/siberia/ - Off-topic

>>770896
It's like Rousseau says, jealous god.
It won by operating like a virus, by snatching up as many bodies as possible, dying to snatch more bodies, to snatch more bodies.
At least Empires which ruled by the Sword had natural limits among enemies–the Christian mantra was to love one's enemy, hate one's family (which was designed for the sole intent & purpose of snatching more bodies, spreading more callously, with a ruthless asceticism).

>>770946
You're just using scary words to describe "universality" and "equality before law".

That's the irony of the right wing: all that talk of might & fire and virility and life affirmation are just the screechings of cuckolds who lost to a superior lifeform.

Thus, the pessimism: if reality constantly proves that your " noble master's" values are defeated by the cunning of the slaves, you can't help but conclude that reality itself is badevil and history is regressing backwards towards degeneracy (this seems to be what history does as a rule lol)

>>770949
First off, that irony doesn't disprove that pretense at all. If a person who says he is mighty–gets beaten by a mightier empire, so be it.
Yes, the Right typically are the weaker side: Confederates beaten by the most industrial might of the Union, the Nazis beaten by the combined industrial might of the Allies (UK, USSR, USA).
Cunning slaves beating their masters like a fox and lion and that the things generally go towards the interest of a callous, self-interested multitude proves, rather than condemns, the Machiavellian/Hobbesian outlook–Christianity itself lost to Liberalism in the end.

>Thus, the pessimism:
Yes, I never was that much of an optimist or even a big virtuoso.

>>770956
Just stop imagining yourself as a wounded lion and instead join God's favored - the slaves -, and reasons for pessimism vanish. Be aligned with universe's true movement, the real wkll to power, not the false one advanced by history's losers. This is the great thing about "from premises now in existence": instead of imagining what the cosmos wants, we just look at its real movement and make the conclusion.
And here's the beauty of it: our side doesn't require any birthright or essential quality, anyone can join any time, only labor is required. Become a slave likd the rest of us and gain real freedom.

>>770967
Just because the idealistic rightwinger optimists lose doesn't mean that the leftwing optimists–the slaves–are the winners either. Trump blows up one such person (like Khamanei) and Duginites lament, but in the end Atlantis wins. All this is to say that their mistake was they flew a little too close to the Sun.
Those rightwingers were optimistic–so also are the leftwingers optimistic in common humanity and people uniting for the love of mankind and human decency and caring for others.
The reasons for pessimism stay.

The only appropriate response is for Emo Grace to delve deeper into Machiavellianism/Hobbesianism/Caligulianism and be a Dark Princess.

Bad news, machiavelli was a secret communist using "satire" to disguise critique of republicanism and aristocracy

Islamic Republic of Iran gathers in one image all I dislike about traditionalists–which is like the fifth-monarchy men or a militant triumph of Thomas Becket–& their true contempt of monarchies as none other than Nimrod, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Jezebel, Nero, Henry VIII, etc.

>>771040
I love sexy 20something moses in the prince of egypt despite him be canonically over 60 at that point

>>723215
monarchism is so gay imagine willingly letting yourself be ruled by some inbreed pedophile because of his daddy ruled once until he shat too hard on the toilet

>"You have conquered, O Galilean."
- Julian the Apostate

Julian the Apostate's Last Battle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ-vL7kuDHI

Emperor Julian the Apostate's criticism of Christian miracles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsFml_xaKzU

Paganism in twelfth century Europe. European beliefs still extant prior to the Northern Crusades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2bb35w8dS0

The Tree of Thor. Destruction of the tree of Thor in Hesse, Germany by St. Boniface in 724CE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4lxsA9h4jM

The first Northern Crusade. The conquest and forced conversion of the pagan Wends.Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlMJNVhz3IU

The Wends under attack. The first Northern Crusade Part 2. Christian forces attack the pagan Wends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3FkMEMtuA

Celsus and the biblical Genesis story. His critique of Bible creation mythology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQcRnHxCFDM

Celsus on whether man is God's special creation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwsgRfXxp9U

Celsus on the Christian heaven and hell. The 2nd century pagan critiques the extreme nature of hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ41WGdOLuw

Celsus on the Bible 'resurrection' stories and his critique of the crucifixion accounts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2SMSiaM_gY

It's rather funny that one of the best threads on >>>/siberia/ and honestly the entire site is one dedicated to monarchists… on a site called leftypol.

