/siberia/ - Off-topic

Thoughts & opinions on Lavader video:
–
TBH, when it comes to the Shah of Iran and criticism, at least this isn't Lavader sperging out about price controls and the bazaaris–(He was always a bit of a lolbert tier constitutional monarchist… but Shah regime was basically actually existing corporatism, one party state and everything–for what it really is, not the Aristotelian misconception of corporatism/guild system they like to praise–grumble, corporatism was always state corporatism to begin with, not a partnership of clans).
It's the divine right of the free market with monarchists like Lavader, Aristotle's food argument and marketplace of ideas appeal to democratic input, muh decentralization and muh partnership of clans (which they make a guise of "guild corporatism"), muh middle class, it's all Aristotle's Politics.
A bit of a off-topic tangent, but monarchists these days… we're totally swamped with right libertarian sentiment… It's dumb too because the Shah of Iran's White Revolution distributed land and property to begin with and was fairly Liberal enough… but Lavader calls it Communism… "Monarcho-Communism" –and there's some truth to it being a one-party state, but monarchy was always aligned with a unitary mode of politics, that is what they don't understand.
Honestly, Lavader… I never quite liked him as an absolute monarchist because early on before he was popular I remember Lavader being a staunch constitutional monarchist and opposing my politics…
…But his Medieval video also irked me because he brought up Aquinas to greenlight tyrannicide theory and left it to private judgement to determine this… in spite of Aquinas' warning against private judgement in De Regno…
I hate being on the rightwing sometimes… all of them glaze Aristotle… this is why I sympathize with Hobbes so hard… it's as if I were alive in his era, people never really changed and stopped doing that…
Me and Lavader represent two sides of the monarchist spectrum.
No matter how much I scream in the end, the majority of the monarchist community is going that way.
…
After watching Lavader's video on the Iranian Revolution:
Too much Right Libertarianism / free market fundamentalism grips the e-monarchist community, from Hoppe, to Lavader, to De Jouvenel; underpinning it is Aristotle's Politics & his emphasis on the Middle Class.
Ideologically, Lavader clashes with the Shah's regime–because Shah's regime is a unitary, state corporatist monarchy–this sounds bizarre to untrained ears, yes, the Shah's regime was a one-party state akin to democratic centralism.
…
De Jouvenel is a major influence on Lavader (last I heard):
My probem:
De Jouvenel basically calls for a right libertarian crusade against Caesarism, juxtaposes monarchical & senatorial, securitarian vs libertarian, etc. (You can read all of this throughout my Royal Colony thread and why I condemn it).
It has a lot of Aristotle's prejudice towards Monarchy.
…
Aristotle paints the rise of the middle class as the end of monarchy:
Aristotle:
>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.
^That is where that myth comes from.
…
Now this video is relevant: Is Shah confronting Lavader's appeal to Middle Class:
>"Do you think as your country gets more prosperous you'll be able to restrain the demands of your people for more of the kind of democracy we have in Britain?"
Interviewer hints at this.
…
What is the politics ideological difference between the Shah of Iran and Lavader it is that the Shah of Iran has State Corporatist beliefs.
For Lavader: Aristotle's partnership of clans ("guilds") For the Shah of Iran: Plato's State Corporatism.
…
The key is Shah of Iran says that King & People are so close–as if they were members of the same family. For Lavader this is how the Shah's economics differ:
Shah has the view of the science of State (Political City) not differing from a Household (Economic unit).
…
De Jouvenel, like Aristotle, denies Monarchy has the same science: Monarchical vs Senatorial
Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.
…
This juxtaposition between Monarchical & Senatorial is basically the difference between Roman Catholicism (State Corporatism) & Orthodoxy (Aristotle's Partnership of Clans) in structure.
Catholicism is unilateral/monarchical;
Orthodoxy is concordant/confederate.
…
What part of the political ideology justifies the Shah's state intervention?
Basically, like Rousseau says, that royalist doctrine that political government is akin to domestic–that the monarch can organize the state like a family (one party state).
…
In the State Corporatist view, there's unity first and then there's the community of goods.
This unity limits the economic estates by a sovereign bond of the State, justifying State interventionism to establish unity to establish communication.
…
This unity becomes the foundation for the corners of the city to communicate as a city, being the public law and institutions that bring them into harmony.
The King is the soul of Commonwealth.
So it is the King first who summons the estates/parliament (the economy).
…
The sovereignty is like the autonomy of the body over its parts.
Plato lays out:
>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.
>We compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.
…
That is what democratic centralism & fascism & in a way what absolute monarchy is–as opposed to multi-party democracies & concordant structures of the nobility as a partnership of clans.
A cult of personality to establish a community of pleasures and pains.
…
The main appeal to free market fundamentalism – is Aristotle's food argument against the rule of a wise man (or a wise state government to intervene). It stresses democratic input.
A free market is like a banquet bringing more food to the table. Marketplace of ideas.
…
The appeal to the notion that political differs not from economical is that a monarch
has experience to govern the whole state from his own estate & governing himself.
…
This serves to bridge the gap between the monarch's capacity to govern – without over-reliance on democracy – because Aristotle denies they have a like science, so monarch needs democratic input (food argument). & for state institutions like the "Chamber of Guilds"
…
Now I think for the concordant view of a state for Aristotle–it stresses friendship and bond after bond after bond of private correspondences to link the commonweal, shared in their virtue.
As De Jouvenel praises in his "Republic of Old" (that Tocqueville praised).
…
The idea of HLvM stressed in De Jouvenel is all found in Aristotle:
>The legislator should include the middle class in his government.
>There will be no fear the rich will unite with the poor against the rulers.
>He who is in the middle is an arbiter.
…
Aristotle on Middle Class:
>"Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property."
>Where the middle class is large, there are least likely to be factions and dissensions."

Nor does Plato want citizens too rich/too poor: but Plato stresses fixing the property, like price controls:
>The limit of poverty shall be the value of the allotment: this must remain fixed, and its diminution in any particular instance no magistrate should overlook.
…
In the absolutist/state corporatist view:
The sovereignty is absolute, the estates limited.
Bodin:
>That the latter [The State] has the final & public authority
>The former (The family or household) limited and private rule
…
All that information–that'll suffice.
These are the political ideological differences, from my interpretation, between Lavader and the Shah of Iran's Monarcho-Communism.
…
IMO–for Lavader–is the so-called Monarcho-Communism of the Shah of Iran was an earnest attempt at monarchy for all its flaws.
The Shah of Iran did try to benefit the middle class by distributing property, but as Machiavelli says initiating a new order of things is dangerous.
…
I forgot to mention two more things to Lavader
For Plato's 2nd constitution: (State Corporatism)
>The man who receives the portion should still regard it as common property of the whole State.
…
Hobbes keeps the same idea–like Plato:
>Propriety of a subject excludes not the dominion of the Sovereign, but only of another subject.

