leftypol's day of the sun edition
<if we dont have inbred monarchs ruling over us people will resort to cannibalism
184 posts and 334 image replies omitted.Ebenezer Gay
>Light is an Emblem of Authority. It is the Firstborn of Things visible: Has the Pre-eminence among them, or Predominancy over them:
>Rulers are the light of a People.
King James VI & I
>The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of diverse members.
>The style of Pater patriae was ever, and is commonly used to Kings. And the proper office of a King towards his Subjects, agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body, and all the members thereof: For from the head, being the seat of Judgement, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding, and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof.
>The head cares for the body, so does the King for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head.
For if the King wants, the State wants
>And though it in a sort this may seem to be my particular; yet it cannot be divided from the general good of the Commonwealth;
>For the King that is Parens Patriae, tells you of his wants. Nay, Patria ispa by him speaks unto you.
>For if the King want, the State wants, and therefore the strengthening of the King is the preservation and standing of the State;
>And woe be to him that divides the weal of the King from the weal of the Kingdom.
King James VI & I Speech
>I am the husband, and all the whole isle is my lawful wife; I am the head, and it is my body; I am the shepherd, and it is my flock.
>So my Sovereignty obliges me to yield to you love, government and protection: Neither did I ever wish any happiness to myself, which was not conjoined with the happiness of my people. I desire a perfect Union of Laws and persons, and such a naturalizing as may make one body of both Kingdoms under me your King, That I and my posterity (if it so please God) may rule over you to the world's end; Such an Union as was of the Scots and Picts in Scotland, and of the Heptarchy in England. And for Scotland I avow such an Union, as if you had got it by Conquest, but such a Conquest as may be cemented by love, the only sure bond of subjection or friendship:
>That as there is over both but unus Rex, so there may be in both but unus Grex & una Lex
My descent, the loins of Henry VII
>First, by my descent lineally out of the lions of Henry the seventh, is reunited and confirmed in me the Union of the two Princely Roses of the two Houses of Lancaster and Yorke, whereof that King of happy memory was the first Uniter, as he was also the first groundlayer of the other Peace.
King James VI & I speech
>This I must say for Scotland, and I may truly vaunt it; Here I sit and govern it with my Pen, I write and it is done, and by a Clerk of the Councell I govern Scotland now, which others could not do by the sword. And for their averseness in their heart against the Union, it is true indeed, I protest they did never crave this Union of me, nor sought it either in private, or the State by letters, not ever once did any of that Nation press me forward or wish me to accelerate that business.
>But on the other part, they offered always to obey me when it should come to them, and all honest men that desire my greatness have been thus minded, for the personal reverence and regard they bear unto my Person, and any of my reasonable and just desires.
Negative voice
>It has likewise been objected as an other impediment, that in the Parliament of Scotland the King has not a negative voice, but must pass all the Laws agreed on by the Lords and Commons.
>Of this I can best resolve you: for I am the eldest Parliament man in Scotland, and have sit in more Parliaments than any of my Predecessors. I can assure you, that the form of Parliament there, is nothing inclined to popularity.
>About a twenty days or such a time before the Parliament, Proclamation is made throughout the Kingdom, to deliver in to the King's Clerk of Register (whom you here call the Master of the Rolles) all Bills to be exhibited that Session before a certain day. Then they are brought unto the King, and perused and considered by him, and only such as I allow of are put into the Chancellor's hands to be propounded to the Parliament, and none others: And if any man in Parliament speak of any other matter then is in this form first allowed by me, The Chancellor tells him there is no such Bill allowed by the King.
>Besides, when they have passed them for laws, they are presented unto me, and I with my Scepter put into my hand by the Chancellor, must say, I ratify and approve all things done in this present Parliament. And if there be any thing that I dislike, they raze it out before. If this may be called a negative voice, then I have one I am sure in that Parliament.
<God and the King: - by Richard Mocket, printed & compiled by James VI & I's command
Philalethes:
>Somewhat. I heard this Evening-Prayer from our Pastor in his Catechistical Expositions upon the fifth Commandment, Honor thy Father, and thy Mother: who taught, that under these pious and reverent appellations of Father and Mother are comprised not only our natural Parents, but likewise all higher Powers; and especially such as have Sovereign Authority, as the Kings and Princes of Earth.
Theodidactus:
<Is this Doctrine so strange unto you, as to make you muse thereat?
Philalethes:
>God forbid; for I am well assured of the truth thereof, both out of the Word of God, and from the Light of Reason. The Sacred Scriptures do style Kings and Princes the nursing Fathers of the Church, and therefore the nursing Fathers also of the Commonweal: these two Societies having so mutual a dependence, that the welfare of the one is the prosperity of the other.
