal Monarch, to show that in him alone lies the sovereign majesty; & that the king ought to obey the laws of nature: that is to say, to govern his subjects, and to guide his actions according unto natural justice, whose luster was brighter than the light of the sun itself. It is then the true mark of a Royall Monarchy, when the prince shows himself as obedient unto the laws of nature, as he wishes his subjects to be unto himself. Which it is not hard for him looking into the duty of a good prince to obtain; as fearing God above all; if he be also pitiful unto the afflicted, wise in his enterprises, hardy in his exploits, modest in prosperity, constant in adversity, advised in his speech, wise in his councel, careful of his subjects, comfortable to his friends, terrible to his enemies, courteous to the good, dreadful towards the evil, and just towards all. Which royal souereignty so set down, as that the subjects stand obedient unto the laws of their prince, and the prince likewise unto the laws of nature: the law being on both sides a mistress, or as says Pindarus, a queen reigning over both, it shall in the same bonds unite the subjects among themselves, and together with their prince: whereof shall grow a most sweet harmony, which may with wonderful plea∣sure and felicity bless them both. This is that regal and lawful Monarchy of one, which we seek after, whether the kingdom descend by succession, as it most commonly does; or by the law, as this of ours
What is the importance of this?
I think for absolute monarchists – it is the rejection of Aristotle's golden age of heroic kings elected by a concord of hosts – and also a rejection of Aristotle's concord of hosts / partnership of independent clans with their law by convention and established by virtue – this is striking a dagger deep into the mentality supporting multi-party democracies today & mixed constitutionalism of feudal estates that people traditionally adore (like I said, mixed constitutionalism with democratic multi-parties and neofeudalism multi-estates are the same beast, and to them Fascism and Absolute Monarchy the same monster).
For absolute monarchists, there needs be that people defer to a sovereign or arbiter – yes, even the necessity of force – for the establishment of civil states.
…
All the doctrines people find odious in Hobbes, like the war of all against all, warning against private judgement of good & evil / erroneous conscience, & denial of absolute private property for the subjects – is also tied to this rejection of Aristotle's concord of hosts / partnership of independent clans united by virtue. (& while it's true Aristotle denied their convention and affirmed virtue, the system he sets up basically is where law comes by the convention of these hosts, since he asserted peer review in spite of supporting many in one over a wise man – and denying state corporatism).
…
If you really hate multi-parties (which is the modern manifestation of the estates / partnership of clans), then dear reader, this appeal to an arbitrary power or unilateral authority, & the necessity of force (because of the inadequacy of a concord of hosts / parties / factions to agree, or for painters to share a vision on one canvas, or for borders to be drawn by sweet concord rather than the sword) tends to be the alternative view.
It sounds ugly and tyrannical, but it is tenfold more practical and what politics comes down to.
As mentioned earlier, take the nationalists of any group like Nordicists, Pan-Slavists, or Latins – they wouldn't be content to divide a map by sweet concord, so the division of lands has to be by an arbitrary power by necessity… or take the political parties who are fundamentally at odds, how far should right libertarians agree with communists?
That is the idea being ridiculed in this comic – pic related – one of the reasons Hobbes belives the Sovereign must arbitrarily divide the land and distribute justice and further deny the subjects an absolute right to it is because, again, the rejection of that concord of hosts, but also because Hobbes doesn't think two people vying over and sharing the property would be content, that an arbiter has to settle it between the parties and thereby that arbiter limits them.
–This is the same scenario with the cake.
>>677706obviously pro-shah,
but right now grace is chaotic neutral & doesn't support the WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR
>>677775Celestia was going to be Queen Celestia.
Pony Grace supports Celestia because Celestia has Majesty and is the Sovereign Monarch, has the pre-eminence in this relationship.
but Grace Pony also likes the NIGHT WILL LAST FOREVER meme>>677776/siberia/ wants Grace to support it b/c they want femdom, so Grace gets the lady's right of first night with any board tan.
If Hobbes had his way, the Anglican Communion would no longer be autocephalous, but all would proceed from the King, either from within the Church of England or under the King in their own church.