Plato appeals to arbiters like Hobbes.
>Every man surely likes his own laws best, and the laws of others not so well
>Next step–we will select some arbiters
This is the appeal to unilateral arbiters opposed to Aristotle's concord of hosts or partnership of clans.
…
Hobbes Leviathan is basically all about the appeal to an arbiter and why he thinks Aristotle's concord of hosts / partnership of clans is unworkable.
The need for an arbiter is important for understanding state corporatism / absolute monarchy pertinent to the Shah.
…
All this I bring up in response to Lavader's video on the middle class alienation as the cause of the Iranian Revolution, price controls, and total bazaari death.
Lavader is a bit of a free market fundie, imo, so I think the price controls of Monarcho-Communism irk him in particular.

Contrary to Lavader's video on the Islamic Revolution is the Shah was introducing major land reform policies for creating a broad middle class.
Yes, the bazaar represents the ideal of the free market, but the Shah was trying to ween people off a bloated flea market system.
…
Yes, it might have been a speedy, progressive reformation of the bazaar system–but ultimately, that would happen with the growth of the middle class anyways–as people invariably come into close quarters, the securitians have a point: more regulation happens.
…
Ask yourselves what advantages with retailers today? Well, it is more sanitary, organized, and liable – there is private property, yes, but the added security overall makes it a more beneficial system that short-term pains are worth it for the long-term goal.
…
The fundamental question is about procuring the common wealth (or common weal/common good)–The State Corporatist/Unitarian view is unity procures communication, like unity in language allows us to talk.
Without security, long-term industrial endeavors fail.
…
The unity in communication / standard / the public law–that allows one end of the city to communicate and procure goods for another end of the city, like money or currency over barter economy.
The Tower of Babel collapsed when they couldn't speak the same language

Note the term Common Good became synonymous with the State "Commonwealth" - what is the City? none other than the economy (economic means household, economy is the bundle of households making a city).
Bodin says the true image of Commonwealth is the family well ordered.
…
This is how the bond of the State is seen as synonymous with the Economy–but in the monarchist scheme of things, how does this idea apply? I'll explain.
Leviathan: The City below is like the Leviathan above–how the economy is organized is how the State is altogether.
…
It might be said the Shah of Iran was like a Nimrod or Pharaoh figure
I'll say this:
The Tower of Babel was the greatest achievement possible with mankind–It's just the God of the Old Testament recognizes in the dour tone of Hobbes' Leviathan that it was a mortal god.
…
Does that make the Shah of Iran wrong? –No
I'd dare say the Shah of Iran in that sense was more godly than all the clergy and ayatollahs combined, because he was a monarch.
If there is any unity to be achieved, it is best with monarchy–make no doubt about it.
…
That is to say, it is no less godly, but it was mortal.
No matter how close we get to divinity, even w/ all our appeal to religion–& monarchy is the closest-no matter how religious, no matter how unified-mortal
As applies to the Shah & the Clergy, no matter the values.
…
There is an ultra-clerical hubris as Hobbes pointed out:
That is spiritually lesser than Nimrod, but but more proud.
They criticize the secular nature of Shah government, spit the word Secularist, that they are holy men and confide in their tradition/religious unity.
…
That amounts to the hubris that they speak one language: but you can have the best laws, the best king (one language, one nimrod), great holymen & still fall.
Hobbes:
>There is therefore no other Government in this life, neither of State or of Religion, but Temporal.
…
It'd have been likewise so if instead of multiple languages that there multiple Nimrods introduced.
Even holy men with a great formula might be undone simply by another holy prophet with a new revelation, like the Taiping Rebellion.
Having one monarch is like one law.
…
That said
I deem monarchy itself to be like one language–there are arbiters needed to begin to clarify their language. Same with religious teachers and religious doctrine.
If the same language represented the same law, but one king above all else represents it best.
…
I say it was spiritually lesser than Nimrod, but but more proud–because the quality of a monarch itself is closest to that great height than the pretenses of all the customs and traditions and priestly clique.
Why I say Shah of Iran was more godly, but mortal.
…
B/c it isn't that it's a crisis of values & what values I feel like the proponents of traditionalism/ultra-clericalism would say so, but no:
Simply mortality.
Leviathan is said to be the mortal god under the immortal god–closest man is in religiosity, but still mortal.
…
That is my appeal to Monarcho-Communism over the pretenses of Traditionalists/Ultra-Clericalists who'd rebuke, no, HISS the word:
Sssecularissssst! 🐍

Without sovereignty, without rulers: there's no peaceful division of property, no security to have propriety, no marketplace or bazaar of any kind, no communication.
The first boundaries of Rome were made by Romulus who plowed lines.
…
Alexis de Tocqueville doubts this doctrine:
>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
…
Alexis de Tocqueville:
>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.
…
Just like Lavader shouts "Monarcho-Communism!"
Alexis de Tocqueville also shouts: "Monarcho-Communism!"
Alexis de Tocqueville:
>"It was the mother of modern socialism, which thus, strange to say, seems to have been the offspring of Royal Despotism."
…
Albeit this doctrine was validated by the French system:
To refute Alexis de Tocqueville, I'd add that it was the King of France who could summon the Estates-General, which verifies the doctrine, showcasing that it was the King who made the Estates-General.
…
Numerous scholars re-affirm this idea that Alexis de Tocqueville scorns–
Alexander Hamilton:
>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.
…
Robert Filmer cites Edward Coke:
>"That the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demean [or Domain / Dominion]."
…
James VI & I:
>It is evident by the rolls 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)]
…
Dante Alighieri:
>Before his [Emperor's] presence, ye who drink of his streams, & sail upon his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores & the summits of the mountains that are his; ye who enjoy all public rights & possess all private property by bond of his law, & no otherwise
…
Hobbes:
>All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign
…
>The Children of Israel were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness–wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, & Joshua
…
Hobbes even appeals to Cicero–who defends this idea, who was as passionate a defender of Liberty as Lavader:
>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) & there is nothing, that any man can be sure to receive

Even if the Shah hurt people in the process I can't fault him for wanting to reform old bazaars.
Faulting him for this is like faulting a city for bulldozing slums and evicting people there–in order to replace it with a much more pristine, manageable foundation.
…
We would find this quote admirable in Augustus so why hate the Shah of Iran for wanting to do the same? To take Iran from a city of stone and make it into a city of marble?
…
The Iranian Revolution IMHO did more harm than benefit.
People quote Aquinas in greenlighting tyrannicide/overthrow much, but barely heed his warnings against private judgement – and, more importantly in this case, the judgement of the multitude. Vindicating Hobbes.
Hobbes warns about attaining sovereignty by rebellion
…
Insecurity comes from a revolution & Iran is an example, because Saddam tried to take advantage of it–leading to a deadly war, which did help unite the Iranian people (fear of an enemy unites/helps draw people to the revolutionary regime), but a brutal war nonetheless…

TL;DR: Lavader is all:
>"No touching 3rd world flea markets, o algo."
If a city looks to remove some slums or there's gentrification, Meximutt Lavader jumps out with a machete:
>"Get out, GRINGO!"
Same with muh bazaars and the Shah.

