By the invitation of EQG chads
>no hooves<War of all against all edition<Gunpowder Treason DayKing James VI & I movie:https://www.bitchute.com/video/PPRUFSGdI22n/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.
>>766836Sometimes 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
>>768537my friend is a 1970s soc-dem who supports the monarchy only in the sense just like communists support the state with the anticipation that it'll fade away one day.
>>768539I know many socdems who support royalty like George Orwell does… there is a whole subreddit called r/MonarchoSocialism.
…I'd rather have DPRK than the monarcho-socialist prescription of constitutional monarchy x social democracy blend…
>>768537how can you tickle my dihh then fuck me
The major problem with monarchy for me: its constituents demand it be be too Liberal or too Christian.
Which are kind of two dying trends these days–old, hoary-faced Victorian era Liberalism and the kind of Christianity that belongs in a nunery.
Chief reason monarchy doesn't get clout is for that, I think.
Yet following Dante, the trend starts with Niccolò Machiavelli who wanted to unify Italy–then, Hobbes, Rousseau, & somewhat Nietzsche as well sympathized.
In order to unify Italy, Liberalism was a necessity–as Machiavelli says, the Church was the sole force preventing it.
It was necessary for Machiavelli to insist upon ignoring Christian morality–to bypass the obstacle of the Church–for the political fruition.
Ulterior motives like this made Liberalism a must-have and a necessary step to the goals Fascism would later accomplish.
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.
Like the Huns, Goths, and Mongols before me I come into the Royal Colony to leave my foot print. Now that I am here I am just going to say hello nerds you can't handle the Aliens.
>>770886But isn't it funny how the "good god" of the slaves totally mogged and defeated th pagan goods of "will to power"?
>>770896It'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).
>>770946You'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)
>>770949First 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.
>>770956Just 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.
>>770967Just 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.
Bad news, machiavelli was a secret communist using "satire" to disguise critique of republicanism and aristocracy
>>771040I love sexy 20something moses in the prince of egypt despite him be canonically over 60 at that point
>"You have conquered, O Galilean."- Julian the ApostateJulian the Apostate's Last Battle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ-vL7kuDHIEmperor Julian the Apostate's criticism of Christian miracles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsFml_xaKzUPaganism in twelfth century Europe. European beliefs still extant prior to the Northern Crusades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2bb35w8dS0The Tree of Thor. Destruction of the tree of Thor in Hesse, Germany by St. Boniface in 724CE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4lxsA9h4jMThe first Northern Crusade. The conquest and forced conversion of the pagan Wends.Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlMJNVhz3IUThe Wends under attack. The first Northern Crusade Part 2. Christian forces attack the pagan Wends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3FkMEMtuACelsus and the biblical Genesis story. His critique of Bible creation mythology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQcRnHxCFDMCelsus on whether man is God's special creation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwsgRfXxp9UCelsus on the Christian heaven and hell. The 2nd century pagan critiques the extreme nature of hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ41WGdOLuwCelsus 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."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…." >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).
Unique IPs: 12