>The Civil Sovereign in every Commonwealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, & the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civil Sovereign.
- Hobbes
Hobbes calls the Sovereign the soul of the Commonwealth.
<Jean Bodin: Concerning Popes
>But I think no man doubts, but that the king even before his consecration enjoys both the possession and propriety of the kingdom, not by inheritance or his fathers right, and much less by the country of the bishops or peers, but by the royal law and custom of the realm, as was long since decreed of the French men, that no man should think the power of the king to depend on the pleasure of the bishops; not for that the Senat ever doubted the power of the king before his coronation; but that those vain quirks of the bishops might be utterly reselled. For it is an old proverb with us, That the king doth never die, but that so soon as he is dead, the next male of his stock is seized of the kingdom, and in possession thereof before he be crowned, which is not conferred unto him by succession of his father, but by virtue of the law of the land; least the succession of the kingdom should be uncertain, then which nothing can be more dangerous in a Commonweal.
>And to show a greater submission of the emperors unto the popes, the subscription of the emperor's letters unto the pope, is this, I kiss the hands and feet of your Holiness. So used always the emperor Charles V to subscribe to his letters, when he writ unto pope Clement the seventh. Which he did not upon a feigned courtesy, but indeed in most humble and servile manner kissed the Pope's feet, in open sight of the people, and the greatest assemblies of many noble princes, at Bononia, Rome, and last of all at Marsielles in Provence, where were met together the Pope, the Emperor, the Kings of France and Navarre, the dukes of Savoy, of Buillon, Florence, Ferrara, Vitemberg the Grand Master of Malta, with many other princes and great lords, who all kissed the Pope's feet, except the dukes of Buillon and Vitemberg, Protestant princes, who had forsaken the rites and ceremonies of the church of Rome. In far more base sort did that duke of Venice humble himself (who of the Venetians themselves is called a dog) for that he with a rope about his neck, and creeping upon all four like a beast, so craved pardon of Pope Clement the 5th. But nothing was more base, than that which almost all historiographers which write of the Pope's affairs, report of the Emperor Frederick the Second, who to redeem his son out of prison, lying prostrate upon the ground at the feet of the Pope Alexander the Fourth, suffered him to tread upon his head, if the histories be true. Whereby it is well to be perceived, the Majesty of the Emperors, by the power (should I say) or by the outrageousness of the Bishops of Rome, to have been so diminished, as that scarce the shadow of their ancient majesty seems now to remain. They also say themselves to be greater than the emperors, and that so much greater, as is the Sun greater than the Moon: that is to say, six thousand six hundred forty and five times, if we believe Ptolemy and the Arabians. And that more is, they have always pretended a right unto the empire: for the imperial seat being vacant, they have given the investitures unto them which held of the empire, and received of them their fealty: as they did of John and Luchin, viscounts of Milan, the imperial seat being empty in the year 1341, who are in the records called vassals of the church of Rome, and not of the empire; and are forbidden their obedience unto Lewes of Bavaria the Emperor, who was then excommunicated, as we have before said. For which cause the Canonists have maintained, that the emperor cannot give up his imperial dignity unto any, but unto the pope.