The only thing for Lavader's sake I have to admit–that makes the idea of decentralization/political pluralism attractive to me is the third man argument.
De Jouvenel revives Aristotle's point against Plato about too much unity fragmenting the State by invoking atomization for Hobbes.
…
This is stupidly pernicious–yes, it does become a tug of war all around about -who- the arbiter is. Between average fatherly joe, the nobles, the monarch, the Pope, God, & what God–& so forth… that it might as well be an arbitrary matter altogether.
…
This is also annoying when it comes to pretenders & candidates… who will the arbiter be? Which royal house?
My appeal is they make themselves known OR something compels people to whatever arbiter/leader… in Hobbes' case, fear brings people to whichever arbiter.
…
I hate this tendency w/ a livid passion because it almost upends everything appealing about the use of monarchy to bypass political pluralism to begin with–royal houses become political parties and like party platforms competing to a disgusting degree among royalists.
…
The same might be said with what church or what denomination? …I personally liked monarchy to bypass the annoyance of political parties, on one hand, only to flop into the frying pan of Christian denominations… which predominates monarchy with the pretenders.
It is a great disappointment for me to jump from republican party factionalism but to endure denominationalism and Christian denominational banter instead–which is something I hate when it comes to other monarchists with a livid passion also.
…
I like to think that the arbiter makes himself known or by right of conquest at first for when there are the very first lordly monarchies. How so? fear of an enemy or his virtues help lead an army.
This gives rise to unity without any appeal to elective heroism which Aristotle purports…

Now Lavader says he'd support the Qajars (I'm sure to spite the Pahlavi pretender).
Personally, I don't take Qajars seriously–any legitimatist pretenses well after 45 years (as the precedent goes) and over 100 years… I don't take seriously… and the worse it is when there's multiple pretenders, dividing it even more.
I'd say that the Pahlavi pretender has a fair shot (this is probably the very last feasible chance at a Pahlavi restoration)–while, on the other hand, this comes with contemporary news, the Islamic Republic could have its own hereditary regime like North Korea does, with Ali Khamenei's son–I'd say these two are better options than pretending the Qajars will come back… if not Pahlavists, then you'd be better off hoping for a Khamenei dynasty–or somebody else.
…
Last quip I'll add about Lavader is he has a bit of a neoconservative religious flair, and I think maybe criticizes the Shah of Iran on religiosity–that is peculiar to me, because Lavader openly says he's not a Muslim and is an agnostic for now, so IDK why Lavader is so staunch about it.
Personally, I don't think neoconservative religiosity compares to the kind of theocratic religiosity like in Iran or even pre-1793, or pre-Reformation trad Catholicism… My opinion: These neoconservatives would turn into rabid Jacobins after a good taste of a strong, militant theocracy like pre-1793, pre-Reformation, lol. They are on different levels.
Charles Maurras was an agnostic and received papal condemnation which utterly destroyed his popular support for his royalist group French Action, for instance, and I have similar reservations about Maurras like I do with Lavader (Maurras stresses decentralization -too much- like Lavader does for the middle class, IMO–which was a trend for their respective times & circumstances, I'm sure).

Rightwingers who quote Evola that their values are pre-1793 (French Revolution), or pre-Reformation values–are plain wrong. Julius Evola himself was a neopagan and wouldn't be tolerated in pre-Revolutionary Europe, which was fundamentally Christian–if Julius Evola had those values, he'd also be a Christian, but he's a neopagan.
The paganism trend started with Romanticism and Rousseau himself in his work Social Contract makes appeals to religion united with the interests of people much like the pagan anons are saying–they hate being bedfellows, but they're not really that far apart, IMHO, as much as they make the pretense of hating the French Revolution… altogether they both want to live in a post-Christian West.

Altogether I don't think Lavader's point about the middle class is a real strong suit.
Pahlavi did do land reforms (contrary to Lavader saying there were no land reforms, there was).
The foundation was being set for muh middle class…
I think some monarchists are particularly spiteful of the Pahlavis because they were a one-party state, which is eccentric and unusual, calling it Bolshevikism but I actually I think with modern monarchy (real modern, contemporary -monarchy- that sprouts up in this day and age, not "constitutional monarchy" pretense which is no monarchy at all and doesn't adapt monarchy to the times but just shelves it)–but it is a regime that should be studied along with North Korea, because post French Revolution, monarchy has been aligning more with state corporatism, one-party states are consistent IMHO with what monarchists want, it's just different from their stress on noble houses and high church sentiment… which isn't the end all, be all for monarchy… a one-party state is pretty much the model akin to a preeminent royal estate modeling the state from what I have said throughout this thread.
…Anyways, I'm skeptical of Lavader for acknowledging De Jouvenel…
De Jouvenel has the Tocquevillist mantra of marking Monarchy as the bad guys & making nobles & a broad middle class the good guys.
It is basically Aristotle's criticism of monarchy…
De Jouvenel makes Monarchy antagonistic & his appeal to the middle class the hero. De Jouvenel associates Monarchy with "Caesarism", "Securitarian", "Monarchy first instituted Power", "Monarchical vs Senatorial" (he's for senatorial), "Republic of Old" (& other Aristotelian tropes)…

Lavader is a Kaiserboo, but I'll say this about that…
HRE is apex Aristotelian (& probably the best you can make out of it for monarchy's sake):
>Elective & limited monarchy (rotational, one among equals, but rule for life)
>Partnership of clans (decentralization) united by shared values (Catholicism)
>Nobles are at their economic estates, but altogether is mixed political constitution of freemen
…
Problem w/ Aristotle-pilled monarchy is it lacks any appeal for monarchy to govern:
Food argument?
>brain of democracy knows to govern better
Political & economical not same science?
>so king won't know to govern the country
Monarchy is only proper for an estate?
>monarchy state bad
Even Hitler was making an appeal against parliamentarianism, I think, by criticizing Aristotle's food argument and taking many strides ahead that many contemporary monarchists wouldn't dare think at all to say (because parliamentarianism is untouchable for them)… in some ways, Hitler and Communists are better monarchists than monarchists themselves, like I said before.
Most communists don't know it, but they were never for democracy: Workers' Party Corporatism, the Party Leader being received like a prophet (& sometimes even a dynasty), –these are all aspects monarchists would have potentially appealed to, but the far left's corporatist tendencies make it so they don't see the need for monarchy (because they already have their fill of everything monarchy appeal to, I think).
…
A little derailed, but…
Overall, with HRE & Aristotle, it is very counter-intuitive, IMHO, towards monarchy.
But sadly, contemporary monarchists keep entertaining it–like Hobbes himself lamented back in his day, that the royalists entertained these mixed constitutionalist ideals… kind of like contemporary monarchists do now…

