leftypol's day of the sun edition
<if we dont have inbred monarchs ruling over us people will resort to cannibalism
OP Profile:
>OP?
OP is a monarchist on leftypol.org.
>What kind of Monarchist is Graceposter?
A modern day absolute monarchist & invested in the late 1500s & 1600s kind of absolutism, hereditary rule / dynasties, & the pre-eminent notion of monarchy as opposed to mixed constitutionalism / limited or mixed monarchy, formally called constitutional monarchy & constitutional monarchism.
…
My notion of monarchy is not really traditional medievalist Christian royal monarchy, but more like Alexandrian model, Absolutism, State Shinto/North Korea/hereditary dictatorship–a hereditary monarchy with a kind of familialism/dynastic patriotism like North Korea somewhat has (but not completely).
Corgism:
>Politics as a colony of an absolute monarchy and people form a great family; a cult of personality for a community of pleasures & pains.
…
My notion of monarchy is like a singer on the stage, sings a life into people–if I had to sum up the way I think, and why I demand one singer, one teacher–is because I want the most direct attention drawn to a cult of personality to breathe a soul into people.
Adding more singers–like the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth" is exactly the undertone of how I see it and why I want one monarch alone to sing.
Too many cooks risks replicating the condition of a people that a singer is there to resolve – the masses without a singer are like an amorphous blob, with no identity, no culture, no frame of mind, etc.
A singer on a stage makes a community of pleasures and pains that Plato lauds.
When it comes to too many cooks, like too many lords and masters, like Homer discounts, "Too many masters is a bad thing, let there be one ruler, one king", I stress monarchy over notables/decentralization/tocquevillism much like Hobbes sentiment.
>What about Medievalism & NeoFeudalism?
OP is ambivalent towards traditionalism, particularly the Medievalist or Neofeudalist style of Royalism, & traditionalists who are solely denoted by high church & sometimes the mixed constitutionalism of the Middle Ages & later periods.
The style of absolutism, concerning Monarchy, OP sees as fundamentally different in certain respects, so OP is ambivalent and wary of Medievalism & Traditionalism.
The Medievalist lacks a certain political forte with regard to Monarchy & the Herodotus Debate that absolutism carries (because the Medievalist is predisposed to ultra-clericalism / ultramontanism). Medievalists usually are strong proponents of mixed constitutionalism (having their roots in Aristotle & his politics) and wields Alexis de Tocqueville & Bertrand de Jouvenel against absolute monarchy.
OP is not that kind of monarchist, albeit invested in both monarchies such as the traditionalist connotation of a king with a Christian crown, but also Caesarism and even secular dictatorships sometimes as modern monarchies or bearing a resemblance to monarchical form.
>Who is Grace?
Grace is the board tan of /monarchy/ and /8flags/ on 8chan / 8moe and a monarchist tan.
Sometimes Grace is just an OC or apolitical (when representing /8flags/ or Graceposter is funposting), but primarily Grace is a monarchist tan (& supports Graceposter's taste, style, & niche of monarchy, tbh; she is not a constitutional monarchist or a staunch ultramontanist, but predisposed to absolutism and JUCHE, lmao, sorry Luce and constitutional monarchists).
Thomas Hobbes laments the prevalence of mixed monarchy / constitutionalism
>Saving only that he [the Earl] was carried away with the stream, in a manner, of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament.
…
>You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers by profession, or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be thought so.
>Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy; all which governments they esteemed tyranny, and were in love with monarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy.
>And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such, if I have not been misinformed, as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but who when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's party.
…
>Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny.
>This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the victory for the King in a battle, when a battle could not be avoided, yet it weakened their endeavour to procure him an absolute victory in the war.
>And for this cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly resolved to take all kingly power whatsoever out of his hands, yet their counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer propositions to them of treaty and accommodation, and to make and publish declarations; which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great disadvantage to those actions by which the King was to recover his crown and preserve his life.
…
>Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul… For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the Kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so.
>To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact.
…
>And if there were a commonwealth, wherein the rights of sovereignty were divided, we must confess with Bodin, Lib. II. chap. I. De Republica, that they are not rightly to be called commonwealths, but the corruption of commonwealths.