>And the Evidence of Reason teaches, that there is a stronger and higher bond of Duty between Children and the Father of their Country, than the Fathers of private Families. These procure the good only of a few, and not without the assistance and protection of the other, who are the common Foster-fathers of Families, of whole Nations and Kingdoms, that they may live under them an honest and peaceable life.
<The Fundamental Rights of Sovereignty, according to Thomas Hobbes
>1. The Subjects Cannot Change The Form Of Government (The form of Government is a fundamental law)
>2. Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited
>3. No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The Institution Of The Soveraigne Declared By The Major Part.
>4. The Soveraigns Actions Cannot Be Justly Accused By The Subject
>5. What Soever The Soveraigne Doth, Is Unpunishable By The Subject
>6. The Soveraigne Is Judge Of What Is Necessary For The Peace And Defence Of His Subjects (And Judge Of What Doctrines Are Fit To Be Taught Them)
>7. The Right of making Rules, whereby the Subject may every man know what is so his owne, as no other Subject can without injustice take it from him
>8. To Him Also Belongeth The Right Of All Judicature And Decision Of Controversies:
>9. And Of Making War, And Peace, As He Shall Think Best:
>10. And Of Choosing All Counsellours, And Ministers, Both Of Peace, And Warre:
>11. And Of Rewarding, And Punishing, And That (Where No Former Law hath Determined The Measure Of It) Arbitrary:
>12. And Of Honour And Order
And finally, Thomas Hobbes adds, with his 12 marks of Sovereignty (as Jean Bodin would have it):
<These Rights Are Indivisible
Making it an indivisible sovereignty.
…
Hobbes adds to the the notion of monarchical preeminence/majesty/sovereignty with this:
>Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24,
>There is no power on earth to be compared to him
…
This is what Thomas Hobbes wants you people to be indoctrinated about, so I'll honor him and perform the civil worship of teaching /leftypol/ & /siberia/ all about this.
…
Let's include Jean Bodin's marks of Sovereignty, while we're at it:
<Jean Bodin's Marks of Sovereignty:
>1. Make laws
>2. Declare war / peace
>3. Appoint magistrates
>4. Hear last appeals
>5. Give pardons
>6. Receive fealty & homage
>7. Coining of money
>8. Regulation of weights & measures
>9. Impose taxes
>10. The power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punish
Jean Bodin
>So also is it proper unto sovereign majesty, to receive the subjects appeals, and the greatest magistrates, to place and displace officers, charge or exempt the subjects from taxes and subsidies, to grant pardons and dispensations against the rigor of the law, to have power of life and death, to increase or diminish the value and weight of the coin, to give it title, name, and figure: to cause all subjects and liegemen to swear for the keeping of their fidelity without exception, unto him to whom such oath is due: which are the true marks of sovereignty, comprised under the power of being able to give law to all in general, and to every one in particular, and not receive any law or command from any other
>Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongeth an absolute power, not subject to any law.
>It behooves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish other: which he cannot do that is himself subject laws or others
In an older work, he lists them again.
>I see the sovereignty of state involved in five functions.
>One, and it is the principal one, is creating the most important magistrates and defining the office of each one; the second, proclaiming and annulling laws; the third, declaring war and peace; the fourth, receiving appeal from all magistrates; the last, the power of life and death when the law itself leaves no room for extenuation or grace.
Lastly, about the unitary nature of Sovereignty, I won't repeat, since I mentioned it enough.
Jean Bodin also states, Sovereignty is perpetual
& Hobbes also stresses a continual maintenance of a sovereign & coercive power.
The words Sovereignty, Majesty, & Pre-eminence are altogether synonymous with this notion of Monarchy.
& what Aristotle calls the qualities of a pre-eminent Monarch:
Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch:
>1. Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States
>2. It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person
>3. [We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed
>4. He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part
>5. He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience
>6. Is like a demigod among men
Aristotle went on to say.
>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.
>For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always.
>Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).
Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable.
>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed
Bodin went on to say.
>Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with himself, since He is infinite and two infinities cannot co-exist, so the Sovereign Prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction
The republican John Milton complained about it in his work The Readie & Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth.
<Whereas a king must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughty court about him, of vast expence and luxury, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female
In the song Publions en tous lieux:
>Barely can we suffice
>With all our voices
Louis XIV the Sun King had the motto: Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many). As there is a maxim that the king is worth a thousand men in power.
Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan:
>This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence.
>Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job;
>Where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. “There is nothing,” saith he, “on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride.” But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey;
>There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24
Jean Bodin / The citizens in particular & the people in general
>It is one thing to bind all together, and to bind every one in particular: for so all the citizens particularly swore to the observation of the laws, but not all together for that every one of them in particular was bound unto the power of them all in general. But an oath could not be given by them all: for why, the people in general is a certain universal body, in power and nature divided from every man in particular. Then again to say truly, an oath cannot be made but by a lesser to the greater, but in a popular estate nothing can be greater than the whole body of the people themselves.