thoughts on a Khamenei dynasty?
I welcome this change.
It's really difficult for monarchists to understand, but sometimes monarchy happens in places you'd least expect it.
A fifth-monarchy men like state like the Islamic Republic turning to dynastic rule, that's great as far as monarchy is concerned.
It does have the potential to be a nice foundation for its own dynasty, like the Osiris myth, with a son (horus) avenging his father (osiris) and putting back the parts of his regime back together.
…
Palaces, crowns, & monuments are mere husks without any kings who live in palaces, wear crowns, & who are there to pull together materials to build monuments.
Either Ayatollahs or Shahs or someone else will have to fill that void & be the soul of the commonwealth.
…
I see supportors of the Islamic Republic denying it.
Let the two suns take Iran.
Khameneists & Pahlavists have a better bid than Qajarists, IMHO, yet both are dubious & uncertain, the former might become an established dynasty, the latter a "transitional govt" is uncertain too.
…
Others will say that accepting a Khamenei dynasty is another show that "Monarchy has no political sapience", like with North Korea–but I disagree, it's a show that father-to-son govt actually has some utility in spite of all that is said against it.
…
Islamic Republic having a hereditary dynasty, IMHO, is a win for monarchists like North Korea having a hereditary dynasty is.
Monarchy happens in unexpected times & places–when the revolutionaries inevitably have a dynasty and become more like a monarchy, that's great.
When people who are supposedly against hereditary monarchy adopt a hereditary regime, then actions speak louder than words: I see no reason why monarchists can't acknowledge that and boast even the enemies benefit from these methods.
…
Honestly, in this regard, let's "love our enemies", not only in the vein of how Jesus spoke it, but how Xenophon mentions it in Cyropaedia.
Royal monarchy atm is in a state of no reproduction–whereas regimes adopting hereditary dynasties reproduces the form in this day & age.
…
TL;DR:
When enemies of monarchy become monarchies–monarchists should be flattered.
(Even if, barring personal grievances, they find it hard to acknowledge).

It seems hypocritical like if Cromwell's dynasty succeeded or if hypothetically Stalin started a hereditary dictatorship w/ his own sons (after his compatriots shot & killed the Tsar & family) I don't approve of usurpation, think it sets bad precedent, yet life is messy that way.

The most celebrated monarchs in history, like Charlemagne, came from usurpation: I don't approve of usurpation, it is a mark of Cain & leads to a succession of knives in the back–yet monarchy happens more accidentally than planned, life is full of happy accidents fortune brings.
Hobbes says it best:
"There is scarce a Commonwealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified."

1st Machiavellian/Hobbesian Anti-Hero: Papa Doc
He modeled a Cult of Personality after Baron Samedi, a fearful spirit-& studied & employed a Machiavellian regime.
In spite of Haiti's instability, it was a durable strategy & Duvaliers lasted the longest.

2nd Machiavellian/Hobbesian Anti-Hero: Godzilla
The fictional theme of Godzilla as a modern Anti-Hero is a destructive & fearful force that mankind is to reverently fear & be in awe of. Both in its portrayal & allegorically, very Leviathanesque.
Godzilla as a modern archtypical allegory for nuclear war represents how the fear of nukes & mutually assured destruction helps to bring mankind into harmony.
As Godzilla parades through the City as a force like Leviathan, paradoxically becomes a symbol of peace and modern order.

3rd Machiavellian/Hobbesian Anti-Hero: William of Orange
He is an example of Machiavellian/Hobbesian themes–fear of Louis XIV & Catholicism crowns him.
De Witt brothers are cannibalized; he takes England with ease.
He rewards his followers for killing his enemies carefully.
IMHO, William of Orange is another success story of Machiavellian/Hobbesian themes where fear benefits him the most, esp. fear of the enemy.
William of Orange knew not to injure his enemies but elminate w/ the De Witt brothers & Clan MacDonald–& rewarded the people who did it.

>>765117
stalin shoudl have set up a dynsty tbh

TBH, I can sympathize with Pahlavists.
People make a spectacle of them, why do they simp so hard for Israel, hate Islam, and have a cult-like following?
Because that is what monarchy is, a little family, and the Iranian diaspora is by that extent a bond.
You have to remember it was a revolution by clergymen that destroyed their regime–obviously, they'll hate the clergy and the religion they uphold in response.
Why should Pahlavists love Islam and the Shia clergy? The regime that overthrew their regime, gutted out & brutally killed Pahlavi loyalists? Were the Revolutionaries thinking about the country in doing this?
People who cannot comprehend this–cannot comprehend how that a monarchical bond like that can be so deep–but it is just like a religious bond of its own.
So they'd simp for Israel to -spite- the Islamic Republic makes perfect sense to me out of all the pro-Israel people.
From their perspective, most would do the same.

If revolutionaries toppled my regime and killed my compatriots, yes, I'd even support Israel too if it meant getting back at the enemies who ruined me.
It is a kin stick with kin sort of ordeal, nothing personal.
That is frankly the situation Pahlavists are in.

I don't think diaspora are the same as natives, because they were expelled or retreated out–but if there is going to be any restoration, they'll have to play a part, because like Plato suggests a regime takes a whole new generation of people…
Diaspora carry with them the cult of personality of the old regime: the natives were born and raised, educated by the new regime and taken under the wing and cult of personality of the new state.

The Pahlavists are a little like the English Catholics in that way. They have both a coven-like mentality, one for the Shah, the other for the Pope/Jacobitism.
Happens to any outcast group with a new regime.

Can you find Grace?

The success of Christianity–contrary to Rousseau & Nietzsche & HP Lovecraft & Machiavelli–is it isn't just another Oriental import or entirely slave morality, but the reason why Christianity has success with Western people is because it does appeal to Occidentalism.
…
I'm not saying that to praise Christianity since I deem the Occidental man, not the Oriental man, to be more of an enigma in this regard where Christianity succeeds.
…
It's that Christianity is the only preeminent royalism that the Occident has been able to stomach and long revere–contrary to all the other royalisms (which Occidental man calls tyrannical and slavish).
In a way, Christ fulfills Plato's & Aristotle's expectation.
Jesus serves in that way Aristotle praises the Greek father for over the Persian/Egyptian father… so it isn't entirely that the so-called slave morality of Christianity was foreign to the Greeks.
…
The Uranus/Cronus/Zeus succession myth made it easy to revolt against the old gods in turn–it was easy to make them abandon their ancestral gods as tyrants, and for the Christian revolution to topple Zeus with Jesus being a Promethean figure & the 2nd Adam.
The same Greco-Roman tendency to spurn kings as tyrants and call for the regicide of them and their families and to harvest their potential… is the same revolutionary energy that Christianity played off of converting the Gentiles to Christianity in a revolt against their old ancestral gods as petty tyrants who demanded to be worshipped and sacrificed to and honored that way. It was as easy for the Western man to conceive of destroying their idols, Zeus and his family pantheon, as it was for them to stomach smashing the Romanov family.
…
I find it hard to believe Christianity could have usurped the West if it was solely an Oriental import & without any appeal to Occidentalism. –Christianity appealed to the Occidental lusts for revolution against their old gods and harvesting (castrating) them (rather than ancestral worship).