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
Thomas Hobbes / For all Monarchies, and all other States are truly indeed Absolute
>Secondly, they object, That there is no Dominion in the Christian world Absolute; which indeed is not true, for all Monarchies, and all other States, are so; for although they, who have the chief Command, do not all those things they would, and what they know profitable to the City, the reason of that is not the defect of Right in them, but the consideration of their Citizens, who busied about their private interest, and careless of what tends to the public, cannot sometimes be drawn to perform their duties without the hazard of the City. Wherefore princes sometimes forbear the exercise of their Right, and prudently remit somewhat of the act, but nothing of their Right.
William Blackstone / Sir Edward Coke:
<The Absolutism of Parliamentary Sovereignty
>The power and jurisdiction of parliament, says Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds. And of this high court he adds, it may be truly said "si antiquitatem spectes, est vetustissima; si dignitatem, est honoratissima; di juridictionem, est capacissima." It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restranshumanisting, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal: this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms. All mischiefs and grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of the laws, are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. It can regulate or new model the succession to the crown; as was done in the reign of Henry VIII and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land; as was done in a variety of instances, in the reigns of King Henry VIII and his three children. It can change and create afresh even the constitution of the kingdom and of parliaments themselves; as was done by the act of union, and the several statutes for triennial and septennial elections. It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it's power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo. So that it is a matter most essential to the liberties of this kingdom, that such members be delegated to this important trust, as are most eminent for their probity, their fortitude, and their knowledge; for it was a known apothegm of the great lord treasurer Burleigh, "that England could never be ruined but by a parliament:" and, as sir Matthew Hale observes, this being the highest and greatest court, over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom…"
Francis Theobald on Absolute Power with Cambden & Bracton
>We have, I say, absolute Monarchy, and herein we differ from the Lacedemonian Kings, who were subject to their Ephori, which had a power above them: No, ours agrees with the Persian-Government; for, their King had plenary power in all things, not subject to be called to account by any person whatsoever: and so ours, if you will believe Cambden, a famous Antiquary; who saith, That the King of England, supremam potestatem, & merum imperium habet, He hath supreme power and absolute Command in his Dominions–; and so, Bracton, a sage profound Lawyer, in ancient time, speaks to the same purpose, Omni quidem sub Bege, & ipse sub nullo, sed tantum sub Deo: So that it is an unquestionable truth, that the King is subject to no over-ruling power of man, and that he is free from all humane Coercion and Restranshumanistt, I do rather insist upon this.
Jean Bodin / Majesty or Sovereignty or Pre-eminence
>Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth [La Souveraineté est la puissance absoluë & perpetuelle d’une République], which the Latins call Majestas; the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; and the Italians segniora, a word they use for private persons as well as for those who have full control of the state, while the Hebrews call it tomech shévet – that is the highest power of command.
>As for the title of Majesty itself, it sufficiently appears, that it only belongs to him that is a sovereign prince: so that for him that hath no sovereignty to usurp the same, were a very absurd thing: but to arrogate unto himself the addition of most excellent and sacred majesty, is much more absurd the one being a point of lightnes, and the other of impiety: for what more can we give unto the most mighty and immortal God, if we take from him that which is proper unto himself? And albeit that in ancient time neither emperors nor kings used these so great addition or titles: yet the German princes nevertheless have oft times given the title of Sacred Majesty unto the kings of France; aswell as unto their emperor. As I remember my self to have seen the letters of the princes of the empire, written unto the king, for the deliverance of countie Mansfeld, then prisoner in France: wherein there was sixe times V. S. M. that is to say, Vestra, Sacra, Majestas, or Your Sacred Majesty an addition proper unto God, apart from all worldly princes. As for other princes which are not soueraignes some use the addition of His Highnesse, as the dukes of Loraine, Sauoy, Mantua, Ferrara, and Florence: some of Excellency, as the princes of the confines; or else of Serenitie, as the duke of Venice.
>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 Festus saith) is so called of mightiness.
>For so here it behoveth first to define what Majesty or Sovereignty is, which neither lawyer nor political philosopher hath yet defined: although it be the principal and most necessary point for the understanding of the nature of a Commonweal. And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power: it rest to be declared, what is to be understood by the name of a most high and perpetual power.