>But in a monarchy it is otherwise, where every one in particular, and all the people in general, and (as it were) in one body, must swear to the observation of the laws, and their faithful allegiance to one sovereign monarch; who next unto God (of whom he holds his scepter & power) is bound to no man. For an oath carries always with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour.
Jean Bodin - Quotes on absolutism
>If this is true [what Plato and Aristotle say], it seems to apply, not to princes, or to those who have the highest power in the state, but to the magistrates. For those who decree law ought to be above it, that they may repeal it, take from it, invalidate it, or add to it, or even if circumstances demand, allow it to become obsolete. These things cannot be done if the man who makes legislation if held by it.
>Indeed, it is a fine sentiment that the man who decrees law ought to be above the laws, for the reasons we have given; but once the measure has been passed and approved by the common assent of everyone, why should not the prince be held by the law which he has made?
>If it is just that a man shall be held by whatever he decrees for another, how much more just is it that the prince or the people shall be held by their own laws?
>Nay, not even the Roman pontiffs were willing to be held by any laws, and to use their own words, they were never tied their own hands.
>Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongs an absolute power, not subject to any law.
>It behoves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish others: which he cannot do that is himself subject to laws or others.
>The attributes of sovereignty are therefore peculiar to the sovereign prince, for if communicable to the subject, they cannot be called attributes of sovereignty… Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with Himself, since He is infinite and two infinites cannot co-exist, so the sovereign prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction.
>It behoves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish others: which he cannot do that is himself subject to laws or others.
>The attributes of sovereignty are therefore peculiar to the sovereign prince, for if communicable to the subject, they cannot be called attributes of sovereignty… Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with Himself, since He is infinite and two infinites cannot co-exist, so the sovereign prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction.
>Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (As Fetus says) is so called of mightiness.
>And to manifest this point, we must presuppose that this word Law, without any other addition, signifies The right command of him or them, which have sovereign power above others, without exception of person: be it that such commandment concern the subjects in general, or in particular: except him or them which have given the law. Howbeit to speak more properly, A law is the command of a Sovereign concerning all his subjects in general: or else concerning general things, as says Festus Pompelus.
>And as the Pope can never bind his own hands (as the Canonists say;) so neither can a sovereign prince bind his own hands, albeit that he would. We see also in the end of all edits and laws, these words, -Quia sic nobis placuit, Because it has so pleased us; - to give us to understand, that the laws of the sovereign prince, although they be grounded upon good and lively reason, depend nevertheless upon nothing but his mere and frank good will. But as for the laws of God and nature, all princes and people of the world are unto them subject: neither is it in their power to impugne them, if will not be guilty of high treason to the divine majesty, making war against God; under the greatness of whom all monarchs of the world ought to bear the yoke, and to bow their heads in fear and reverence. Wherefore in that we say the sovereign power in a Commonwealth be free from all laws, concerns nothing the laws of God and nature.
>For right certain it is, the first Commonwealths were by sovereign power governed without law, the prince's work, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman commonwealth to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the histriographer, in his second against Appian, desirous to show the most honorable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever write laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written never used this word.
>But it behoveth him that is a sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: which thing Tiberius wisely meaning in these words, reasoned in the Senate concerning the right of sovereignty, saying that – "The reason of his doings were no otherwise to be manifested, than in that it was to be given to none" -; whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, and in their stead to establish others: which he cannot do that is himself subject unto laws, or to others which have command over him. And that is it for which the laws says, That the prince is acquitted from the power of the laws; and this word the Law, in Latin imports the commandment of him which has the sovereignty. We also see that unto all edicts and decrees there is annexed this clause, "-Notwithstanding all edicts and ordinances whereunto we have derogated, and do derogate by these presents:" -a clause which has always been joined unto the ancient laws, were the law published by the present prince, or by his predecessors."
Jean Bodin elaborates on this point.
>Of the first kind are the kings who once upon a time without any laws governed empires most justly by prerogative. Such the kings of ancient Greeks are said to have been before Lycurgus and Draco, that is, before any laws had been made binding. Such, also, the ancients remember the rule of the kings in Italy. At that time no laws were promulgated by kings or by private citizens, but the whole state and the rights of citizens depended upon the will of the prince. The Latins were governed by the royal power, as Pomponius wrote, without any definite system of laws. Josephus inferred that Moses was the most ancient legislator, because Homer, in his long work, never used the word "law." Although afterwards statutes were introduced, yet they were bought forward by private citizens, not by kings; until somewhat late the princes were not willing to be bound by these regulations. Indeed, not even when the kings were driven from the city did the consuls allow their own authority and power to be limited legally.