The Orient had a stronger foundation for ancestral worship & was practical for the old gods & their kings. As why Alexander the Great adopted customs of Egyptian/Persian kings, not only to rule them but also the Greeks.
Horus restores rather than usurps Osiris.
…
Egyptians–as opposed to the Occidental quality–see honoring ancestors and loving a king as a great thing.
It's the Greeks and the Jews who are appalled at this… The Egyptian Osiris myth reveres restoring Osiris by Horus, the Western psyche sees the greatest tyranny b/c of Cronus castration myth… to see that in the Western psyche is like a perpetual rule under Cronus' tyranny eating them up, and that is why in the Western psyche they want to revolt against kings and kill them, and lead a revolution to take their fire.
Deep down… this I believe is at the root of Western passion for revolution once and for all… and its particular hatred of monarchy, love for democracy and pretense of liberty (the potential and life blood and energy harvested from castrating the father-gods). That is what sets Western psyche apart from others (& why I think it is the stranger, not the others).

It's seen as servile & tyrannical from the Occidental view, who have gained an immense lust for revolution, liberty, & potency of Promethean fire from the gods harvesting their father gods & Promethean revolution.
So Occidentalism easily betrayed the old gods.
A cult of personality is seen as oppressive and soul crushing in that way… when a Westerner looks at North Korea or any other regime with ancestral worship or a state's royal virtue (as opposed to republican civic virtue & political pluralism/participation)… whereas a cult of personality / state familialism is more renewing and self-affirming and fulfilling as opposed to the Occidental view.

That is why the Occidental view is the enigma to me, not-the foil Aristotle makes of servile Orients & despotic Oriental kings. This is why Westerners see no wrong with the revolutions or is little moved by hereditary royalty & royal virtue & a cult of personality & state familialism–Occidentalism lacks ancestral worship in that way.

I cannot speak for Nordicists and others, but overall that is a common theme overriding Occidentalism in spite of any other influence.
This is the origin for the Greco-Roman pessimism with Monarchy like Hobbes complains about… and the rampant appeal to tyrannicide at every turn and looking to overthrow kings… at least, as far as Westerners are concerned, not also the Biblical issues & Christianity.

Absolutists grappled with & tried to fix this trend to no avail.
There are problems with the Classical Tradition & Christianity alike that get in the way.
Gaius Caligula wanted to emulate Alexander the Great and also impress Romans like Alexander the Great did for Greeks…

Repost from another thread
There is an alliance between petty libertarian types & Catholicism at time.
In my experience, I have met many right libertarians who flirt with Catholicism to undermine the ends of Statism (by limiting it with the Church like they would want with NAP as this fits the Aristotelian notion of having mediation by shared values for confederacy) & the clericalists vice versa flirts with libertarian sentiments because they also benefit from privatization (in wanting greater influence for the Church like it was before public services, i.e. large monastic estates, church-owned lands, private catholic schools, hospitals, universities–the Church resents the State/"The Leviathan" for taking a hold of these spheres and overall stealing its thunder).
Catholics like to point to Orthodoxy for the reverse relationship: Orthodoxy, with its division of the clergy, seems to benefit stronger, unified political government and go hand in hand, so they say Russia has a KGB clergy, point to things like Caesaropapism and the Byzantine Emperors.
I'll admit, the same could be said for Evangelicalism and the US government: the Israel lobby and evangelical Christians have a close relationship with the government as well…
…
I have to agree with the proponents of civic religion–that Catholicism & Christianity in general is opposed to our political ends. It might bait and tempt rulers to use & domesticate Christianity, but in the end that will come back to haunt them because Christianity can not be domesticated as Neronian Christianity will persist (as opposed to Domestic Christianity). & Neronian Christianity is by no means friendly, and it is overall a very anti-social force overall that drives sects of Christians to divide people from families into coven, sectarian conflict and divide a household as well as a nation until it is fully converted–and tread on the necks of kings and subdue the rulers like described in psalm 2 and in the prophecies.
…
So while Christianity might look like tasty bait to a ruler to rule with–that honeyed bait is a deception with tremendous consequences in the long-run and yet a ruler is reeled in like with their maxim of loving their enemies.
…
Leftists have that in common with Christianity is both have a strong drive to politics and drive them towards a cosmopolitan goal, whether it be steering a government towards crusades/missionary work/invading other cultures in general to also hijack them and steer them as well towards doing the same towards other bodies. Not that in those cases, the imperial powers don't benefit from using religion to seep its roots into those indigenous societies as well, but it can get out of control with full on integralism (which never quite gets its way).
…
I deem High Church Catholicism to be on par with Low Church Protestantism in being obnoxious in that regard.
It might seem bizarre to leftists to say this, who might think Church & State make great friends in exploiting the masses, but overall I have to agree with the proponents of civic religion, like Rousseau, Hobbes, Machiavelli–as well as point out that Christianity as a whole has never quite had the civic optimism of the ancients.
The parts where Christianity promotes civil obedience or even seems to back kings… is frankly little consolation (esp. for being half-hearted) compared to the overall package which has many elements that could be equally seditious in subtle ways.
…
Niccolo Machiavelli:
>This is that the Church has kept and keeps this province divided. And truly no province has ever been united or happy unless it has all come under obedience to one republic or to one prince, as happened to France and to Spain. The cause that Italy is not in the same condition and does not also have one republic or one prince to govern it is solely the Church. For although it has inhabited and held a temporal empire there, it has not been so powerful nor of such virtue as to be able to seize the tyranny of Italy and make itself prince of it. On the other hand, it has not been so weak that it has been unable to call in a power to defend it against one that had become too powerful in Italy, for fear of losing dominion over its temporal things. This has been seen formerly in very many experiences: when, by means of Charlemagne, it expelled the Lombards, who were then almost king of all Italy, and when in our times it took away power from the Venetians with the aid of France, then expelled the French with the aid of the Swiss. Thus, since the Church has not been powerful enough to be able to seize Italy, nor permitted another to seize it, it has been the cause that Italy has not been able to come under one head but has been under many princes and lords, from whom so much disunion and so much weakness has arisen that it has been lead to be the prey not only of barbarian powers but of whoever assaults it.

>Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative more than active men. It has then placed the highest good in humility, abjectness, and contempt of things human; the other placed it in greatness of spirit, strength of body, and all other things capable of making men very strong. And if our religion asks that you have strength in yourself, it wishes you to be capable of more of suffering than of doing something strong.

