leftypol's day of the sun edition
<if we dont have inbred monarchs ruling over us people will resort to cannibalism
70 posts and 123 image replies omitted.Hobbes / Greeks & Romans, the Universities, Schoolmen, & Parliament Men
>Fourthly, there were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth having read the books written by famous men of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths concerning their polity and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by that glorious name of Liberty, and monarchy disgraced by that name of Tyranny; they became thereby in love with their forms of government. And out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons, or if they were not the greatest part, yet by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest, especially the great haranguers, and such as pretended to learning.
For who can be a good subject in a Monarchy…
<For who can be a good subject in a Monarchy, whose principles are taken from the enemies of Monarchy, such as were Cicero, Seneca, Cato, and other politicians of Rome, and Aristotle of Athens, who seldom spake of Kings but as of wolves and other ravenous beasts?
>You may perhaps think a man has need of nothing else but to know the duty he owes his governor, and what right he has to order him, but a good natural wit; but it is otherwise. For it is a science, and built upon sure and clear principles, and to be learned by deep and careful study, or from masters that have deeply studied it. And who was there in the Parliament or in the nation, that could find out those evident principles, and derive from them the necessary rules of justice, and the necessary connection of justice and peace? The people have one day in seven the leisure to hear instruction, and there are ministers appointed to teach them their duty.
>But how have those ministers performed their office? A great part of them, namely, the Presbyterian ministers, throughout the whole war, instigated the people against the King; so did also the Independents and other fanatic ministers. The rest, contented with their livings, preached in their parishes points of controversy, to religion impertinent, but to the breach of charity among themselves very effectual; or else eloquent things, which the people either understood not, or thought themselves not concerned in. But this sort of preachers, sad they did little good, so they did little hurt. The mischief proceeded wholly from the Presbyterian preachers, who, by a long practised histrionic faculty, preached up the rebellion powerfully.
Thomas Hobbes' anti-scholasticism / Universities
Needless Factionalism
>All the Presbyterians were of the same mind with Gomar: but a very great many others not; and those were called here Arminians, who, because the doctrine of free-will had been exploded as a Papistical doctrine, and because the Presbyterians were far the greater number, and already in favour with the people, were generally hated. It was easy, therefore, for the Parliament to make that calumny pass currently with the people, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Laud, was for Arminius, and had a little before, by his power ecclesiastical, forbidden all his ministers to preach to the people of predestination; and when all ministers that were gracious with him, and hoped for Church preferment, fell to preaching and writing for free-will, to the uttermost of their power, as a proof of their ability and merit. Besides, they gave out, some of them, that the Archbishop was in heart a Papist; and in case he could effect a toleration here of the Roman religion, was to have a cardinal's hat: which was not only false, but also without any ground at all for a suspicion.
>It is a strange thing, that scholars, obscure men that could receive no clarity but from the flame of the state, should be suffered to bring their unnecessary disputes, and together with them their quarrels, out of the universities into the commonwealth; and more strange, that the state should engage in their parties, and not rather put them both to silence [Presbyterians & Arminians]
They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities
>They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities. For such curious questions in divinity are first started in the Universities, and so are all those politic questions concerning the rights of civil and ecclesiastic government; and there they are furnished with arguments for liberty out of the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and out of the histories of Rome and Greece, for their disputation against the necessary power of their sovereigns.
>Therefore I despair of any lasting peace amongst ourselves, till the Universities here shall bend and direct their studies to the settling of it, that is, to the teaching of absolute obedience to the laws of the King, and to his public edicts under the Great Seal of England. For I make no doubt, but that solid reason, backed with the authority of so many learned men, will more prevail for the keeping of us in peace within ourselves, than any victory can do over the rebels. But I am afraid that it is impossible to bring the Universities to such a compliance with the actions of state, as is necessary for the business.
The core of rebellion – the Universities
>The core of rebellion, as you have seen by this, and read of other rebellions, are the Universities; which nevertheless are not to be cast away, but to be better disciplined: that is to say, that the politics there taught be made to be, as true politics should be, such as are fit to make men know, that it is their duty to obey all laws whatsoever that shall by the authority of the King be enacted, till by the same authority they shall be repealed; such as are fit to make men understand, that the civil laws are God’s laws, as they that make them are by God appointed to make them and to make men know, that the people and the Church are one thing, and have but one head, the King; and that no man has title to govern under him, that has it not from him; that the King owes his crown to God only, and to no man, ecclesiastic or other; and that the religion they teach there, be a quiet waiting for the coming again of our blessed Saviour, and in the mean time a resolution to obey the King’s laws, which also are God’s laws
The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino, That Of Other Pastors Is Jure Civili
>If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office, as the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21.23.) asked our Saviour, “By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority:” he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth it by the Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or Assembly that representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute their charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God, that is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but Kings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely ) Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their Mandates, “By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a Diocesse;” or as Civill Ministers, “In his Majesties Name.” For in saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the Civill State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their Civill Subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth.