<We have said that this power ought to be perpetual, for that it may bee, that that absolute power over the subject may be given to one or many, for a short or certain time, which expired, they are no more than subjects themselves: so that whilest they are in their puissant authority, they cannot call themselves Sovereign princes, seeing that they are but men put in trust, and keepers of this sovereign power, until it shall please the people or the prince that gave it them to recall it
>Who always remained ceased thereof.
<For as they which lend or pawn unto another man their goods, remain still the lords and owners thereof: so it is also with them, who give unto others power and authority to judge and command, be it for a certain time limited, or so great and long time as shall please them; they themselves nevertheless continuing still ceased of the power and jurisdiction, which the other exercise but by way of loan or borrowing.
>For otherwise if the high and absolute power granted by a prince to his lieutenant, should of right be called Sovereignty, he might use the same against his prince, to whom nothing was left but the bare name of a prince, standing but for a cipher: so should the subject command his Sovereign, the servant his master, than which nothing could be more absurd: considering that in all power granted unto magistrates, or private men, the person of the prince is always to be excepted; who never gives so much power unto another, but that he always keeps more unto himself; neither is ever to be thought so deprived of his sovereign power, but that he may take unto himself the examination and deciding of such things as he hath committed unto his magistrates or officers, whether it be by the way of prevention, concurrence, or evocation: from whom he may also take the power given them by virtue of their commission or institution, or suffer them to hold it so long as shall please him.
>These grounds thus laid, as the foundations of Sovereignty, wee conclude, that neither the Roman Dictator, nor the Harmoste of Lacedemonia, nor the Esmynaet of Salonick, nor he whom they cal the Archus of Malta, nor the antient Baily of Florence, (when it was gouerned by a popular state) neither the Regents or Viceroyes of kingdoms, nor any other officers or magistrats whatsoeuer, vnto whom the highest, but yet not the perpetual power, is by the princes or peoples grant commit∣ted, can be accounted to have the same in Sovereignty.
>And albeit that the ancient Dictators had all power given them in best sort that might be (which the ancient Latins called Optima Lege) so that from them it was not lawful to appeal and upon whose creation all offices were suspended; until such time as that the Tribunes were ordained as keepers of the peoples liberty, who continued in their charge notwithstanding the creation of the Dictator, who had free power to oppose themselves against him; so that if appeal were made from the Dictator, the Tribunes might assemble the people, appointing the parties to bring forth the causes of their appeal, & the Dictator to stay his judgement; as when Papirius Cursor the Dictator, condemned Fabius Max the first, to death; and Fabius Max the second had in like manner condemned M•…nutius, both Colonels of the horsemen, for that they had fought with the enemy contrary to the command of the Dictator; they were yet both by appeale and judgement of the people acquitted. For so saith Livy, Then the father of Fabius said, I call upon the Tribunes, and appeal unto the people, which can do more than thy Dictatorship whereunto king Tullus Hostilius gave place. Whereby it appears that the Dictator was neither sovereign prince, nor magistrat, as many have supposed; neither had any thing more than a simple commission for the making of war, the repressing of sedition, the reforming of the state on instituting of new officers.
>So that Sovereignty is not limited either in power, charge, or time certain. And namely the ten commissioners established for the reforming of custom and laws; albeit than they had absolute power, from which there was no appeal to be made, and that all offices were suspended, during the time of their commission; yet had they not for all that any Sovereignty; for their commission being fulfilled, their power also expired; as did that of the Dictators.
<"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 Festus saith) is so called of mightiness."
>And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power
<Bodin / The unity of sovereignty
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.
>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.
<For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend
>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens
It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area.
>It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants, or these in their turn apart from each other by an interval of space, provided that they are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter has the final and public authority. The former limited and private rule. So, also, it is still the same government, made up of many families, even if the territories and the settlements are far apart, provided only that they are in the guardianship of the same sovereign power: either one rules all; or all, the individuals; or a few, all. From this it comes about that the state is nothing else than a group of families or fraternities subjected to one and the same rule.
>Cicero's definition of the state as a group of men associated for the sake of living well indicates the best objective, indeed, but not the power and the nature of the institution. This definition applies equally well to the assemblies of the Pythagoreans and of men who also come together for the sake of living well, yet they cannot be called states without great confusion of state and association. Furthermore, there are families of villains, no less than of good men, since a villain is no less a man than a good man is. A similar observation must be made about the governments. Who doubts but that every very great empire was established through violence by robbers? The definition of a state offered by us applies to villages, towns, cities, and principalities, however scattered their lands may be, provided that they are controlled by the same authority. The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse, as the elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception. So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars, which was bounded by the same limits as the course of the sun.