>For right certain it is, the first Commonwealths were by sovereign power governed without law, the prince's work, beck, and will, serving instead of all laws, who both in time of peace and war, by commissions gave out charge to whom they pleased; and again at their pleasure revoked the same, all depending of their full and absolute power, being themselves not bound to any laws or customs at all. And that is it for which Pomponius writes, the Roman commonwealth to have been at the first governed by regal power, without use of any law. And Josephus the histriographer, in his second against Appian, desirous to show the most honorable antiquity of the Hebrews, and of their laws, says, That Moses of all others was the first that ever write laws. And that in five hundred years after, the word Law was never heard of. Alleging in proof thereof, That Homer in so many books as were by him written never used this word.
>So Ulysses, whose kingdom was contained within the rock of Ithaca, is of Homer as well called a King, as Agamemnon: for a great kingdom (as says Cassidorus) is no other thing than a great Commonwealth or Republic or State, under the government of one chief sovereign: wherefore if of three families, one of the chief of the families has sovereign power over the other two, or two of them together over the third, or all three jointly and at once exercise power and authority over the people of the three families; it shall as well be called a Commonwealth or Republic or State, as if it in itself comprehended an infinite multitude of citizens.
Jean Bodin on fundamental law
>But touching the laws which concern the state of the realm, and the establishing thereof; foreasmuch as they are annexed and united to the crown, the prince cannot derogate from them, such as is the law Salic: & albeit that he so do, the successor may always disanull that which has been one unto the prejudice of the laws royal; upon which the sovereign majesty is stayed & grounded.
Hobbes A Fundamentall Law What
>For a Fundamentall Law in every Common-wealth is that, which being taken away, the Common-wealth faileth, and is utterly dissolved; as a building whose Foundation is destroyed. And therefore a Fundamentall Law is that, by which Subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given to the Soveraign, whether a Monarch, or a Soveraign Assembly, without which the Common-wealth cannot stand, such as is the power of War and Peace, of Judicature, of Election of Officers, and of doing whatsoever he shall think necessary for the Publique good. Not Fundamentall is that the abrogating whereof, draweth not with it the dissolution of the Common-Wealth; such as are the Lawes Concerning Controversies between subject and subject. Thus much of the Division of Lawes.
The Pre-eminence of King Charles II:
>His comely presence, meekness, majesty,
>Do Adamantine lustre far out-vie;
>If to be highly born it is great bliss,
>What Prince for Birth may you compare with his?
…
>Behold your King then thousands more tall
>In Grace, Power, Virtues, higher than you all
>When Kingship, Persons, Virtues thus you see
>All meet in one, happy's that Monarchy
>Not Solomon in Glory may compare
- P. Dormer's Monarchia Triumphans, 1666.
THE GREAT FOUNDER / PRE-EMINENT MONARCHY
As explained by Aristotle in Politics
>Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the Whole. But He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.
<& yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors!
>But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed. The Whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole [the State] to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always!
This kind of reverence for the founders of states is customary even in many republics – like the United States even has a kind of reverence for the Founding Fathers – & for monarchy in particular, in the constitutions typically of dictatorships, there is what I call a "preeminence clause" (for example, Duvalier Haiti or DPRK).
Thomas Hobbes, I think, refers to it as a state of awe
<Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24" (There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24)
<and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their Agreement constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.
<Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all.
King Lear / Pre-eminence, Majesty
>Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower:
>For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,
>The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;
>By all the operation of the orbs
>From whom we do exist, and cease to be;
>Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
>Propinquity and property of blood,
…
>I do invest you jointly with my power,
>[and] Pre-eminence, and all the large effects
>That troop with Majesty. Ourself, by monthly course,
>With reservation of an hundred knights,
>By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode
>Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain
>The name, and all the additions to a king;
>The sway, revenue, execution of the rest,
>Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm,
>This coronet part betwixt you.
In Duvalier Haiti is a preeminence clause:
>In these circumstances, Dr. Francois Duvalier, supreme chief of the Hatiain nation, having developed for the first time since 1804, a national spirit through a radical change in the political, economic, social, cultural, and religious situation in Haiti, is elected President for life in roder to ensure the accomplishments and permanence of the Duvalierist Revolution under the standard of national unity.
>Because he has thus become the Unquestioned Leader of the Revolution, the Apostle of National Unity, the Worthy Heir of the Founders of the Haitian nation, the Restorer of the Fatherland, and because he has been unconditionally acclaimed, by the great majority of the People, chief of the national community without limitation as to length of term.
>Dr. Francois Duvalier, having been elected president of the republic, shall perform his high duties for life, pursuant ot the provisions of Article 92 of this constitution.- Haitian Constitution of 1964
The Preamble of the DPRK Constitution (1998) (I deem it a preeminence clause):
(Although now DPRK might have simplified the DPRK preamble now).