>"The age of the kings is past, because their subjects are no longer worthy of them: they do not want to see their king embodiment of their ideal, but rather as an instrument for their benefit."

• Nietzsche
  
  

That is a sentiment I low-key agree with and kind of sums up partially what is so bad about the whole spirit surrounding constitutional monarchism to me–how it rejects the Alexandrian Model of Alexander the Great (who also became a god) and instead prefers a castrated eunuch king–it is the same for as Nietzsche says of national gods and how nation that still honors itself keeps to its own gods.
Deep down, I see that as the primary difference between those style of royalisms and how it is offensive to some people and honorable to others when you have a dynasty like the Kims (who for the North Koreans–represents their strength and their honor–which is something most Westerners couldn't grasp or understand, always viewing a king's soul/cult of personality as their dishonor or Cronus' tyranny gulping them down and so reject a preeminent king and the Alexandrian Model of a preeminent king).

Nietzsche:
>"A nation that still believes in itself holds fast to its own god."

>"Jahveh, the god of “justice”—he is in accord with Israel no more, he no longer vizualizes the national egoism; he is now a god only conditionally…. The public notion of this god now becomes merely a weapon in the hands of clerical agitators."

>"Formerly he represented a people, the strength of a people, everything aggressive and thirsty for power in the soul of a people; now he is simply the good god…."

>"The truth is that there is no other alternative for gods: either they are the will to power—in which case they are national gods—or incapacity for power—in which case they have to be good…."

What have I got against Guenonfags?
1st & foremost, besides the universalism in religion & his conversion to Islam that seems to influence Dugin praising the Islamic Republic and King Charles III's islamophilia (both acolytes in their own way), the chief gut feeling and grievance is his touting of the ultramontane line of Church sword > Political sword (as opposed to my appeal to civic religion related throughout these posts).
…
2nd reason I'm distrustful of Guenonfaggotry and Guenon acolytes is because Guenon was a Freemason who criticized Philip the Fair (Philip IV)–generally opposing ultraroyalism–but more importantly, in aligning Philip the Fair with Western decline, curses him for persecuting the The Templars (who are seen in a way as the ancestors of Freemasonry)–so that is pretty suspicious to me and that is why I regard Guenonists with suspicion and bar association.
…
3rd, the criticisms invoked by Evola just don't appeal to me as opposed to his criticism of Nietzsche, Fascism, and National Socialism–it doesn't remedy the problems I see (that those factions sought to resolve).
–
You could call it an irrational distrust and superstition towards them (perennial traditionalists), but so it is.

>How do you assert that you are the agent of divine forces?
Being a civil sovereign, having a cult of personality–that is the mark of preeminence for me.
As James VI & I would say, all the qualities of a king agree in basically being a demigod among men.

>How do you identify these forces and their intent?
I'm not sure we could truly know their intent, but there is gravity to a cult of personality that people fall into, like people naturally falling into a kind of civil worship like a crowd gathering around a singer on a stage.