>But howsoever the Bishop of Rome pretended to have a sovereignty over all Christian princes, not only in spiritual, but also in temporal affairs, whether they got it by force of arms, or by the devotion and grant of princes; or by long possession and prescription: yet could not our Kings even for any most short time endure the servitude of the Bishop of Rome, nor be moved with any their excommunication, which the Popes used as firebrands to the firing of Christian Commonwealths. For these Popes interdictions, or excommunications, were wont with other nations, to draw the subjects from the obedience and reverence of their prince: but such has always been the love of our kings towards their people (and so I hope shall be forever) and loyalty of the people towards their kings: that when pope Boniface the Eight saw himself nothing to prevail by his excommunication, nor that the people were to be drawn from the obedience of their king, after he had publically excommunicated Philip the Fair, he in like manner excommunicated all the French nation, with all them which took Philip for a king. But Philip having called together an assembly of his princes, and other his nobility, and perceiving in his subjects in general a wonderful consent for his defense of his state and sovereignty: he thereupon writ letters unto Boniface (which are common in every man's hand) to reprove him of his folly: and shortly after sent Nogaret with his army into the Pope's territory, who took the Pope prisoner, (giving him well to understand that the King was not his subject, as he had by his Bull published) but seeing him through impatience to become furious and mad, he set him again at liberty. Yet from that the Pope's interdiction, the King by the advice of his nobility and Senat, appealed unto a general council, which had power over the Pope, abusing the holy cities. For the king next unto Almighty God had none his superior, unto whom he might appeal: but the Pope is bound unto the decrees and commands of the council. And long times before Philip the Victorious, and his realm being interdicted by Pope Alexander the Third, who would have brought him into his subjection: answered him by letters, That he held nothing of the pope, nor yet of any prince in the world. Benedict the third, and Julius the second, had used the like excommunication against Charles the seventh, and Lewes the twelfth (who was called the Father of his country) that so as with firebrands they might inflame the people to rebellion: yet failed they both of their hope, the obedience of the subjects being nothing diminished, but rather increased: the Bull of excommunication which the Popes legat brought into France, being by the decree of the parliament of Paris openly torn to pieces, and the legat for his presumptuousness cast in prison… True it is, that they which have thought better to assure the majesty of the Kings of France against the power of the Pope, have obtained the Pope's bulls whilest they yet stat in the city of Auignion to be exempted from their power. And namely there is in the records of France a Bull of Pope Clements the Fifth, whereby he not only absolved Philip the Fair and his subjects from the interdiction of Boniface the Eight, but also declared the King and the realm to be exempted from the Pope's power. Pope Alexander the Fourth also gave this privilege unto the realm of France, That it could not for any cause be interdicted, which was afterward by seven Popes successively confirmed by Gregory, Clement the fourth, Urban the fifth, and Benedict the twelfth, whose bull yet remain in the records of France: which yet seem unto me not to increase, but rather to diminish the majesty of our Kings, who were never in any thing beholden unto the Popes. And that more is, the court of parliament of Paris, has been by many decrees declared the clause, By the authority Apostolical; usually inserted into the Popes rescripts sent into France, to be void, mere abusive, and to no purpose: and therefore it behooved him, that would help himself by any such the popes rescript, to protest in judgment, That he would not any way take benefit of that clause. By all which things it is plainly to be understood, not only the kings, but the Kingdom of France also, to have been always free from the Pope's power and command.
>Upon this difference cast themselves into the protection of the Kings of France, who were the GREATEST Monarchs of Christendom; wherein they were not of their hope deceived. For hereupon, Pipin, Grand M. of France (a man of great wealth and power, who then disposed of all the affairs of the realm) with a great army passing over the Alps, overthrew and discomfited the power of the Lombards, and afterward going to Rome, was the first that gave unto Pope Zachary, part of the seignorie of Italy, who had before crowned him King of France, forbidding the peers and people of France to make of any choice of any other for their kings but of the house of Pipin, having publicly pronounced King Childeric for his sottishness to be unable for the government. Whereunto the people of France made so much the less resistance, for that Pipin then had the nobility and the army of France at command: and for that the Pope (who as then was esteemed as a God upon earth) was the author thereof, unto whom Pipin had before solemnly promised, and given him letters pattents thereof, That if he should become victorious over the Lombards, he should give unto the Church of Rome the Exarchate of Ravenna, which contained thirty cities, and the province of Pentapole, which contained sixteen cities moe; which