>The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the socialist motherland of Juche where the ideas and leadership of the great Comrade Kim Il Sung are applied.
>The great Comrade Kim Il Sung is the founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the father of socialist Korea.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung authored the immortal Juche idea and, by organizing and leading the anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle under its banner, created the glorious revolutionary traditions and achieved the historic cause of national restoration, and founded the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea based on the solid foundations for the construction of an independent and sovereign State in the political, economic, cultural and military fields.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung strengthened and developed the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea into a masses-centered socialist country and an independent, self-sufficient and self-defensive socialist State by putting forward Juche-oriented revolutionary lines and wisely leading the various stages of social revolution and construction work.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles governing the building and activities of the State, established the most superior State and social system, mode of politics, and system and methods for social administration, and created solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the inheritance and completion of the revolutionary cause of Juche.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung, regarding “the people is heaven” as his maxim, was always with the people and devoted his whole life for the people, and turned the whole society into one large family that is united in one mind by taking care of and leading the people through their noble and benevolent politics.
>The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the sun of the nation and the lodestar of national reunification. Comrade Kim Il Sung regarded the reunification of the country as the national task and devoted all their efforts and care for its realization. Comrade Kim Il Sung opened the way for completing the cause of national reunification through the united efforts of the whole nation by setting out the fundamental principle and ways of achieving national reunification and developing the movement for national reunification into a nationwide movement while turning the Republic into a powerful bastion for national reunification.
>The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung clarified the basic ideals of the foreign policy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and expanded and developed the country’s foreign relations based on these, and highly demonstrated the international prestige of the Republic. Comrade Kim Il Sung pioneered a new era of independence, conducted energetic activities for strengthening and developing the socialist and the non-aligned movement and for world peace and friendship among peoples, and made an immortal contribution to the cause of human independence as a veteran of world politics.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung was a genius of ideological theory and leadership art, an ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commander, a great revolutionary and statesman, and a great man.
>The great ideas and achievements in leadership of Comrade Kim Il Sung are the lasting treasures of the Korean revolution and the basic guarantee for the prosperity of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
>The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Korean people, under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea, will uphold the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung as the eternal President of the Republic, and will complete the revolutionary cause of Juche to the end by defending and carrying forward the ideas and achievements of Comrade Kim Il Sung.
>The Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the Kim Il Sung Constitution that codifies the Juche-oriented ideas and achievements of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung in State building.
Constitution (2016)
Preamble:
>The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the socialist motherland of Juche where the ideas and leadership of the great Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are applied.
>The great Comrade Kim Il Sung was the founder of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the father of socialist Korea.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung authored the immortal Juche idea and, by organizing and leading the anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle under its banner, created the glorious revolutionary traditions and achieved the historic cause of national restoration. He laid solid foundations for the building of an independent and sovereign State in the political, economic, cultural and military fields, and based on them, founded the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
>Having put forward Juche-oriented revolutionary lines, Comrade Kim Il Sung wisely led various stages of social revolution and construction work, thus strengthening and developing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea into a socialist country centred on the masses, into a socialist State which is independent, self-sufficient and self-reliant in defence.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles governing the building and activities of the State, established an ideal State and social system, an ideal mode of politics and an ideal system and ideal methods for administering society, and laid solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the inheritance and completion of the revolutionary cause of Juche.
>The great Comrade Kim Jong Il was a peerless patriot and defender of socialist Korea who, true to the ideas and cause of Comrade Kim Il Sung, strengthened and developed the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea into Kim Il Sung’s State and placed the dignity and power of the nation on the highest ever plane.
>Comrade Kim Jong Il developed in depth and in an all-round way the immortal Juche idea and Songun idea authored by Comrade Kim Il Sung, further perfecting them as ideas guiding the era of independence, and ensured the continuity of the Korean revolution by firmly defending the revolutionary traditions of Juche and carrying them forward in their purity and entirety.
>In the face of the collapse of the world socialist system and the vicious offensive of the imperialist allied forces to stifle the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Comrade Kim Jong Il administered Songun politics; thus he safeguarded with honour the achievements of socialism which are the precious legacy of Comrade Kim Il Sung, developed the DPRK into an invincible politico-ideological power, a nuclear state and an unchallengeable military power, and opened a broad avenue for the building of a powerful socialist country.
>Regarding “The people are my God” as their maxim, Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il always mixed with the people, devoted their whole lives to them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through their noble benevolent politics.
>The great Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are the sun of the nation and the lodestar of national reunification. Regarding the reunification of the country as the supreme national task, they devoted all their efforts and care for its realization. They made the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a powerful bastion for national reunification. At the same time, they set out the fundamental principle and ways of achieving national reunification and developed the movement for national reunification into a nationwide movement, opening the way for completing the cause of reunification through the united efforts of the whole nation.