>So that where a stranger hath authority to appoint Teachers, it is given him by the Soveraign in whose Dominions he teacheth. Christian Doctors are our Schoolmasters to Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of Families, and may receive Schoolmasters for their Subjects from the recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall redound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the Publique good; the care of which they stand so long charged withall, as they retain any other essentiall Right of the Soveraignty.
>And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the Master of the Family.
>The third place, is John 21.16. “Feed my sheep;” which is not a Power to make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a Schoolmaster to Teach his children.
The Universities… Again
>Seeing the Universities have heretofore from time to time maintained the authority of the Pope, contrary to all laws divine, civil, and natural, against the right of our Kings, why can they not as well, when they have all manner of laws and equity on their side, maintain the rights of him that is both sovereign of the kingdom, and head of the Church?
<Why then were they not in all points for the King’s power, presently after that King Henry VIII was in Parliament declared head of the Church, as much as they were before for the authority of the Pope?
>Because the clergy in the Universities, by whom all things there are governed, and the clergy without the Universities, as well biships as inferior clerks, did think that the pulling down of the Pope was the setting up of them, as to England, in his place, and made no question, the greatest part of them, but that their spiritual power did depend not upon the authority of the King, but of Christ himself, derived to them by a successive imposition of hands from bishop to bishop; notwithstanding they knew that this derivation passed through the hands of popes and bishops whose authority they had cast off. For though they were content that the divine right, which the Pope pretended to in England, should be denied him, yet they thought it not so fit to be taken from the Church of England, whom they now supposed themselves to represent.
<Kim Jong Il & KCU (Children's Union) / Education of the Youth, like clean sheets of paper
>Childhood is a very important period when young people's outlook on the world begins to form.
>As the Leader has stated, the minds of the children in this period are as clean as a sheet of blank paper and perceive given phenomena just as a camera does. Therefore, depending on their education in this period, they can become red, yellow, or black.
Hobbes / Instruction of the Subjects
<And To Have Days Set Apart To Learn Their Duty, like such is done every Sunday
>Seeing people cannot be taught this, nor when ’tis taught, remember it, nor after one generation past, so much as know in whom the Sovereign Power is placed, without setting a part from their ordinary labour, some certain times, in which they may attend those that are appointed to instruct them; It is necessary that some such times be determined, wherein they may assemble together, and (after prayers and praises given to God, the Sovereign of Sovereigns) hear those their Duties told them, and the Positive Laws, such as generally concern them all, read and expounded, and be put in mind of the Authority that makes them Laws.
<Thomas Hobbes on Instruction / Propaganda (basically)
>Another thing necessary, is rooting out from the consciences of men all those opinions which seem to justify, and give pretense of right to rebellious actions… that there is a body of the people without him or them that have the sovereign power… and because opinions which are gotten by education, and in length of time are made habitual, cannot be taken away by force, and upon the sudden: they must therefore be taken away also, by time and education. And seeing the said opinions have proceeded from private and public teaching, and those teachers have received from grounds and principles, which they have learned in the Universities…
>Instruction of the people in the essential rights which are the natural and fundamental laws of sovereignty… it is his duty to cause them [his subjects] to be instructed; and not only his duty, but his benefit also.
Ordinary people's minds are like clean paper, fit to receive whatever the Sovereign shall imprint upon them
>Whereas the common people's minds, unless they be tainted with dependence on the potent, or scribbled over with the opinions of their doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatsoever the public authority shall be imprinted in them.
Subjects Are To Be Taught, Not To Affect Change Of Government
>And, to descend to particulars, the people are to be taught, first, that they ought not to be in love with any form of government that they see in their neighbor nations, more than with their own, nor, whatsoever present prosperity they behold in nations that are otherwise governed than they, to desire change. For the prosperity of a people ruled by an oligarchical or democratical assembly comes not from Oligarchy, nor from Democracy, but from the obedience and concord of the subjects: nor do the people flourish in Monarchy because one man the has right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in any kind of state the obedience, and consequently the concord of the people, and they shall not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience to do no more than reform the Commonwealth shall find they do thereby destroy it; like the foolish daughters of Peleus, in the fable, which desiring to renew the youth of their decrepit father, did by the counsel of Medea cut him in pieces and boil him, together with strange herbs, but made not of him a new man. This desire of change is like the breach of the first of God's Commandments: for there God says, Non habebis Deos alienos: "Thou shalt not have the Gods of other nations," and in another place concerning kings, that they are gods.