he after the victory performed, laying the keys of the said cities upon Saint Peter's altar; yet reserving unto himself and his successors in the crown of France, the sovereignty of both the provinces; and that more is, power also to choose the Popes. Whereunto the Pope not only willingly granted, but almost persuaded Pipin to take upon him the name of an emperor: which title none then used, but the emperors of Constantinople. But Pipin being dead, the Lombards again took up arms, to the great disquiet of the Popes, who again had recourse unto the French Kings, as unto ta most sure sanctuary. Whereunto Charles, Pipin his son (for his many and worthy victories surnamed the Great) with a strong army passing the Alps, not only overthrew the king of the Lombards, but even their kingdom also: and having surely established the power of the Roman bishops, was by them called Emperor: and they again by Charles so long as he lived, all chosen bishops of Rome. But after the death of this Charlemagne, they which were of great credit in Rome, caused themselves to by chosen pope by the clergy, whether it were for the distrust they had to obtain that dignity of the Kings of France, having no favor in the court; or through the negligence of the French Kings, who had thereof no great care; or that it was by reason of the great civil wars which arose betwixt the children of Lewes the Gentle, wherewith the French Kings busied, lost the prerogative they had in choosing of the chief Bishop. Yet Guitard, a great antiquary, who lived in the same time writes, 3 Popes successively to have come into France to excuse themselves to Lewes the Gentle, That they had been by the clergy of Rome constrained to accept the papal dignity, beseeching him to confirm the same: which he either as a man not desirous of glory, or else fearing to provoke the clergy (being then in great authority) did: of which his error he afterwards though to late full sore repented him; being by the college of cardinals constrained to yield up his Crown, & to make himself a monk, and his wife a nun, shut up apart from her husband in a cloister with other nuns, who yet were again afterwards delivered by the princes and nobility of France, (disdaining to see the pride of the clergy) and so again restored unto their former honors. But after the death of this Lewes the Gentle (who was Emperor of France, of Germany, and of greater part of Italy, and Spain) the empire was divided into three kingdoms, which the brethren Charles the Bauld, Lothaire, and Lewes, every one of them held in title of sovereignty, without acknowledging a superiority of one another; and again, the kingdom of Lothaire was divided amongst his children into three parts: unto one fell the kingdom of Lorraine, unto another the kingdom of Arles, and to the third the kingdom of Italy: Lewes holding Germany, and Charles the Emperor, France. So their divided power began to decay, and the wealth of the bishops of Rome greatly to increase: they now succeeding one another by way of election, and in nothing acknowledging the majesty of the French kings, as they ought to have done: which came to pass especially in the time of Pope Nicholas the First, who better understood to manage matters of state than his predecessors, and was the first that used the rigors of excommunication against princes, having excommunicated Lothaire the younger brother of Lewes king of Italy."
>Howbeit that in truth the right of choosing of the pope belonged to the Kings of France, and not unto the German princes, who have but usurped the name and title of emperors, got by the prowess and force of Charlemagne king of France and by him left unto his successors the kings of France, and not unto the kings of Germany; for so they were called in all the ancient treaties and histories of Germany and France, and not emperors, except those which were crowned by the popes. But after that the power of the German kings was far spread in Italy, they then sought to usurp unto themselves that right of choosing of the bishops of Rome: whether it were for the increasing of their own wealth and power, or for to take away the ambition and foul corruption then used in voices giving, and in their elections. For the emperor Henry the third thrust out of his papacy Gregory the sixt, chosen pope by the clergy, and set Clement the second in his place, and afterwards compelled the clergy to swear, not from thenceforth to admit any into the papacy, without the consent of the German emperors; as we have learned out of the Vatican records. But Clement the second being dead, the college of cardinals sent ambassadors unto the emperor to appoint whom he thought good to be pope, who appointed Pepon, afterwards called Damasus the second; who dead, the clergy again sent ambassadors unto the emperor, for the creating of a new pope
<Jean Bodin recounts in high esteem of the clergy:
>Truly all the best learned lawyers are of opinion, That the priestly dignity is to be preferred before all other honours and vocations: and that the ministers of divine things, & moderators of the most sacred rites, are not to be accounted among the number of the vulgar & common people: which is no new or strange opinion, but drawn & derived even from the most ancient antiquity. For the most ancient kings, to make their royal power the more reverend and stately, exercised also the priestly dignity. Neither did the Greeks only, but the Roman kings also, yea and the greatest emperors themselves, style themselves high Priests or Bishops, whom the chief Arabian princes being also bishops, seem therein to have followed.