>The great Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il clarified the basic ideals of the foreign policy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. On the basis of this, they expanded and developed the country’s foreign relations and ensured that the international prestige of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was exalted. As veteran world statesmen, they opened up a new era of independence, carried out energetic activities for strengthening and developing the socialist movement and the non-aligned movement, as well as for world peace and for friendship among peoples, and made an imperishable contribution to the cause of human independence.
>Comrade Kim Il Sung and Comrade Kim Jong Il were geniuses of ideology and theory, masters of the leadership art, ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commanders, great revolutionaries and statesmen, and great men.
>The great ideas of Comrade Kim Il Sung and Comrade Kim Jong Il and the great achievements made under their leadership are the lasting treasures of the Korean revolution and the basic guarantee for the prosperity of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun where Comrade Kim Il Sung and Comrade Kim Jong Il are preserved in their lifetime appearance is a grand monument to their immortality and a symbol of the dignity and eternal sanctuary of the entire Korean nation.
>Under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Korean people will uphold the great Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il as the eternal leaders of Juche Korea, and will carry the revolutionary cause of Juche through to completion by defending and carrying forward their ideas and achievements.
>The Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall, as the codification of the Juche-oriented ideas of the great Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on State building and their exploits in it, be called Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il Constitution.
A notable example where it actually happened (outside of Stuart England under James VI & I or Louis XIV France) is Denmark (from the time of Frederick III).
This was in effect for about 180 years (from 1665 to 1849, fundamentally an absolute monarchy, even codified in the fundamental laws).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Law&
http://thomasthorsen.dk/dk-lr-1655.html–Though I'm not sure pic related (quotation) is accurately translated (I think it is article 2) – the basic idea still is it is a preeminence clause and lays down the case for their rule and this sense of majesty with this person.
Although legally speaking, the customary idea of absolutism goes back to the pagan Roman Empire, the Roman Emperors like Gaius Caligula, Domitian, Aurelian, & Diocletian (who established notions of a preeminent monarchy) and Ulpian's Institutiones Book 1 as preserved in the Justinian Digest (& arguably, back to the time Alexander the Great was adopting customs of monarchies of the lands he conquered and bringing them back). –The foundation of this is set necessarily in any idea of a unitary polity or state as well (which stresses the state's autonomy, which in order to be autonomous must be sovereign and thereby absolute in order to have any motion whatsoever) – monarchy is that, but instead of one political party, it is one royal estate that is preeminent over all estates.
As Kotukai no Hongi cleanly puts it:
>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<Emperor Peter I / If a man know not how to rule his own Estate, how shall he take care of the State?>"St. Paul has left us a great truth when he wrote: If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"(He means the same for the country; if a man cannot rule his own estate, how the country?)
<Emperor Peter I / Everyone looks upon the head>Everyone looks upon the head; they study his inclinations and conform themselves to them: all the world owns this. My brother during his reign loved magnificence in dress, and great equipages of horses. The nation were not much inclined that way, but the prince’s delight soon became that of his subjects, for they are inclined to imitate him in liking a thing as well as disliking it.Emp. Peter I uses two royalist maxims:
- To rule the State, a Monarch should know to rule his own Estate
- The Prince is a Mirror to his People
<King James I / That a King is as one set on a stage>It is a true old saying, That a King is as one set on a stage, whose smallest actions and gestures, all the people gazingly do behold>Be careful then, my Son, so to frame all your indifferent actions and outward behaviour, as they may serve for the furtherance and forth-setting of your inward virtuous disposition
>But it is not enough to a good King, by the scepter of good Laws well execute to govern, and by force of arms to protect his people; if he join not therewith his virtuous life in his own person, and in the person of his Court and company; by good example alluring his Subjects to the love of virtue, and hatred of vice. And therefore (my Son) see all people are naturally inclined to follow their Princes example (as I showed you before) let it not be said, that ye command others to keep the contrary course to that, which in your own person ye practice, making so your words and deeds to fight together: but by the contrary, let your own life be a law-book and mirrour to your people; that therein they may read the practice of their own Laws; and therein they may see, by your image, what life they should lead
>I remember Christ's saying, My sheep hear my voice, and so I assure myself, my people will most willingly hear the voice of me, their own Shepherd and King.
<Jean Bodin on Prince as Mirror to People>For nothing more divine ever was said by a prophet than what was said by Plato, "As are the princes in a state, so will be the citizens." By lasting experience we have found this abundantly true. For examples it is unnecessary to seek farther than Francis I, king of the French. As soon as he began to love literature, from which his ancestors had always turned away, immediately the nobility followed suit. Then the remaining orders studied the good arts with such zeal that never was there a greater number of learned people. Jean Bodin / French Royalism, Loyalty, & Patriotism
>The King is so united with his subjects, that they are still willing to spend their goods, their blood, and lives, for the defence of his estate, honour, and life; and cease not after his death to write, sing, and publish his praises, amplifying them also in what they can.