Keep the means of sovereignty to maintain the end thereof
>For he that deserts the Means, deserts the Ends; and he deserts the Means, that being the Sovereign, acknowledges himself subject to the Civil Laws; and renounces the Power of Supreme Judicature; or of making War, or Peace by his own Authority; or of Judging of the Necessities of the Common-wealth; or of levying Mony, and Soldiers, when, and as much as in his own conscience he shall judge necessary; or of making Officers, and Ministers both of War, and Peace; or of appointing Teachers, and examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence, Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let the people be ignorant, or misinformed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essentiall Rights; because thereby men are easy to be seduced, and drawn to resist him, when the Common-wealth shall require their use and exercise.
>I conclude therefore, that in the instruction of the people in the Essentiall Rights (which are the Naturall, and Fundamentall Lawes) of Sovereignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a Sovereign has his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault, or the fault of those whom he trusts in the administration of the Common-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not only his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger that may arrive to himself in his naturall Person, from Rebellion.
<The Use of Universities
>As for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receive this Instruction, wee are to search, by what means so may Opinions, contrary to the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have neverthelesse been so deeply rooted in them… It is therefore manifest, that the Instruction of the people, depends wholly, on the right teaching of Youth in the Universities.
>"It is his Duty, to cause them to be so instructed; and not only his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security…"
Though he reserved for fathers to educate their children as they like.
<And because the first instruction of children depends on the care of their parents, it is necessary that they should be obedient to them while they are under their tuition; and not only so, but that also afterwards, as gratitude requires, they acknowledge the benefit of their education by external signs of honour. To which end they are to be taught that originally the the father of every man was also his sovereign lord, with power over him of life and death; and that the fathers of families, when by instituting a Commonwealth they resigned that absolute power, yet it was never intended that they should lose the honour due unto them for their education. For to relinquish such right was not necessary to the institution of sovereign power; nor would there be any reason why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them than from other men. And this accords with the fifth Commandment.
Hobbes, like Xenophon, also puts a great stress on obedience:
<Take away in any kind of state the obedience, and consequently the concord of the people, and they shall not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience to do no more than reform the Commonwealth shall find they do thereby destroy it
>>779267Tabula rasais a chauvinistic ideal for adults to justify forcing their opinions onto kids
Kids are not all the same. They are individuals with different skillsets and inclinations.
Adults try too hard to micromanage/cultivate childhood and then end up disappointed when kids fail
>>779282Most people will follow the opinions they hear around them.
Media and the climate reinforcing it will mold them with entertainment and a lifetime of hearing about it.
>>779287People still will have opinions they agree or disagree with even with brainwashing.
People are manipulable but headstrong.
And again, children are denied individuality by adults
>>779290People need a common bond, a common cult of personality, to keep the common peace and mutual identity.
I don't deny that their individuality is ever lost, but what will be lost is the common feeling they have altogether as a people.
>>779295Public education is mainly against individual thought.
Also, the quote you used from the Bible proves my point
>>779302People always say this when it come to children but for adults they cater towards individuality. Adults homogenize children too much
>>779305Jesus is saying he wants people to be like naive children, so he can raise them.
>>779309This is being said towards children -and- adults.
A world where people lack a common culture and convictions will make them common enemies.
>>779310That's infantilism.
>>779316Most cultures share commonalities.
And the biggest enemies are usually people who share similar opinions to you but have differing opinions on a few things
>>779320>Most culturesErase culture itself, and the cultivation of the public, around things such as political allegiances like nationhood, common language, and public education… it will break the peace and communion with you.
It's cultivation of the public is so transparent everywhere you look, you'd hardly notice it.
>>779402Monarchy, esp. in the West, has typically been a happy accident… there are very few people who accept this prospect or are content with any arbiter–or see the need for it–so monarchy isn't something that is legally devised beforehand because people are either full of doubt and disbelief or too factious or like Hobbes laments piled with generations of repetition the mixed constitutionalist brainworm so won't allow it.
Proof of that is you cannot rely on most e-monarchists themselves to fully plan and devise a monarchy–it must happen by accident or at least not by any accord and public deliberation, but whatever compels people to finally accept it or if someone should be ambitious enough.
I wish it was the case that people naturally with ease accepted a monarchical regime, but that isn't the case.
Especially, not in the West, with its Greco-Roman influence, and the Old Testament Jews warning about monarchy and their distrust of Pharaoh, with the distrust of the Persians with the Greeks–Aristotle's mixed constitutionalism and denial that a state should be modeled after a family or have any corporate state like Plato mentions (& Plato's own denial of it or doubt)–it's not like the Far East with Confucius who taught generations of people that a familial state with some parental monarch figure would be harmonious.
From the beginning, Western civilization has felt monarchy was obnoxious and has its doubts and generally preferred popular mandate or some elite council… or piled those feelings of unity into sheer metaphysics and abstract personalized gods without reflection.