Thomas Hobbes
>Or else there must needs follow Faction, and Civil war in the Commonwealth, between the Church and State; between Spiritualists, and Temporalists; between the Sword Of Justice, and the Shield Of Faith; and (which is more) in every Christian mans own breast, between the Christian, and the Man. The Doctors of the Church, are called Pastors; so also are Civil Sovereigns: But if Pastors be not subordinate one to another, so as that there may bee one chief Pastor, men will be taught contrary Doctrines, whereof both may be, and one must be false. Who that one chief Pastor is, according to the law of Nature, hath been already shown; namely, that it is the Civil Sovereign;
…
>As for some other texts, to prove the Popes Power over civil Sovereigns (besides those of Bellarmine;) as that the two Swords that Christ and his Apostles had amongst them, were the Spiritual and the Temporal Sword, which they say St. Peter had given him by Christ: And, that of the two Luminaries, the greater signifies the Pope, and the lesser the King; One might as well infer out of the first verse of the Bible, that by Heaven is meant the Pope, and by Earth the King: Which is not arguing from Scripture, but a wanton insulting over Princes, that came in fashion after the time the Popes were grown so secure of their greatness, as to condemn all Christian Kings; and Treading on the necks of Emperours, to mock both them, and the Scripture, in the words of the 91. Psalm, “Thou shalt Tread upon the Lion and the Adder, the young Lion and the Dragon thou shalt Trample under thy feet.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’

>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods

>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.

>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.

>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or restore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.

>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.

>The philosopher Hobbes is the only Christian writer who has seen the evil and seen how to remedy it, and has dared to propose bring the two heads of the eagle together again, restoring the total political unity without which no state or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that Christianity's domineering spirit is incompatible with his system, and that the priest's side of the divide would always be stronger than the state's. What has drawn down hatred on his political theory is not so much what is false and terrible in it as what is just and true…

>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.

>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.

>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic–those terms are mutually exclusive.

Friedrich Nietzsche:
>Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to the "aristocratic"–along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (–one resigns one's "body" to them; one wants only one's "soul"…). And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage, of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general…

HP Lovecraft:
>In the later stages of decay Christianity undoubtedly did harm through its exaltation of softness, justice, and universal brotherhood, and its demand for the renunciation of earthly ties and loyalty; but it is a mistake to consider this the principal cause of decline, as some do. Rome would never have adopted this mawkish slave-religion if it had not begun to acquire the soft slave-mind and the subtle slave-religion of human equality. The nation, through other causes, had come psychologically unfitted for the traditional classic polytheism and the virile schools of philosophy. Itself decadent, it had begun to demand something like the slave-faiths and mystically consolatory cults of the long-decadent East.

>It was pure accident that Christianity won–but once it did win, it undeniably did harm through its weakening effect on patriotism. It sapped at the vigorously nationalistic cast of the Roman mind, and made the people feel that the identity–or even the nature–of their earthly government was comparatively inessential.

Martin Bormann:
>It follows from the incompatibility of National Socialist and Christian views that we must reject any strengthening of existing Christian denominations or any support for newly emerging Christian denominations. There is no difference between the different Christian denominations. For this reason, the idea of establishing a Protestant Imperial Church by uniting the various Protestant churches has been finally abandoned, because the Protestant Church is just as hostile to us as the Catholic Church. Any strengthening of the Protestant Church would only work against us.

>It was a historical mistake of the German emperors in the Middle Ages that they repeatedly created order at the Vatican in Rome. In general, it is a mistake that we Germans unfortunately all too often fall into: we strive to create order when we should have an interest in fragmentation and disunity. The Hohenstaufens should have had the greatest interest in the fragmentation of church power. From the point of view of the empire, it would have been best if not one pope, but at least two, if possible even more, popes had existed and fought each other…

>More and more the people must be wrested away from the churches and their organs, the pastors. Of course, from their point of view, the churches will and must defend themselves against this loss of power.

>But the churches must never again be allowed to have any influence on the leadership of the people.

>This must be broken completely and finally. Only the Reich leadership and, on its behalf, the party, its branches and affiliated associations have the right to lead the people.

>We would be repeating the mistakes that were the empire's downfall in the past centuries if, after recognizing the ideological opposition of the Christian denominations, we now somehow contributed to strengthening one of the various churches. The interest of the empire lies not in overcoming, but in maintaining and strengthening ecclesiastical particularism."
…
Rousseau denies -any- social utility for Christianity–except that it has utility for tyranny–which, tbh, even looking at the age of absolutism… not really even at its core can Christianity be domesticated for tyrants to use.
There are a number of problems with that as well:

1. 
   

Even so-called "slave morality" is applied to the rulers themselves–who too are expected to be a "slave of all"… which I know some will say aptly, "but that is Tyranny".
Honestly, Nietzsche, Rousseau, Machiavelli, etc, make it out to be an Oriental import, but actually it is what their beloved Aristotle/Plato also advocate (although, to be frank, not as servile as Christ did–in Plato's case, it was more about serving in the way of an expert physician and not a "slave of all" which tbh Christ's hyperbolic speech is so strong that it goes to an extreme to what was originally intended). Jesus fits Aristotle's description of the Greek father as opposed to the Persian tyrant father (which Jews associate with the Egyptians and their Pharaoh)… which is a whole other bag to jump into.

1. 
   

Civil obedience can easily be foiled–the absolutist rulers were easily undermined with all their show of divine right of kings, simply by the Catholic and Protestant factions–any Christian could use any appeal to private judgement to bypass this, so it's the same issue with pure theocracy that Jesus can become a sock puppet anyone can latch onto, and if the clergy thinks it has a great hold–then all it takes is private revelation and a new religion like with the Taiping Rebellion or the Mormons or Martin Luther.
Hobbes talks about this extensively about the dangers of private revelation/private judgement and the need for a strong civil sovereign… ultimately, this is why I also think hereditary monarchy is more secure than theocracy: appeal to a hereditary ruler and proof of blood seems more secure, and that is something Shia Islam makes use of with sayyids and their clergy… but it needs to be fixed closer to a particular dynasty like with North Korea, I think, and that is why I prefer it over clericalism/theocracy in a strict sense…
& like Nietzsche points out,
>(–one resigns one's "body" to them; one wants only one's "soul"…)

1. 
   

The Christian Divine right of kings isn't all that.
Before Christianity, under paganism, rulers had their own pantheon in a way and were gods, like Alexander the Great, Caligula, Domitian, Aurelian, Diocletian, etc.
The clergy / High Church sentiment isn't really for it–at least, not like it once was under Gallicanism and Anglicanism–it didn't really help the Russian Tsars motivate the people to form a cult of personality around them since really Christians don't feel that much attachment to that kind of royalty… only to Jesus… so they can move on without the tsars, at best they get martyrdom and become tools themselves for Christian sentiment rather than Christian sentiment enabling their own kingdoms to persist and prosper… the familialism behind the Tsars is not strengthened by Christianity even, it just siphons it off to the Church in the end for all cases of these royalty, so really they're the ones being cucked by cuckoo birds who swap out the eggs and grab the minds of children to mostly be loyal and attached to another king for all its worth–which the Thomas Becket controversy shows.
Right now, Christian kings are received like court eunuchs… that even Joe Biden seems to outshine them in Majesty… and compared to Communist leaders? it's not even a contest–political ideology and that kind of civic religion has totally outclassed the divine right of kings in political expedience, majesty & preeminence, and security (which might be hard for many /leftypol/ anons to believe, but looking at how Lenin has so many statues of himself & Stalin or ᴉuᴉlossnW's cult of personality, how Mao is received like a prophet, how North Korea is going… compared to the fate of King Charles I and how modern constitutional royalty today are like… it speaks for itself, an absolutist would be happier moving beyond it).