>But we pour out all our fortunes and our blood for the safety of King and Country
Hobbes' Behemoth recounts the history and causes of the English Civil Wars.
He starts BEHEMOTH (the anti-Leviathan) in recounting the factions involved.
Hobbes' pessimism is my pessimism.
The seducers were of diverse sorts…
1st faction: The Presbyterians
>One sort were ministers; ministers, as they called themselves, of Christ; and sometimes, in their sermons to the people, God's ambassadors; pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.
2nd faction: The Papists / Catholics
>Secondly, there were a very great number, though not comparable to the other, which notwithstanding that the Pope's power in England, both temporal and ecclesiastical, had been by Act of Parliament abolished, did still retain a belief that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the vicar of Christ, and, in the right of Christ, to be the governor of all Christian people. And these were known by the name of Papists; as the ministers I mentioned before, were commonly called Presbyterians.
3rd faction: Fifth monarchy men & other low church protestants
>Thirdly, there were not a few, who in the beginning of the troubles were not only discovered, but shortly after declared themselves for a liberty in religion, and those of different opinions one from another. Some of them because they would have all congregations free and independent upon one another, were called Independents. Others that held baptism to infants, and such understood not into what they are baptized, to be ineffectual, were called therefore Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ's kingdom was at this time to begin upon the earth, were called Fifth-monarchy-men; besides diverse other sects, as Quakers, Adamites, etc, whose names and peculiar doctrines I do not well remember. And these were the enemies which arose against his Majesty from the private interpretation of the Scripture, exposed to every man's scanning in his mother-tongue.
4th faction: The Intellectuals / School-men / Educated Elite & Parliamentarians
>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 the 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.
5th faction: Londoners & Other Urbanites
>Fifthly, the city of London and other great towns of trade, having in admiration the prosperity of the Low Countries after they had revolted from their monarch, the King of Spain, were inclined to think that the like change of government here, would to them produce the like prosperity.
6th faction: The Grifters / Lumpenproles
>Sixthly, there were a very great number that had either wasted their fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good parts they thought were in themselves; and more there were, that had able bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their bread. These longed for a war, and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had the greatest plenty of money.
Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant & didn't care
>Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty, as that not one perhaps of ten thousand knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth, for which he was to part with his money against his will; but thought of himself to be so much master of whatsoever he possessed, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to, with the help of riches; they had no rule of equity, but precdents and custom; and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament, that was most averse to the granting of subsidies or other public payments.
Thomas Hobbes adequately sums up his own pessimism with a remark which sums up my own feelings as well towards the monarchist community
<In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government.
…
>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.
Legitimately kill yourself subhuman filth
Which thread had the Grace lewds? I need to fap.
>>806242I wish she would beat me to death with that hammer
>>806277
Real cracker shit.
>>808283My unpopular opinion is monarchy is too heavily burdened with Christianity–& not in any way to say I'm happy with it–it is a burden that is holding back so much direly needed potential, but being tethered to it by Christian revivalists… it will drop dead by sheer association with this old Jewish cult.
How do I say it?
The Nicholas IIs of this world are going to be shot, because Christian integralism fails them.
The only loyalty Christian integralism builds is solely for Jesus.
They'd be better off with Bonapartism–I agree with other leftists about this.
All Nicholas II has to show for sticking to a Medievalist Christian integralism is being shot in some obscure basement–with a fringe cult following of some Orthobros–the majority of Christians don't even care so much, because they're mostly for JC anyways. All there is to show for it is some martyrdom, that people only invoke not out of his honor even, but to spite the communists here.
My sentiments dwell with Hobbes that all Christian integralists do is leave the people apathetic to the regime and siphon off all that precious loyalism to their Church, sweeping in and sucking the milk of gentiles and their kings… with Leviathan, with Bonapartism, with even Leninism–they are better off.
Lenin has…
Lenin has some 7'000 statues, a massive cult of personality, is widely honored and read, has soldiers marching out in front of his mausoleum to this day on the occasion of Victory Day, and is preserved like an Egyptian pharaoh. Was received like a prophet. Has mobilized so much popular support and propaganda.
Nicholas II doesn't even compare in terms of honors–& where there is honor, among the Orthobros, is too little… all he has to show for it is getting shot with his family in a basement and discarded.
I don't say this out of spite, but out of remorse.