Paradoxically, the West does accept Christianity, but like I said in the previous thread it's because Christianity appeals to certain Occidental passions.
It has to be an accident when people accept it mostly–but with the West and its discretion towards monarchy, you pretty much have to be a Hobbesian and deny that people are naturally sociable that way, and that you -must- educate and bring people towards it.
Like Xenophon says, you have to win them over… it doesn't happen naturally like how the grass grows, esp. in the West (where we're working against what most Westerners are taught to highly esteem).
>>779402Ask yourself, why is that?
–Because you simply don't feel the system provides.
Ancaps believe fully in the preeminence of the free market, because they think it provides for them;
Same for socialists:
<PEACE, LAND, AND BREAD!…
And the Egyptian loyalist teaching:
Egyptian Teachings of a Man for his Son (Praise extracts):>Praise the King, may you love him, as a worker. He makes radiant by the giving of his powers. He is greater than a million men for the one he has favored. He is the shield for the one who makes him content… Praise the King, adore the King. That is the post before god. Spread his powers, rejoicing when he has decreed and devising plans for what he has desired… He is the bodily health of the nameless. He exercises his body for him. He is the right arm of the man whose arms are weak. Egyptian Loyalist Teaching>He is the sun in whose leadership people live>Whoever is under his light will be great in wealth>He gives sustenance to his followers>He feeds the man who sticks to his path>the man he favors will be a lord of offerings>the man he rejects will be a pauper>He is Khuum for every bodyThese people believe because they believe it is a system that provides and feeds them, overall has the wisdom (and the capacity) to sustain the provision of foods and sustenance, and has the strength of arms to defend them, keep them safe.
…
Christian monarchies suck at propaganda today. Nobody really is in a state of awe, and not really with Christianity – far from it.
…
Compare that with Lenin's words, Lenin, who is received like a prophet, and in this cartoon simply speaks, words that become electricity and bread.
…
Compare it with this Joe Biden picture.
<w/ small stroke of his pen, he claims to build the economy & provide millions of jobs Xenophon Cyropaedia
>“When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves… You may see how the sick man will beg the doctor to tell him what he ought to do, how a whole ship's company will listen to the pilot, how travellers will cling to one who knows the way better, as they believe, than they do themselves. 'You would have me understand', said Cyrus, 'that the best way to secure obedience is to be thought wiser than those we rule?' 'Yes', said Cambyses, 'that is my belief.'
>“None quicker, my lad, than this: wherever you wish to seem wise, be wise.”
>“Well, my son, it is plain that where learning is the road to wisdom, learn you must, as you learn your battalion-drill, but when it comes to matters which are not to be learnt by mortal men, nor foreseen by mortal minds, there you can only become wiser than others by communicating with the gods through the art of divination. But, always, whenever you know that a thing ought to be done, see that it is done, and done with care; for care, not carelessness, is the mark of the wise man.
From what I have seen and experienced, Xenophon's advice is very true, but people don't see the throne as a seat of wisdom.
There is also two forces that compel obedience: love and fear, rewards and punishments.
Hobbes and Machiavelli both say it is better to make use of fear than love, because fear is a strong emotion that compels people, not only fear of punishment or fear of disaster that would come if not for a ruler but also fear of an enemy or stranger.
Now I agree with Hobbes–what emotion is going to bring men into flight, and make them feel compelled to indiscriminately unite no matter what differences in their beliefs?
<Fear
When the army is at the gates, people will give everything to ensure their safety to the commander to drive off the enemy.
Plato:
>If this fear had not possessed them, they would never had met the enemy or defended their temples and sepulchres and their country, and everything that was near and dear to them, as they did; but little by little they would have been all scattered and dispersed.
Xenophon Cyropaedia
>But none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate the vast extent of the countries by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostate before him.
Thomas Hobbes
>That men who choose their Sovereign, do it for fear of one another, and not of him whom they institute: But in this case, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do it they do it for fear.
Hobbes says fear is the main unifying passion:
William of Orange 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.
…
Trump's foreign policy is mostly to take advantage of US allies because he knows US allies won't abandon US protection so long as the enemies are there, and Trump wants to negotiate with the enemies even–this helps with US expansion and solidifying US control over its vassal states.
Nothing is more useful to subjugating your vassals than fear of an enemy.
What would NATO be without fear of Russia? Or fear of European countries breaking into world wars without US hegemony?
What would US protection of the Sunni Gulf Monarchies be without fear of the Revolutionary Republican Anti-Monarchy Islamic Shia sect of Iran?
What would South Korea and Japan be without fear of North Korea & China?
USA right now is calling to capture Greenland, because of fear that China or Russia might take it later and offset NATO security.