>And so the Christian kings being by their religion forbidden to mingle prophane things with sacred or armes with religions; yet took that which was next; that is to say, in preferring a sacred, order of the Clergy, not only before the common and vulgar sort of the people, but before the Senators, yea and not before them alone, but even before dukes, earls, and other magistrates whatsoever: giving unto them the highest rooms, and first places next unto the kings themselves, in all assemblies, councels, enacting of laws, and granting of liberties and privileges. And why not? when as the most ancient people of the Celts, accounted their Druids, who were the princes of their religion and judgements, superiors not unto the common sort of the people only, but even unto their captains and rulers also. For which cause Caesar in recounting of their degrees, first reckons up the Druids, then their knights or horsemen, and after them the common people.
<Jean Bodin ranks the the Sovereign Monarch even before the clergy:
>The next unto the King himself, who out of the number of citizens, going far before the rest should follow the holy order of the clergy: next unto the sacred order of the clergy, the Senate: after the Senate should follow the martial men, and amongst them, frst the general of the army, or great constable, & then the dukes , countes, marquesses, governors of provinces, landgraves, burgraves, captains of castles, vassals, and other soldiers, with such others…
<Louis XIV, Sun King – Rest assured that Kings are Absolute Lords & naturally have free & full disposition of all the goods possessed by clergymen as well as by laymen
>I have never failed to call to your attention, whenever the occasion has arisen, how much respect we must have for religion and how much deference we must have for its ministers, particularly in regard to their mission, that is, in the celebration of the sacred mysteries and in the preaching of the Gospel. But since clergymen tend to be a little presumptuous about the privileges of their estate and since they seem to want to use them sometimes in order to escape their most legitimate duties, I feel obliged to explain to you here briefly what you should know about this matter, and which might prove useful to you, whether for making your decisions more confidently or for enforcing them more easily.
>You should therefore first rest assured that kings are absolute lords and naturally have free and full disposition of all the goods possessed by clergymen as well as by laymen, in order to use them at any time as wise administrators, that is, according to the general need of their State.
>In the second place, you should learn that these mysterious names of freedoms and liberties of the Church, with which they may try to dazzle you, regard all the faithful equally, whether lay or tonsured, who are all equally sons of this common mother who, however, exempts none of them from submission to sovereigns, which the Gospel itself specifically enjoins.
>Thirdly, all this talk about the special purpose of the property of the Church and about the intentions of the founders is only a forced scruple, for the founders of benefices could not free their donations from the restrictions and obligations that were naturally attached to them, nor can their possessors claim to hold them with more rights and privileges than the donors themselves.
>Fourthly, if the clergy have been permitted to fix their contribution in their assemblies, they cannot attribute this custom to any special privilege, since this is even practiced with the laity in most of our provinces, and it was practiced everywhere in the honesty of the early days; for indeed, at that time the mere spirit of justice sufficed to inspire each individual to give according to his means, which would never happen today; and yet all this has never prevented the compulsion of both the laity and the clergy when they have refused to perform their duty voluntarily.
>But in the last place, if anyone under our dominion should put all his possessions at our disposal, it would undoubtedly be those who, holding their benefices only by our appointment, are bound to this duty not merely by their birth like most of our subjects, but also by special motives of gratitude. The taxes that are laid on them are as old as the benefices, and we have titles to them that go back to the beginning of the Monarchy. Even the popes who have tried to deprive sovereigns of this power in order to take it over themselves have established our right in trying to weaken it, since they have been compelled to retract their claims specifically with regard to this Crown.
>But there is no need here of history, of titles, or of examples; natural equity alone suffices to prove my point. Is it fair that the nobility should work and bleed for the defence of the Kingdom and so often consume its wealth in the positions that it is given, that the people who have so many mouths to feed and provide so many soldiers should still pay all the regular taxes in spite of their poverty, while the clergy, who are dispensed by their profession from the dangers of war, from the costs of luxury, and from the burden of families should alone enjoy all the abundant public benefits without ever contributing anything to its needs?