A big reason for Christianity falling out of favor is that rulers themselves have wised up to all this…
While neoconservative politicians might take advantage of Christian sentimentality–that's because they totally have the private Christians on a leash… neoconservative politicians have -no- intention of actually bringing back Christian Theocracy from its current declawed lion state. Most conservatives, even the most religious ones, are far more content with the status quo of multi-party democracy and religious neutrality.
But Rousseau is ultimately right that Domestic Christianity is a fraud not only to the ruled but even to the rulers who might seek to benefit from it.
…
So… even the most earnest Christian conservative pundits… are kind of useless at the end of the day… for all their talk of morality and making society better… a big mistake with conservative Christians (who mightily favor Christianity for social utility) is like Rousseau says–Domestic Christianity fails.
…
There can only really be Neronian Christianity, the Christianity that acts like a coven sect, among the Churches–even when society fully converts… but the Neronian tendencies are fully present the more and more Christianity doesn't have a hold over society as a whole, because many admit that Christian flavor comes out the more persecuted it is… but this Neronian Christianity is extremely lacking for social utility, not only lacking but is counter-intuitive to sociability.
…
But that is why you have religious neutrality (so-called "secularism") is because the rulers as well as the bourgeois wised up and realized this, & so just kept Christianity to a private sphere and diluted it.
…
Again, another reason why ultimately it shouldn't interest rulers to adopt Christianity is TBH Christianity is downright hostile:
Comparing them to Pharaohs & Jezebel & overall seeing every ruler as a Pharaoh, as a Nero, as a Henry VIII… the part where the Jews ask for a King and they're rebuked for it… not peace but a sword, dividing a household/nation/kingdom… son against father for Christ's sake… areas like Psalm 2 and Isaiah 60 and Isaiah 61 – these heavily outweigh passages like Fear God, honor the King… like I said, this all considered, it's really little consolation in the bigger picture.
…
Psalm 2
>Why do the nations conspire
>and the peoples plot in vain?
…
>The kings of the earth rise up
>and the rulers band together
>against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
>“Let us break their chains
>and throw off their shackles.”
…
>The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
>the Lord scoffs at them.
>He rebukes them in his anger
>and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
>“I have installed my king
>on Zion, my holy mountain.”
…
>I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
>He said to me, “You are my son;
>today I have become your father.
>Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
>the ends of the earth your possession.
>You will break them with a rod of iron;
>you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
…
Isaiah 60:
>The sons of foreigners shal build up your walls,
>And their kings shall minister to you;
>Therefore your gates shall be open continually;
>They shall not be shut day or night,
>That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles,
>And their kings in procession.
>For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish,
>And those nations shall be utterly ruined.

Isaiah 60:16
>Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob

Aristotle:
>And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood and suckled 'with the same milk'.
…
Isaiah 61:
>Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
>And the sons of the foreigner
>Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
>But you shall be named the priests of the Lord,
>They shall call you the servants of our God.
>You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
>And in their glory you shall boast.
…
Babylon is Fallen:
>Babel's garments we've rejected and our fellowship is over!
…

So after reading this… Christian monarchy is really like riding a wild, stray horse.
And not only does it undermine nationalism with the cosmopolitanism, but also the household royalism of kings…
Ephesians 2:19-20
>Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
…
So as God the Father and Mt. Zion is hostile to the other gods like Zeus and Mt. Olympus… likewise, God the Son is hostile to other would-be king of kings… that is why the Roman Emperors persecuted Christians–they were king of kings… and the role that Christ plays is much like the role that Kings would naturally play in being the archstones of their peoples… as it is said, that is what it means to suck the milk from the breasts of kings… so not only is Mt. Olympus or Mt. Paektu threatened, but Palatine Hill (the palace).
…

In this other video with Christians in Japan pestering a Japanese man:
>Christian: "There is a King–there is a King of Japan, you realize that, right?"

<Japanese Man: "Emperor, right?"

>Christian: "No, King."

<Japanese Man: "The King–what?"

>Christian: "His name's Jesus"

<Japanese Man: "In Japan–?"

>Christian: "Yes–"

<Japanese Man: "I–"

>Christian: "So Jesus is the Lord of Japan."
…
This considered with some remarks by Trad West… sum up why there is a tension between royal monarchy and Christianity, and why I think it is not even really that beneficial for rulers to adopt Christianity in the long run (I'm not denying there are potential short-term gains that greatly benefited the early adopters of Christianity and who were effective the Church's secular henchmen, like Constantine & Charlemagne… but not even as secular henchmen being enforcers of the Church does it really altogether honor them enough, –only the most saintly kings who give everything really get that spot the pedestal… otherwise it is the case that Theodosius was as great an enforcer of Christianity as Charlemagne and still gets a dishonorable view of him as with Caesarism in general… with the clericalist portrayal of Ambrose blocking Theodosius for all that… being a secular enforcer/henchmen of Christianity, all in all, is lacking in terms of honor, denies preeminence (that is all too foundational to monarchy), and for the contemporary state of things royalty are like court eunuchs.

Distributism
Distributism is frankly TBH just re-branded Aristotelian policy… again… another re-iteration of Aristotle's appeal to the middle class.
It's hardly innovation or a new economic ideology… just pick up a copy of Aristotle's Politics and you've got Distributism in a nutshell.
Hobbes was right to say with them you get Aristotelity.

>Widespread Property Ownership:
That's Aristotle's appeal to a very broad middle class.
This is just petty bourgeois "mom & pop shop" ideology.

>Subsidiarity
>Localism and Guilds
Aristotle's appeal to decentralization/political pluralism "partnership of clans" as opposed to Plato's State Corporatism in Republic.

Here is a Catholic series "Saints vs Scoundrels" where it features Marx and Hilaire Belloc representing their economic views.
P1:
https://www.ewtn.com/programs/339-saints-vs.-scoundrels/102515?backToProgramPage=

P2:
https://www.ewtn.com/programs/339-saints-vs.-scoundrels/102516?backToProgramPage=

For the interest of this thread, anons can watch the entire Saints vs Scoundrels series here.
https://www.ewtn.com/programs/339-saints-vs.-scoundrels
&
https://ewtn-test.futuresoft.com/Home/Series/catalog/video/en/saints-vs-scoundrels

It's funny that people usually knack on the Protestants for having thinktanks like PragerU, but TBH Catholicism has a fair share of that and it is just as preachy.

What did the Chud do to Grace?

>>765868
>Jesus is in Japan
He's not wrong.