In my experience, when defeat and the approach of an enemy is extremely close, people are willing to give so much–that is why war propaganda is so effective.
…
When did Britain lose colonial America to the American Revolutionaries? –Just after it finally defeated France in colonial America.
>>779821Mods bow to Grace-poster
<George Bernard Shaw
In Good King Charles's Golden Days
>The truth is Charles, like most English kings, was continually in money difficulties because the English people, having an insuperable dislike of being governed at all, would not pay taxes enough to finance an efficient civil and military public service.
>In Charles's day especially they objected furiously to a standing army, having had enough of that under Cromwell, & grudged their king even the lifeguards which were the nucleus of such an army. Charles had to raise the necessary money somewhere;
>…To Whig historians the transaction makes Charles a Quisling in service of Louis & a traitor to his country. This is Protestant scurrility: the only shady part of it is Charles, spending the money in the service of England, gave le Roi Soleil no value for it…
…
George Bernard Shaw:
Excerpt 1
>CHARLES. "No doubt; but the British people do not make kings in England. The crown is in the hands of the damned Whig squirearchy who got rich by robbing the Church, and chopped off father's head, crown and all. They care no more for your naval victory than for a bunch of groundsel. They would not pay for the navy if we called it ship money, and let them know what they are paying for."
…
Excerpt 2
<JAMES. Well, I suppose I must, since England is governed by its mob instead of by its king. But I tell you, Charles, when I am king there shall be no such nonsense. You jeer at me and say that I am the protector of your life, because nobody will kill you to make me king; but I take that as the highest compliment you could pay me. This mob that your Protestant Republicans and Presbyterians and Levellers call the people of England will have to choose between King James the Second and King Titus Oates. And James and the Church–and there is only one real Church of God–will see to it that their choice will be Hobson's choice.
<CHARLES. The people of England will have nothing to do with it. The real Levellers today, Jamie, are the lords and the rich squires–Cromwell's sort–and the moneyed men of the city. They will keep the people's noses to the grindstone no matter what happens. And their choice will be not between you and Titus Oates, but between your daughter Mary's Protestant husband and you.
<JAMES. He will have to cross the seas to get here. And I, as Lord High Admiral of England, will meet him on the seas and sink him there. He is no great general on land: on water he is nothing. I have never been beaten at sea.
<CHARLES. Jamie, Jamie: nothing frightens me so much as your simple stupid pluck, and your faith in Rome. You think you will have the Pope at your back because you are a Catholic. You are wrong: in politics the Pope is always a Whig, because every earthly monarch's court is a rival to the Vatican.
…
Excerpt 3
>CHARLES. Why am I a popular king? Because I am a lazy fellow. I enjoy myself and let the people see me doing it, and leave things as they are, though things as they are will not bear thinking of by those who know what they are. That is what the people like. It is what they would do if they were kings.
…
Excerpt 4
>CHARLES. Nothing; but they hate it. And nobody teaches them how necessary it is. Instead, when we teach them anything we teach them grammar and dead languages. What is the result? Protestantism and parliaments instead of citizenship.
>CATHERINE. In Portugal, God be praised, there are no Protestants and no parliaments.
>CHARLES. Parliaments are the very devil. Old Noll began by thinking the world of parliaments. Well, he tried every sort of parliament, finishing with a veritable reign of the saints. And in the end he had to turn them all out of doors, neck and crop, and govern through his major-generals. And when Noll died they went back to their parliament and made such a mess of it that they had to send for me.
…
Excerpt 5
>CHARLES. They are no use here: the English will not be ruled; and there is nothing they hate like brains. For brains and religion you must go to Scotland; and Scotland is the most damnable country on earth: never shall I forget the life they led me there with their brains and their religion when they made me their boy king to spite Old Noll. I sometimes think religion and brains are the curse of the world. No, beloved, England for me, with all its absurdities!
…
Excerpt 6
>CHARLES. Why not, indeed? I daresay you will do it very well, beloved. The Portuguese can believe in a Church and obey a king. The English robbed the Church and destroyed it: if a priest celebrates Mass anywhere in England outside your private chapel he is hanged for it. My great grandmother was a Catholic queen: rather than let her succeed to the throne they chopped her head off. My father was a Protestant king: they chopped his head off for trying to govern them and asking the Midlands to pay for the navy. While the Portuguese were fighting the Spaniards the English were fighting oneanother. You can do nothing with the English. How often have I told you that I am no real king: that the utmost I can do is to keep my crown on my head and my head on my shoulders. How often have you asked me to do some big thing like joining your Church, or some little thing like pardoning a priest or a Quaker condemned to some cruel punishment! And you have found that outside the court, where my smiles and my frowns count for everything, I have no power. The perjured scoundrel, Titus Oates, steeped in unmentionable vices, is lodged in my palace with a pension. If I could have my way he would be lodged on the gallows. There is a preacher named Bunyan who has written a book about the Christian life that is being read, they tell me, all the world over; and I could not release him from Bedford Gaol, where he rotted for years. The world will remember Oates and Bunyan; and I shall be The Merry Monarch. No: give me English birds and English trees, English dogs and Irish horses, English rivers and English ships; but English men! No, NO, NO.