>How do you prove it to the people to legitimize yourself?
This will always be a fickle ground, but in my appeal the civil sovereign is, as Hobbes says, the soul of the Commonwealth.
…
Monarchy & a cult of personality, the seed of natural religion, & the epitome of civic religion–when people develop a civic soul and unity that is so strong… that it fosters a great community of pleasures and pains, where all men are manifest through one man.
…
I agree w/ Hobbes/Machiavellian outlook on civic religion: civic religion coincides with a kind of cult of personality.
…
In my view, monarchy is not just another statesmen or secular henchmen that religion picks up–in my view, monarchy has the very kernel of natural religion.
Religion & Polity coincide;
A cult of personality of monarchy inspires the ways of the gods on Mt. Olympus, and vice versa, for Palatine Hill, not to bicker which comes first–the chicken or the egg.
…
Cult of personality makes a people; a king is the father of a race.
Xenophon:
>Cambyses, a king of the Persians, & one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race Perseus, the founder of the Persian race.
Dante:
>The father of the Roman people was Aeneas
…
Unity of one person creates culture in people… without a monarch, a group of people are like an amorphous blob–without a singer on a stage, they have no "culture of their minds" like Hobbes says, which tills the soil and cultivates them.
Hobbes attributes this to fear/worship.
…
One person breathes a soul into a people.
Unity of one person -makes- a people.
Like Hobbes says–the Civil Sovereign is the soul of the Commonwealth.
Unity lays the groundwork for people to communicate–like a singer on a stage speaks to people–monarchy has the strongest unity.
…
Hobbes Leviathan:
>For Cultus signifies properly, and constantly, that labor which a man bestows on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it.
>In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their minds.
…
Plato suggests if we're going to develop a culture–begin w/ the youth (he'd raise a whole generation by the age of ten).
Jesus says to throw a millstone around the necks of anyone taking the youth away from him.
Developing a culture out of people starts w/ impressing the youth-but people in general gravitate around some persona and that spreads to the youth as well.
Hitler also wanted to initiate his own Hitler Youth for the beginning of his own regime and raise a new generation.
…
Proof of a mark of preeminence of monarchs over a people is that cities are named after them (showing monarchs form cultures sometimes among the gods):
>Rome after Romulus
>Alexandria after Alexander
>Washington DC after George Washington
Kings are the archstones of their people.
…
TL;DR:
Romulus, with the unity of his person & his own cult of personality, plowed and cultivated the boundaries of Rome, and Rome was named after him.
Culture begins with a cult of personality.
This very act of plowing the fields denotes the unity and authority of Romulus as the soul of the Commonwealth–and to divide the lands as their arbiter… the same sentiment in Monarchy is seen when it is the King who summons the estates general (because it is the unity of monarchs that comes first, then the estates/community of goods, which the unity of monarchy lays the communication for).

You will never be able to unsee this, I’m not sorry.

Which do I condemn?
Nationalism or Ultraclericalism?
This might be a strange opinion for a monarchist, but I have to echo the other enlightened despots that ultraclericalism poses the bigger problem for me personally, because it is not only the nations they hold in contempt but also would-be Alexanders, so-called Pharaohs.
I do not like their mantra of Church sword > Political sword at all, because it is also juxtaposed to rulers and puts them under clerical contempt.
…
Besides, in pagan antiquity, they did not share this kind of anti-politics, this anti-civics, of the New Jerusalem, the Church, against the political…
…
Even Plato tells his philosopher kings to come down from that lofty height of contemplation and bring about the fruition of the political, of the state… which is something perennialists–in keeping to their ultramontane partiality–ultimately neglect and why I denounce them.
…
Glaucon:
>"But is not this unjust? Ought we to give them a worse life, when they might have a better?"

Socrates:
>"You have again forgotten, my friend, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.
…

"So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero

"For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero

"Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero

"But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero

"Plato himself is for a Divine Power assisting in Human Politics… 'tis a remarkable passage that of his in his Meno. "We may as properly call Governors, or States-men, Divine, as we call those who give out the Oracles, or Prophets or Poets by that name; and we may affirm, that they have a Divine Illumination, and are possessed by the Deity, when they consult for the good of the commonwealth" –William Nichols