<Zosimus - New History - Pontifex Maximus
>Hence the Romans, deriving it from the Greeks, called their own priests Pontifices, and enacted a law, that kings, for the sake of dignity, should be considered of the number. The first of their kings who enjoyed this dignity was Numa Pompilius. After him it was conferred not only upon the kings but upon Octavianus and his successors in the Roman Empire. Upon the elevation of any one to the imperial dignity, the pontifices brought him the priestly habit, and he was immediately styled, Pontifex Maximus, or chief priest. All former emperors, indeed, appeared gratified with the distinction, and willingly adopted the title. Even Constantine himself, when he was Emperor, accepted it, although he was seduced from the path of rectitude in regard to sacred affairs, and had embraced the Christian faith. In like manner did all who succeeded him to Valentinian and Valens. But when the Pontifices, in the accustomed manner, brought the sacred robe to Gratian, he, considering it a garment unlawful for a Christian to use, rejected their offer. When the robe was restored to the priests who brought it, their chief is said to have made this observation, If the emperor refuses to become Pontifex, we shall soon make one.
As much as I approved the last Shah & didn't care for the pretense of ultra-clericals & traditionalists, I don't support this call for regime change.
I feel disappointed with this crown prince. He is too kosher. He only shills democracy and not monarchy.
He hasn't built on prestige of Shah.
Admittedly, the Shah was dwarfed & far overshadowed by the Clergy, but even he tried to build a cult of personality around it & used Jamesian maxims like being the father of the people *(which I strongly approve of and love in Monarchy)… but the people were indifferent and apathetic to his ambitions.
…The crown prince and pretender here doesn't even care to build upon that cult of personality / imperial cult, which could compete with the Ayatollah, since even the Pahlavi initially were going to be a republic but the people wanted a Shah… instead of stating that Iran needs a Shah, this pretender only cares to appeal to democracy and his leadership as a transition to it…
I hate Plato's maxim that the worst rulers are people who want to rule… because of it there are all these would-be rulers playing coy with the idea of them ruling… and pretending they don't want it… and because of it you get Tolkien praising a king whose only interest is collecting stamps and watching racehorses… and people get ideas that the best ruler shouldn't rule at all and leave it to the prime minister… which comes to the opposite effect of what Plato wanted since Plato even suggested he'd FORCE these philosophers to rule, not just lazily draw back from ruling or be hands off.
Crown Prince is too kosher when Iran is being bombed by Israel. He should have cared for the prestige of his royal blood and not married his daughter to an American jew. Even the Ayatollah might care more for the prestige of his bloodline since they are sayyids.
Other elites marry their children to jews like the American presidential families, but they aren't coming from the basis of hereditary monarchy.
I understand other monarchists might approve of marrying children to foreigners, but I don't. I think it works against the cult of personality / imperial cult to detract from the blood relationship with the people you rule. King should be kin unto his people. At least with similar cultures in the region.
On what secular grounds should people like him? I get the crown prince must stress secular issues (& has done it probably even more than his father, because of this circumstance) and is courting neozoroastians, anti-islamists, atheists, etc amongst the Iranian diaspora. There are secular issues people actually care about, & they present themselves like Cyrus the Great in courting the jews… but I personally think this has gone a bit overboard. The Islamic Republic looks more nationalist on secular grounds & the crown prince criticized them for being insufficiently nationalist.
That is laughable now.
Like Hobbes says, the people should stay and give obedience to the people who protect them now.
The Pahlavis usurped the Qajars, the Ayatollahs usurped the Pahlavis – this is imperfect birth of commonwealth, and the division between secularists and shia islamists that has been on-going even from the time of the Qajars.
I won't cry crocodile tears for the Islamic Republic if they fall and think Iran was better off with the last Shah. This war, the call for regime change, & the pretender – I don't support, however.
Oh look, the latest Tamers.
I'm 9 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTMatLlnd7QUnique IPs: 10