>CATHERINE. And Englishwomen?
>CHARLES. Ah! there you have me, beloved. One cannot do without women: at least I cannot. But having to manage rascals like Buckingham and Shaftesbury, and dodgers like Halifax, is far worse than having to manage Barbara and Louise.
Shaw's remarks there in the preface remind me of Hobbes.
Dialogue
<Hobbes speaks through P
>L: But I know, that there be statutes express, whereby the King hath obliged himself never to levy money upon his subjects without the consent of his Parliament. One of which statutes is 25 Edw. 1. c. 5, in these words: We have granted for us, and our heirs, as well to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and other folk of holy Church, as also to earls, barons, and to all the commonalty of the land, that for no business from henceforth, we shall take such aids, tasks, or prizes, but by the common consent of the realm. There is also another have been since that time confirmed by diverse other Kings, and lastly by the King that now reigneth.
>L: In the said statutes that restrain the levying of money without consent of Parliament, is there any thing you can take exceptions to?
>P: No, I am satisfied that kings that grant such liberties, are bound to make them good, so far as it may be done without sin: but if a King find that by such grant he be disabled to protect his subjects, if he maintain his grant, he sins; and therefore may, and ought to take no notice of the said grant. For such grants, as by error or false suggestion are gotten from him, are, as the lawyers do confess, void and of no effect, and ought to be recalled. Also the King, as in on all hands confessed, hath the charge lying upon him to protect his people against foreign enemies, and to keep the peace betwixt them within the kingdom: if he do not his utmost endeavour to discharge himself thereof, he committeth a sin.
>P: Nor do I hereby lay any aspersion upon such grants of the King and his ancestors. Those statutes are in themselves very good for the King and the people, as creating some kind of difficulty for such Kings as, for the glory of conquest, might spend one part of their subjects' lives and estates in molesting other nations, and leave the rest to destroy themselves at home by factions. That which I here find fault with, is the wrestling of those, and other such statutes, to the binding of our Kings from the use of their armies in the necessary defense of themselves and their people. The late Long Parliament, that in 1648 murdered their King, (a King that sought no greater glory upon earth, but to be indulgent to his people, and a pious defender of the Church of England,) no sooner took upon them the sovereign power, than they levied money upon the people at their own discretion. Did any of their subjects dispute their power? Did they not send soldiers over the sea to subdue Ireland, and others to fight against the Dutch at sea; or made they any doubt but to be obeyed in all that they commanded, as a right absolutely due to the sovereign power in whomsoever it resides? I say not this as following their actions, but as testimony from the mouths of those very men that denied the same power to him whom they acknowledged to have been their sovereign immediately before
>P: I know what it is that troubles your conscience in this point. All men are troubled at the crossing of their wishes; but it is our own fault. First, we wish impossibilities; we would have our security against all the world upon right of property, without paying for it; this is impossible. We may as well expect that fish and fowl should boil, roast, and dish themselves, and come to the table, and that grapes should squeeze themselves into our mouths, and have all other contentments and ease which some pleasant men have related of the land of Cocagne. Secondly, there is no nation in the world where he or they that have the sovereignty, do not take what money they please for the defense of those respective nations, when they think it necessary for their safety. The late Long Parliament denied this; but why? Because there was a design amongst them to depose the King. Thirdly, there is no example of any King of England that I have read of, that ever pretended any such necessity for levying money against his conscience. The greatest sums that ever were levied, comparing the value of money, as it was at that time, with what it is now, were levied by King Edward III and King Henry V; kings in whom we glory now, and think their actions great ornaments to the English history
>P: All this I know, and am not satisfied. I am one of the common people, and one of that almost infinite number of men, for whose welfare Kings and other sovereigns were by God ordained: for God made Kings for the people, and not people for Kings. How shall I be defended from the domineering of proud and insolent strangers that speak another language, that scorn us, that seek to make us slaves, or how shall I avoid the destruction that may arise from the cruelty of factions in civil war, unless the King, to whom alone, you say, belongeth the right of levying and disposing of the militia by which only it can be prevented, have ready money, upon all occasions, to arm and pay as many soldiers, as for the present defense, or the peace of the people, shall be necessary? Shall not I, and you, and every man, be undone? Tell me not of a Parliament, when there is no Parliament sitting, or perhaps none in being, which may often happen. And when there is a Parliament, if the speaking and leading men should have a design to put down monarchy, as they had in the Parliament which began to sit the third of November, 1640, shall the King, who is to answer to God Almighty for the safety of the people, and to that end is intrusted with the power to levy and dispose of soldiery, be disabled to perform his office, by virtue of these acts of Parliament which you have cited?