<Nero wanted to burn Rome to rebuild it and make a bigger palace!
For which they'd call Nero a tyrant, why shouldn't Jesus be the greatest tyrant of all if that is the case? but that to me is the greatest paradox with our civilization, that in spite of its Aristotelian dislike of monarchy, lacking a royal bond/dynastic patriotism–that above all else it should adopt Church patriotism, not naturally, but supernaturally…
The civic optimists of Ancient Rome condemned Nero as a TYRANT & later Christians the Anti-Christ for wanting to burn Rome for his palace–that is how much they prided themselves in the fruition of their politics, their civic religion–but considering that Jesus Christ might be the greatest tyrant of all for wanting to burn all the cities to make room for his own palace–the Cathedral–which represents his city–The New Jerusalem.
…

>“I am a Christian. He who answers thus has declared everything at once—his country, profession, family; the believer belongs to no city on earth but to the heavenly Jerusalem.”
St. John Chrysostom

>Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Matthew 10:34-36

>If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:26

So really, with Christianity, there is only church patriotism, and the denominations… it divorces civic life, divides a household as well as a nation, so the monolith of the Church can stand in mockery of civic life, and denounce all cities and burn them–so New Jerusalem could live.
Just as Robespierre says that the King must die so France can live, that is the Church's attitude: all the cities must burn, so New Jerusalem can live.–All nativisms must be destroyed, must be spiritually circumcised, so the only people left are Christians are Spiritual Israelites, and only New Jerusalem stands in glory on the ruins of all other civilizations.

This is evident as the traditionalist Christians–as true Neronian Christians–stand in contrast to the race nationalists in opposing nationalism.
Christianity doesn't really care for the state of a civilization or any would-be Pharaohs or Alexander the Greats… it only cares for Mt. Zion, the New Jerusalem, for Jesus–to which all else is some Babylonian Captivity (i.e. the civilizations, the leaders, the civic lives)–it doesn't share with Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero that civic optimism, as it might as well be speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was smitten off the earth, as to flood and destroy almost all mankind if necessary even.

Aristocratic Fury is a notable example of the Neronian Christian aristocratic traditionalists in e-monarchist circles… who gravitate around Habsburgism (which Hitler hated); they also want Church über alles.
Their attitude towards nationalism is Church should be the primary allegiance – not any tangentally related political allegiance – and that the West should be like Hoppe envisions "A Europe of a Thousand Liechtensteins" which is really just splitting the lands between myriad petty princes…
…It is a kind of misguided, covertly Aristotelian outlook…
he ancapy people who conveniently side with the medievalist Trad Caths because they want Hoppe's vision and both find a common enemy in Statism (the former, Trad Caths, because they want to advance Church > State, and the latter Ancaps because they want anarchism, it is an alliance of convenience–if their politics were converted to religion, they'd be more Protestant really or Orthodox at best–Catholicism serves at best to be a source of common values/friendship like Aristotle envisions, but Trad Catholicism is not really like that, as it wants papal primacy and not one among equals with the bishops like the Orthodox bishops are arranged…)

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.
…
This is not only a threat to the nation (the nationalists), but also to the royal household, and unto Pharaoh himself as would-be king of kings (so, monarchists, really).
The monarchists who believe it is their aid are only serving Catholicism Inc. or the body of Christ–in contempt of all other kings as all other cities in the name of Mt. Zion and New Jerusalem and King of Kings Jesus.

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'.

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 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!
…
The conservatives like to pretend the anti-sociable elements of Christianity apply only to the Low Church schizo type Protestants… but it applies to High Church as well as Low Church Christianity… Neronian Christianity is the most anti-sociable force ever conceived of.
True Christianity–the Neronian Christianity–is an anti-polis polis, calls New York City (& any nation or any city, be it Germany, France, England, etc) a Sodom and Gomorrah–if not for New Jerusalem's sake, must be seen as Egypts or Babylonian Captivities. –The unwashed masses to the Christian are like the uncircumcised masses to the Jews and held in contempt the same way, only that Christianity should love their enemy and try to convert them.
Patriotism is -not- a Christian virtue at all.