Contrary to most monarchists, I don't see monarchy & Christianity in harmony, but in disc0rd, and even more–the sooner Christendom is abandoned ship, the better, because the present circumstance of Christian royalty is castration and decline, the fate of Nicholas IIs of this world might as well be natural selection, because Christian monarchies wither and die, and don't reproduce, and stick to old houses that are dead tree stumps, and don't inspire any other people to imitate that style of monarchy. There is no new advent of these states, but only the preservation of dying bodies of Christian royalty. –Yet there are still Bonapartists, and the march of other would-be Caesars, so my hope is not lost.
It is dreadfully clear to me that Christendom has lost its steam and was never really all that much to begin with–I might be the first monarchist to admit this.
…
Thomas Hobbes / The people in general were so ignorant>Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty>or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth>King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to >>808283"To each according to their work"
>>808294I ask myself, who is at fault? Do we despise Lenin for all that?
No, Lenin is doing so much more, while Nicholas II has done so little–it is no wonder, really, that Leninism succeeds.
If Lenin's regime is willing to go so far, but Nicholas II's regime isn't–that onus lies strictly with Nicholas II and that style of integralism.
It is natural selection at this point, that those who strive to build a legacy and cult of personality will prosper, while those who neglect to do this will die.
In Machiavelli's terms, from the Discourses on Livy, Lenin is Romulus and Nicholas II is Numa Pompilius – and certainly, the robust and prowess of a Romulus was in dire need than the arts of Numa.
And as Machiavelli says, where the fear of God fails, then a prince like Romulus is necessary to hold and build a state–and that was the case with Lenin as a great founder.
Machiavelli:>I conclude, therefore, with this discourse: that the virtue of Romulus was so much that it could give space to Numa Pompilius to enable him to rule Rome for many years with the art of peace. But after him succeeded Tullus, who by his ferocity regained the reputation of Romulus, and after whom came Ancus, gifted by nature in a mode that enabled him to use peace and endure war. First he set out wanting to hold to the way of peace, but at once he recognized that his neighbors esteemed him little, judging him effeminate. So he thought that if he wished to maintain Rome, he needed to turn to war and be like Romulus, not Numa.
>From this all princes who hold a state may find an example. For he who is like Numa will hold it or not hold it as the times or fortune turn under him, but he who is like Romulus, and like him comes armed with prudence and with arms, will hold it in every mode unless it is taken from him by an obstinate and excessive force. And surely one can estimate that if Rome had chanced upon a man for its third king who did not know how to give it back its reputation with arms, it would never, or only with the greatest difficulty, have been able to stand on its feet later or to produce the effects it produced. >>808311It’s funny how douchey behavior is celebrated in older people while it’s considered wrong in young people
If a prince was haughty and tyrannical, I bet the council elders would hate his guts
Every ruler must collect his own seashells, to add as Caligulan motif.
As Xenophon says, –don't think loyalty grows like grass on the field.
That is what Christian integralists do.
While Numa's practice carries and helps the state overall, nonetheless it is fatal to utterly neglect the practice of Romulus, to neglect the fear of a prince, to neglect a cult of personality, to neglect that kind of prowess and the sword – as Machiavelli says, armed prophets succeed.
The problem with Christian integralists in my eyes is very simple – they end up being only monarchists for JC (Jesus) and utterly neglect this.
Yet it is altogether important for a ruler to establish his own legacy and his own cult of personality–rather than piggyback off another or give all the seashells to JC–this will only give you a populace who knows only Jesus and not King King. Their "trickle down" method does not work in this case IMHO.
–Which is not to say there is no use for religion or ideology, but religion in this case as Hobbes laments becomes a 2nd society and 5th column and detracts from–rather than builds up–the former society as Nietzsche would even lament "de-naturalizes" and siphons off from.
So it is direly important that rulers do as Hobbes says and instill that cult of personality on the public and use pastoral authority (that is, educate them) and give due reverence and honors therein (rather than abstract and divide it all away to another king, JC).
& Christian integralists will resist this with all their fervor, but the problem there lies with Christianity from the beginning–I could bring up a few verses, but simply said there's Abraham and Pharaoh–and the relationship with Sarah–and the plight I have here is summed up in that situation, where Sarah is given to Pharaoh to "feign" a kind of loyalty, and that is what you have with the Christian integralists, the foundation of this loyalty is not real, and it is not pertinent, it goes to Jesus and only builds off association, which can never truly be a fruition within Christianity. & on top of that, to add salt to the wound, the verses in Isaiah with all the kings licking the dust off feet and going in procession – that was always a problem to begin with, and that is why I say Christian integralists are wrong and it is fundamentally out of harmony and out of sync.
So every ruler needs to build his own cult of personality (rather than another's) and collect his own seashells.
Oh my fuck's sake just kill yourself already
>>809564If you kill yourself the world will be clean
Commit suicide
Unique IPs: 11