…
>And by that means the most men, knowing their Duties, will be the less subject to serve the Ambition of a few discontented persons, in their purposes against the State; and be the less grieved with the Contributions necessary for their Peace, and Defence; and the Governours themselves have the less cause, to maintain at the Common charge any greater Army, than is necessary to make good the Publique Liberty, against the Invasions and Encroachments of foraign Enemies
Christian integralists have left monarchists with two choices:
- Alexander the Great.
OR
- Prophet Isaiah & his humiliating description of gentile kings coming in procession, licking dust, having their milk sucked.
I choose Alexander the Great, the Caligulan answer.
Christian Integarlists only accept Kings who build upon their Church tribalism & sell off their own tribalism.
They only accept cuckoo bird royalism.
They are like the cuckoo bird chick in the nest suffocating all the other nativist loyalties until only cuckoo bird eggs are left.
…
>"What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric"<Louis XIV's disdain for & roast of so-called "constitutional monarchy":
>For there is no doubt that this subjection that makes it necessary for a sovereign to take orders from his people is the worst calamity that can befall a man of our rank.
-Louis XIV Quote #1
>It is perverting the order of things to attribute decisions to the subjects and deference to the sovereign, and if I have described to you elsewhere the miserable condition of princes who commit their people and their dignity to the conduct of a prime minister, I have good cause to portray to you here the misery of those who are abandoned to the indiscretion of a popular assembly.
-Louis XIV Quote #2
>I fail to see, therefore, my son, for what reason the kings of France, hereditary kings who can boast that there isn't either a better house, nor greater power, nor more absolute authority than theirs anywhere else in the world today, should rank below these elective princes.
-Louis XIV Quote #3
>It is the essential fault of this monarchy that the Prince may not levy any extraordinary taxes without the Parliament nor keep the Parliament in session without gradually losing his authority, which is sometimes left shattered, as the example of the previous King [Charles I] had sufficiently demonstrated.
-Louis XIV Quote #4
>As to the persons who were to support me in my work, I resolved above all not to have a prime minister, and if you and all your successors take my advice, my son, the name will forever be abolished in France, there being nothing more shameful than to see on the one hand all the functions and on the other the mere title of a king.
-Louis XIV Quote #5
<Louis XV speech
>It is only in my person where the sovereign power resides, whose proper character is the spirit of advice, justice and reason; it is to me that my courtiers owe their existence and their authority; the fullness of their authority, which they exercise only in my name, always resides in me and can never be turned against me; To me alone belongs the legislative power without dependency and without division; it is by my authority that the officers of my Court proceed not to the formation, but to the registration, publication and execution of the law […]; public order emanates from me, and the rights and interests of the Nation, of which a separate body from the Monarch is usually made, are necessarily united to mine and rest only in my hands.
<Louis XIV Quotes
We must guard nothing more jealously than the pre-eminence that embellishes our post.
>There is no doubt that we must guard nothing more jealously than the pre-eminence that embellishes our post. Everything that indicates it or preserves it must be infinitely precious to us.
>It is a possession for which we are accountable to the public and to our successors. We cannot dispose of it as we see fit, and we can have no doubt that it is among the rights of the crown that cannot be legally alienated.
>Those who imagine that claims of this kind are only questions of ceremony are sadly mistaken. There is nothing in this matter that is unimportant or inconsequential.
>As important as it is for the public to be governed only by a single person, it is just as important for the one who performs this function to be raised so far above the others that no one else may be confused or compared to him.
…
<Each profession contributes in its own way to sustaining the monarchy, and each has its own functions which the others undoubtedly have a great deal of difficulty in doing without. The peasant by his work furnishes nourishment to this whole great body, the artisan by his craft provides everything for the convenience of the public, and the merchant by his cares assembles from a thousand different places all the useful and pleasant products of the world in order to furnish them to each individual whenever he needs them; the financier by collecting the public money helps to support the state, the judges by enforcing the law maintain security among men. And the clergy by instructing the people in religion acquire the blessings of Heaven and preserve peace in earth
>This is why, far from scorning any of these conditions or raising one at the expense of others, we must take care to make them all, if possible, exactly what they should be. We must be firmly convinced that we have no interest in favoring one at the expense of the others.
>So that the only way to reign in all hearts at once is to be the incorruptible judge and common father of all.
Louis XIV: The Sovereign & Esteem
>The Sovereign must do everything to preserve or even to increase everyone's esteem for him.