Anti-Nationalism in Ultraclericalism is none other than the Jewish contempt for the Nations, outlined in the prophesies against the nations, as a metamorphism unto the Church itself (in both Christianity and Islam).
High Church zeal against the nations and their kings is fundamentally that hatred from the Old Testament Jews towards the nations.
Once you realize that, it's just laughable to listen to the anti-nationalist clericalists…

Because who is the culprit to blame? the Jewish prophecies demanding a champion to destroy the nations or the nations?
These Jewish power fantasies to conquer and destroy the nations and make them their bitches… metamorphosed into the malevolence of the Utlraclericalism towards the nations… in both Christianity and Islam…

Confucianism, IMHO, is superior to, and supremely more sociable and utilized for social harmony, far better than Christianity.
It's sad to watch East Asians infected with Christianity, abandoning their Emperor or like they're trying to do in North Korea–slip Bibles into their nations and cause social dishevel–the North Koreans would be right to persecute them.
Because in every instance of Christianity trying to infect East Asia, the outcome has been to infiltrate and destroy their social harmony and bonds.
…
The Enlightenment's high estimation of Confucianism is validated, I think, because it is far better for social utility than Christianity… Social Conservatives who are really Domestic Christians trying to bring us to embrace Christian morality and teachings… and inevitably slope back to Neronian Christianity (which I don't think neoconservatives really want) – that Neronian Christianity is like a social poison.

I'd say that King Louis IX represents the opposite of the advocates of civic religion and the epitome of what traditionalists/ultraclericalists want (as opposed to others like King Philip the Fair and Louis XIV/Gallicanism). Which is ultimately crusaderlarp/Holy Land crusade for New Jerusalem.
Song of Louis IX:
>The Duke of Baume first gave his word:
>"For this great land I'll wield my sword."
>Said the great king,
>"This LACKS wisdom. We must save all of -Christendom-."

>"A State may be strong when it serves a greater destiny when it feels itself to be the instrument of a great destiny for a people. Otherwise, the State is tyrannical."

>“Spain cannot be defined by having its own language, or by being a race, or by being a set of traditions, on the contrary, Spain is defined by an imperial vocation to unite languages, unite races, unite peoples and unite customs in a world destiny; Spain is much more than a race and much more than a language, because it is something that is expressed in this way, from which I become more and more sure that this is the unity of destiny throughout the world."

>“All humans are brothers, white and black, all because many centuries ago, in another distant land, one martyr shed his blood and sacrificed himself so that this blood would establish love and brotherhood among people on Earth.”
— José Antonio Primo de Riverа

Notice, even Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, the chief Christian fascist, is inhibited by ultraclericalism and says you're a -TYRANT- if you oppose making all nations into New Jerusalem.
>Otherwise, the State is tyrannical.

This is a great Catholic sentiment, but not very Fascist.
>"That is a grave problem, since the transcendent conception that rules over the Catholic Church contradicts the immanentist character of the political conception of Fascism."

• Giovanni Gentile
  
  

Fascism is totalitarian, statist & nationalistic, because of its immanentism; it values life in the here and now & Fascism values the State/Nation/Race & Language (these aren't mere pawns in the game of the High Church & Fascism isn't apathetic to the political like Spiritual Sword > Political or Church sword > political sword).

Giovanni Gentile:
>"Therefore, it was a necessity for the Fascist State to recognize the religious authority of the Church; a -political- necessity, a political recognition, with respect to the realization of the State itself.

The stress is on political–the immanentism of Fascism is trying to reconcile the Church for the State's sake, because of the circumstances of Italy and Catholicism…

Extracts from anonymous Italian fascist tract:
>Priests can not forget that within them, underneath their cassock, there is the heart of a citizen… The clergy is made up of men who are necessarily linked to their people and their land.
>For an ecclesiastic, to forget his Fatherland is to renounce the essential part of his human personality.
>If this were not enough, the clergy should at least remember that it has always been a function of order and pacification. Now many of its members seem to perform the opposite function: they are – consciously or not – advocates of anarchy, of disorder, of opposition to laws, of crime.
(This anonymous tract represents Fascism grappling with the Anti-Politics of Ultra-Clericalism).