Even if a monarch were to declare divine inheritance from another religion, Christianity is so entrenched in the west that you'll get retards like the one in Japan no matter what.
Doesn't the emperor claim divine ancestry with Amaterasu? Christchuds are just obnoxious and the most base of them will always say shit like that.
That won't stop them from sucking Trumps dick, who grifts the Christian right so hard. Which begs the question, why not grift the Christian right if you're a monarch?
Sure, if you want to be a perfect enlightened despot, you may have some reservations, but from a practical position, there is little to no reason not to in the west.

>>765868
WAOW CHRIST IZ KANG N SHIIII JOHN 4:22

>>765956
>Which begs the question, why not grift the Christian right if you're a monarch?
That's what Christians want–they want to be grifted.
The Christian strategy is to -love- one's enemies and be a useful tool for them… that is how Christians get what they want, that is how their foot gets in the door.
But once Christians have finally been adopted and used up all that love, the 2nd half of the persuasion comes into hand: hate your family–to keep those who adopted Christianity in check after using it…
…
Christianity is designed to spread at all costs.
There is much honor among Christians in having adopted and spread it. Serve this cause, they will honor you… but if you're looking at it long-terms, after the spread of Christianity and being its secular henchmen, you're pretty much the disposable one on its accord.
…
This is how I see the relationship between monarchy and Christians… because the Christians generally are ready to walk all over, they think they have monarchy in the bag, that they have everything they want of us… –now that monarchy is under their assumption, they act like they own it and are the boss, and only take time to acknowledge and honor the saintly kings or martyrs for their purposes…
…
Whereas the relationship between Christian rightwingers and /pol/ is different:
Even though /pol/ basically walks all over the rightwing Christians and takes full advantage of them, the rightwing Christians bend the knee to /pol/, and do everything to appeal to rightwing /pol/ chud sentiment rather than demand they do the opposite. They try to gain the love of their enemies–that is why Christ anons take the abuse from /pol/.

Christianity has always rivaled the imperial cult–it began with contempt of the Pharaoh, when the Pharaoh took Abraham's wife Sarah (who represents for Christians–the Church) into his harem.
…
When Emperors adopted Christianity, it was the same scenario: They were deceived into thinking the Church was a faithful concubine–"love your enemies"–so that Christians could live in peace under Kings (who, if they knew Christianity's true nature, would hunt down Christians).
…
The serious diseases on the Pharaoh-represent the destruction of the peace of his household-from sedition, from lack of harmony with the imperial cult, from disloyalty, from lack of trust (because Sarah was not wedded to Pharaoh), and both cucking the Pharaoh as well as Abraham.

>Put not your trust in princes: in the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.
– Psalm CXLV.2-3

Friedrich Nietzsche:
>Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to the "aristocratic"–along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (–one resigns one's "body" to them; one wants only one's "soul"…). And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage, of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general…

Rousseau
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.

Abrahamism… Christianity & Islam… is bitterly opposed to what North Korea represents… it hates visible divinity, and seeks to kick off would-be Pharaohs as archstones of their peoples, so Christ himself or the God of Israel could adopt the people…
…
Abrahamism is there to "suck the blood of the gentiles", milk 🥛🩸spiritually circumcise us
Isaiah 60:16
>Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob
…
By "spiritually circumcize" peoples, that means to remove the visible divinity of their foreskins (the head of their nations), cut off to make it invisible head, and suck the blood–like jews do with circumcision, but our blood relationship with our own would-be archstone king.

Drawing takes a ton of time, I probably spent 3 hours together on these time-lapses but there are at least 2 sets of 50 grace drawings in this fucking thread with the same fucking art-style meaning that a few of you Monarchoid have way too much fucking time on your hands!

>>766818
I don't draw it, lol, they are commissioned…
–And it was years of art.

I'm not even esotericist enough to really entertain Pharaohism… but at the same time, the Biblical portrayal of the Pharaoh as a villain keeps reeling me back into loving to LARP as a Pharaoh.
…
That is my love-hate relationship with Platoism & other metaphysicians.
…
Love-hate that I still look into it, but also look into Fascism/Machiavellianism/Hobbesianism/Nietzsche to counter-balance it.

I really dislike floaty esotericists who seem like they just speak gibberish. I might sound like a total hypocrite saying so (because I know I sound like an esoteric chud).
That's why I try to steer clear and far away from them. >_>
That and I feel like they're too eager to undermine visible divinity & royalty for the Pope's or Allah's sake, these Duginists & perennial traditionalists.

Grace-chan, what are your thoughts on Pedro II and Brazilian monarchy?

>>766824
Phew

>>766836
Sometimes I think Pedro II let his monarchy go, but pessimistically I feel like I could also quote Hobbes,
>In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government, so as they need not have taken arms for it. For I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.
…
Others find him to be too Liberal, but I can understand being a monarch and not really being into the high churchism (as my recent posts indicate)–although I'm not really too keen on the peak Victorian era style of constitutional monarchy as a political ideology (really, I despise with the most livid passion 🔥 that era's dull Whiggy ideal of constitutional monarchy). For myself, I'm not really all about high church so much, but for other monarchists it has to be all high church to the utmost degree–and if a monarch is short of Saint Louis IX tier religiosity, then that monarch better abdicate and loses his legitimacy in being a monarchy–That's quite a quagmire for myself, liking absolute monarchy but not being too altogether happy with the high churchism. So I cannot judge Pedro II for being insufficiently Catholic and rather Liberal.
I'm the kind of person who looks with approval at Henry VIII dismantling the Becket shrine or Emp. Peter I instituting the holy synod.
…
Other than this, Pedro II oversaw great victories and was a learned administrator.
…
I'm the kind of monarchist who hyperfocuses on a few select monarchs (as opposed to a wide array), and it is mostly either from personal fixation at their stories or ideological leniency with my own ideals of monarchy. My chief fixation are three rulers: Louis XIV, James VI & I, Gaius Caligula (who admired Alexander the Great)–these names represent my top three to read about. I like the so-called Enlightened Despots like Emperor Peter I, Joseph II, Frederick the Great. The Stuarts & Tudors. & a few others. –Dictatorships like ᴉuᴉlossnW & Stalin are actually where I started early on, along with stories of the Julio-Claudian Roman Emperors, so that is why I have an eccentric taste in monarchy compared to others… obviously North Korea is a fixation as well. These areas are altogether what interest me the most, it's not so much history but the stories, and not so much a trivia of what royalty I know but my own political ideology and fancy that keeps me invested. I definitely like reading up on whacky stories and gossip at times, like they do with Gaius Caligula and today North Korea's Kims, even if they are just defamation.
–Most people would say that is pretty awful of me, but IMHO a serious monarchist should have a penchant for and high tolerance of a bit of silliness… that is why I think the stories of royalty and the gods adventures shows a connection, because I think these coincide… like Aristotle says, that the gods have a king because people themselves have lived under kings…

attention Graceposter >>766785