Kotukai no Hongi: Cardinal Principles of the National Entity of Japan
(A State Shintoist text)
>Thus, founded on this great principle, all the people, united as one great family nation in heart and obeying the Imperial Will, enhance indeed the beautiful virtues of loyalty & filial piety.
>The Way of the subjects exists where the entire nation serves the Emperor… That is, we by nature serve the Emperor and walk the Way of the Empire, and it is perfectly natural that we subjects should possess this essential quality.
>Loyalty means to reverence the Emperor as our pivot and to follow him implicitly. By implicit obedience is meant casting ourselves aside and serving the Emperor intently.
>To begin with, our country is one great family nation comprising a union of sovereign and subject, having the Imperial Household as the head family, and looking up to the Emperor as the focal point from of old to the present.
>Accordingly, to contribute to the prosperity of the nation is to serve for the prosperity of the Emperor; and to be loyal to the Emperor means nothing short of loving the country and striving for the welfare of the nation. Without loyalty there is no patriotism, [& vice versa]
>Indeed, loyalty is our fundamental Way as subjects, and is the basis of our national morality. Through loyalty are we become Japanese subjects; in loyalty do we obtain life; and herein do we find the source of all morality.
>A hero in carrying out some undertaking could not win the hearts of the people so long as a spirit of reverence for the Emperor was not given recognition.
<That means that under all circumstances the spirit of reverence for the Emperor is the most powerful thing that moves the nation.
Poem by Tachibana no Moroe
>Were I to serve my Lord until
>My hair turned white as the falling snow,
>How exalted I should should!
<–A loyalty in serving the Emperor until one's hair turned white is vividly manifested.
>The general public are ready to look upon serving the Imperial Palace as service
>Beginning with the Gracious Personage who heads the Government officials right down to the lowest-though there may be differences of high & low-since each one of them is a servant of the Sovereign.
<To write a thing is for His Majesty, to cure an illness is for His Majesty, to cultivate a field is for His Majesty, and to trade is for His Majesty.
>In our country, Sovereign and subjects have form of old been spoken of as being one, & the entire nation, united in mind & acting in full cooperation, have shown forth the beauties of this oneness with the Emperor as their centre.
The Emperor Nintoku has said:
>The poverty of Our subjects means in effect Our poverty. The opulence of Our subjects means in effect Our opulence.
>Emperor Kameyama, on the occasion of the Mongolian Invasion, offered a written prayer at the Ise Shrine and did pray:
>"Let Our own Person bear the national crisis!"
>Again, His Majesty the Present Emperor says in his Imperial Rescript issued on the occasion of his enthronement:
>"When Our Imperial Ancestors founded the nation and reigned over Their subjects, They counted the nation Their family and looked upon Their subjects as Their own children. The successive Emperors one and all extended Their benevolent rule and the entire nation showed reverence and loyalty to the Sovereign following the ways of old, the Sovereign and subjects expressing mutual sympathy, and being united in one. This is the excellence of Our national entity and it must abide together with Heaven and Earth.
<In heaven there are not two Suns, and in a country there are not two monarchs. Hence, the Emperor is the only one that should have all the people serve him throughout the whole realm.
>In the mythologies & legends of the West, too, mention is made of many deities; but these are not national deities that have been linked with the nation since the days of their origin, nor are they deities that have given birth to the people or the Land or have brought them up.
>Reverence towards deities in our country is a national faith based on the spirit of the founding of the Empire, and is not a faith toward a transcendental God in the world of Heaven… but it is a spirit of service that flows out naturally from the historical life of the people.
>No true culture should be the fruit of abstract individual ideas alienated from the State and the race. Every cultural feature in our country is an embodiment of our national entity. When one looks upon culture as developments of abstract ideas, the result is always separation from concrete history, and the inevitable is something abstract and universal that transcends national boundaries.
>The Emperor is the holder in essence of supreme power; the theory which holds the view that sovereignty lies in essence in the State & that the Emperor is but its organ has no foundation except for the fact that it is a result of blindly following the theories of Western States.
>The other provisions of the Imperial Constitution are standing rules for government by the Emperor who possesses all the essential qualities… nor those of the British type of government in which "the sovereign reigns but does not rule";
Julian the Apostate's satire Caesars
The Emperor writes his review of all emperors before the gods–with high esteem for Marcus Aurelius, but sadly (not to my surprise) a dim view of the Mad Emperors. Julian also goofs on Constantine & Jesus in it.
https://www.attalus.org/translate/caesars.htmlCool
I saw a Grace picture on fedi
Monarchies are inherently satanic and should be opposed on the basis that the best form of government is God appointing complete randoms to lead the entire country (the so-called "Moses Gambit").
Unique IPs: 6