Even Salazar distanced himself:
>Salazar distanced himself from Nazism and fascism, which he described as a "pagan Caesarism" that did not recognise legal, religious or moral limits

Because Ultraclericalism is opposed not only to the nations, but also the preeminence of their kings and their kingdoms (as opposed to Christ's kingdom)–I condemn Ultraclericalism over Nationalism, and find Ultraclericalism a far greater, more subtle, closer dagger to the jugular vein of monarchist ambition.
–That all other monarchists who think otherwise… have been deceived… in the way Abraham deceived Pharaoh by taking his wife into his harem… and if knowing that, still insist, then the only monarch they are monarchists for is for King Jesus, tbh, which is fine for a Christian, but from the very beginning it was opposed to the Alexandrian model and dynastic patriotism like the Kims have in North Korea.

h*z upholding monarcho-socialist thought. gracesisters our response?

The only one recorded to celebrate his birthday in the Old Testament–The Pharaoh.
>"The celebration of the birthdays of Kings, and Princes, was of ancient custom, and venerable antiquity, among the Medes, Persians, and Romans."
>"For though Job, and Jeremy, cursed the day wherein they were born, and only Pharaoh, Jeroboam, and Herod, are remembered in Scripture, to have made great feasts on their birthday, as some have observed, yet that is not recorded of them as their sin."

My notion of monarchy is not really traditional medievalist Christian royal monarchy, but more like Alexandrian model, Absolutism, State Shinto/North Korea/hereditary dictatorship–a hereditary monarchy with a kind of familialism/dynastic patriotism like North Korea somewhat has (but not completely).
Corgism:
>Politics as a colony of an absolute monarchy and people form a great family; a cult of personality for a community of pleasures & pains.
…
My notion of monarchy is like a singer on the stage, sings a life into people–if I had to sum up the way I think, and why I demand one singer, one teacher–is because I want the most direct attention drawn to a cult of personality to breathe a soul into people.
Adding more singers–like the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth" is exactly the undertone of how I see it and why I want one monarch alone to sing.
Too many cooks risks replicating the condition of a people that a singer is there to resolve – the masses without a singer are like an amorphous blob, with no identity, no culture, no frame of mind, etc.
A singer on a stage makes a community of pleasures and pains that Plato lauds.
When it comes to too many cooks, like too many lords and masters, like Homer discounts, "Too many masters is a bad thing, let there be one ruler, one king", I stress monarchy over notables/decentralization/tocquevillism much like Hobbes sentiment.
And the problem with the notables is the same problem with multi-party democracy for me, that's why we need the preeminence of monarchy, some kind of majesty or state of awe on all the people (notables included). But that people don't see the need for a cult of personality / monarchical preeminence to begin with… that pill is not something most normalfag monarchists would understand because they're mostly taught to loathe a cult of personality as a communist trope / one-party leninism
Hobbes sentiment is how I mostly feel there–for me, it has all the faults of multi-party democracy, but with noble estates:
>"And because an oligarchy consists of men, if the passions of many men be more violent when they are assembled together, than the passions of one man alone, it will follow, that the inconvenience arising from passion will be greater in an oligarchy than a monarchy."

• Thomas Hobbes
  

That is where the singer (a cult of personality) takes preeminence.
I guess like Nero I'm an artist-tyrant.

>"We will be adored–tell us that you want us."
>"We won't be ignored–it's time for our reward."
>"Now you need us–come and meet us."

• The Dazzlings
  
  

>It was, it was September
>Winds blow, the dead leaves fall
T>o you, I did surrender
>Two weeks, you didn't call
>Your life goes on without me
>My life, a losing game
>But you should, you should not doubt me
>You will remember my name

>Oh, Ember, you will remember
>Ember, one thing remains
>Oh, Ember, so warm and tender
>You will remember my name

>Your heart, your heart has rendered
>Your loss, now bear the shame
>Like dead trees, in cold December
>Nothing but ashes remain

>Oh, Ember, you will remember
>Ember, one thing remains
>Ember, so warm and tender
>You will remember my name
>Oh, woah, woah!

>Ember, you will remember
>Ember, one thing remains
>Ember, so warm and tender
>You will remember my name

[Outro]
>Yeah! You will remember my name

>>773810
I agree, the advent of Red Princes is a revolution from White Princes.
Revolutionary monarchy.
I have already divorced myself so strongly from the Integralist cause (never really cared for Integralists to begin with).
I sort of loathe integralists and the 2nd image because to me it is ceremonial monarchy with extra steps, and I hate the idea of royalty as merely the secular henchmen or icons of another king, and that this king is the only -real- king, etc. It is another instance of what constitutional monarchists like with a figurehead sock puppet to limit dictators and steer the course towards mixed constitution/political pluralism/democracy… but they do it with Jesus…
So I'm happy to make a clear break with Christian integralists and not even play into any pretense there.
I made Hot Cheeto and Nera as OCs to also symbolize that breakup with my past: Hot Cheeto with Gaius Caligula, Nera with Nero and modern, hereditary dictatorships, which I praise as the modern monarchies.

>“A king does not command his men’s loyalty through fear nor purchase it with gold; he earns their love by the sweat of his own back and the pains he endures for their sake.”

• Gates of Fire
  
  

This sounds endearing, sentimental, sweet but take away fear of an enemy and the form of reward/sustenance/life offered in return for their service–and that army will desert or fight themselves.
If a king tells them to retire, & he'll fight and die, it's little benefit for them.
…
Their sake… how do you deal with the gordian knot of so many people with differing sakes in mind? One man may find this leader adequate, another might have a whole other sake.
If Stalin was a bodybuilder, & did pushups for their entertainment, would it command any rightwinger's loyalty to him? Or, vice versa, if Hitler became a body builder, and did pushups for leftypol's entertainment, would leftypol be loyal to Hitler?
…
I wish it were the case, that all that was necessary to command people's loyalty to any leader–was merely a bit of personal trial and a general re-assurance that he has their best intentions in mind.
But I have to agree with Machiavelli & Hobbes that their love is a fickle resource.
…
Probably the most notable example of the best to hope for is Yukio Mishima.
He tried to rally military age men to restore the Emperor–they mocked & jeered at him, and he ended his life.
If people's love could be earned that way, Yukio Mishima should have been successful.
…
They also resent it with the first line:
>"A king does not command"
They'd want unity of one commander, like Homer testifies.

>>775507
Even absolute monarchies require a counsel though

>>776210
Doesn't deny council, but does deny the primacy of a partnership of clans/concord of hosts, stressing monarchical preeminence and unity of command/sovereignty first.
Multi-party democracy and the partiality of noble houses/estates I deny. Rather, great family polity, cult of personality, one party/royal estate, state corporatist "walk as one man" mantra is what I promote. Read my Majesty series.

>>776210
In my majesty series, I bring up Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes on the topic of parliament and council. Jean Bodin is especially for stressing council.
But ultimately, the absolutist view, like the same as any one-party state ideology like fascism or leninism stresses unity ahead of the estates/factions/parties, as it is the king who summons the parliament/estates general, showing that monarchical sovereignty holds preeminence or majesty before all the estates, and it was the unity of Romulus who first plowed the boundaries of Rome and divided the lands/property…

Fundamentally, the stress is on an arbiter as the unity of all the land, the sovereign monarch is the civil soul, the Sun, the root, and conjunction of it all, the glue and Commonweal… that is the absolutist assertion, not that before deliberation there cannot be any assembly, or any council, or any debate, much in the way leninism stresses debate, but then democratic centralism which all party members must oblige for anti-factionalism and unity of command.

Another thing to understand about sovereignty is that it isn't arbitrary in that way, at least not with Jean Bodin–who insists that taxes cannot be taken without some consent and deliberation to measure, yielding that as a law of nature, but nevertheless as a sovereign, it is only the king who is accounted to make the call official, not that he doesn't consult, but primarily he alone makes the call, the same idea is with the summoning of estates/parliament, although that's different today but I don't think Bodin would consider a country like UK post English Civil Wars or post-1668 to be a sovereign monarchy anymore but rather much more like the Venice of his time.

>>776238
Even a sovereign absolutist like you knows that counsel makes or breaks a nation.
How many civil wars have been provoked by greedy counselors looking to get their slice of the pie?

Kings power alone can only do so much.
Perhaps it would be suitable if we could make genetic clones of monarchs to serve as eyes and ears of national welfare

>>776242
Like it or not, yes, that's what monarchy is.
Some constitutional monarchists will tout that a king does not rule alone—I personally deny that, even if there are assemblies or council… the chief definition of monarchy is one alone rules, and that fundamental law of monarchy is expressed through sovereignty in which form or constitution of a state or republic is defined primarily by one person's majesty or preeminence and some family alone stands out–and if not, then it's another form of state/republic such as a democracy or oligarchy where some other kind of government has the primacy… but we don't accept a mixed constitutional or the concordant notion of political pluralism like Aristotle's. As Hobbes says, the chief difference between the mixed constitutionalist and absolutist view is that rather it isn't the concord of many men, but the union–and the integrity of the republic is its sovereignty as the fundamental law, pertaining to three forms–and while there might be a confluence of members / elements of democracy or aristocracy, the purity of the primary form of state is maintained, be it a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy, like Bodin defends and traces back to Herodotus (*and denies Plato acknowledged it in the Aristotle or Polybius established mixed constitutionalist ideals). That is the nuance–and while it seems anachronistic, I cannot really take monarchy any other way because mixed constitutionalism dilutes and renders monarchy irrelevant to begin with… so I personally still maintain the opinion of Bodin or Hobbes in the year 2026 tbh. I wouldn't have it any other way, even if it is not very fashionable, lol

I personally do not accept the mixed constitutionalist view when it comes to monarchy for numerous reasons. Like Jean Bodin says it makes a monarch into no more than a mean magistrate and overall tends to favor elective monarchy since it stresses concord and rule by turns/rotational government since monarchy is but one lesser estate among other heads… to have it as one part monarchy, one part oligarchy, one part democracy considers monarchy merely as a mere part in relation to the state and not the majesty or sovereignty of the whole state… like Jean Bodin says the outcome usually is plain democracy like mixing paint together… and I hate t it because then there is no definitive form of state and no pretense to say the state no longer is a monarchy… which is important to me because Mixed constitutionalists just don't care about the 3 forms of the herodotus debate and that particular quality… same I'd say even for Plato who might say in Laws that it's merely the rule of a faction to maintain a particular form of state… but rather appeal to good policy/law or aristocracy/good government in general… but I am not really content with what some traditionalists or integralists or conservatives have in mind with just any vague notion of good government– so like Bodin I'm not for confounding the forms… and I don't take it for the partiality of a faction, but as Hobbes says the civil soul. So I definitely maintain a definite kind of sovereignty as is customary for absolute monarchists and dates back to Herodotus…
Mixed constitutionalism is a declaration of war against all notions of monarchical preeminence and majesty to me.
That is all I have to say there and why I am the way I am.

The general policy I have in mind is particularly like I outlined with Corgism, lol, a cult of personality–with the customs of absolute monarchists–I can't vibe with esotericists/metaphysicians/integralists/mixed constitutionalists because they aspire to just any vague idea of good government/aristocracy, what I have in mind is a unique form of familialism/cult of personality, very specific, and it feels droll/lifeless to me to not stress this quality.

We need a new thread.