<Hobbes / Difference between concord or association and union or bond of a state
>They who compare a City and its Citizens, with a man and his members, almost all say, that he who hath the supreme power in the City, is the relation to the whole City, such as the head is to the whole man. But it appears by what has been already said, that he who is endued with such a power (whether it be a man, or a Court) has a relation to the City, not as that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill.
>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
>Colony is derived from colonus which is in turn derived from colere (to cultivate, to till, to inhabit).
Etymology
>from Latin colonia (colony), from colonus (farmer, colonist), from colo (till, cultivate, worship)
Pic related:
>from latin colonia 'settlement, farm', from colonus 'settler, farmer, from colere 'cultivate
Thomas Hobbes Leviathan:
<And of that opinion, the external signs appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latins understand by the word Cultus:
Hobbes Leviathan:
>For Cultus signifies properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestows on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it.
Hobbes Leviathan
>In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their minds.
Hobbes' Leviathan also touches on this subject matter.
Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan on Worship
>But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an earthly Soveraign.
>To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and is not Idolatry. But if hee that doth it, should suppose the Soule of the Prince to be in the Stool, or should present a Petition to the Stool, it were Divine Worship, and Idolatry.
>To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we acknowledge no other power in him, but humane: But voluntarily to pray unto him for fair weather, or for any thing which God onely can doe for us, is Divine Worship, and Idolatry. On the other side, if a King compell a man to it by the terrour of Death, or other great corporall punishment, it is not Idolatry: For the Worship which the Soveraign commandeth to bee done unto himself by the terrour of his Laws, is not a sign that he that obeyeth him, does inwardly honour him as a God, but that he is desirous to save himselfe from death, or from a miserable life; and that which is not a sign of internall honor, is no Worship; and therefore no Idolatry. Neither can it bee said, that hee that does it, scandalizeth, or layeth any stumbling block before his Brother; because how wise, or learned soever he be that worshippeth in that manner, another man cannot from thence argue, that he approveth it; but that he doth it for fear; and that it is not his act, but the act of the Soveraign.
<Honour And Worship What
>Honour consisteth in the inward thought, and opinion of the Power, and Goodnesse of another: and therefore to Honour God, is to think as Highly of his Power and Goodnesse, as is possible. And of that opinion, the externall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifieth properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestowes on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it. Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and the profit they yeeld, followeth the labour we bestow upon them, as a naturall effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour, according to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their mindes. In the second sense, where mens wills are to be wrought to our purpose, not by Force, but by Compleasance, it signifieth as much as Courting, that is, a winning of favour by good offices; as by praises, by acknowledging their Power, and by whatsoever is pleasing to them from whom we look for any benefit. And this is properly Worship: in which sense Publicola, is understood for a Worshipper of the People, and Cultus Dei, for the Worship of God.
<Several Signs of Honour
>From internal Honour, consisting in the opinion of Power and Goodness, arise three Passions; Love, which hath reference to Goodness; and Hope, and Fear, that relate to Power: And three parts of external worship; Praise, Magnifying, and Blessing: The subject of Praise, being Goodness; the subject of Magnifying, and Blessing, being Power, and the effect thereof Felicity. Praise, and Magnifying are significant both by Words, and Actions: By Words, when we say a man is Good, or Great: By Actions, when we thank him for his Bounty, and obey his Power. The opinion of the Happiness of another, can only be expressed by words.
<Worship Natural and Arbitrary
>There be some signs of Honour, (both in Attributes and Actions,) that be Naturally so; as among Attributes, Good, Just, Liberal, and the like; and among Actions, Prayers, Thanks, and Obedience. Others are so by Institution, or Custom of men; and in some times and places are Honourable; in others Dishonourable; in others Indifferent: such as are the Gestures in Salutation, Prayer, and Thanksgiving, in different times and places, differently used. The former is Natural; the later Arbitrary Worship.
<Worship Commanded and Free
>And of Arbitrary Worship, there be two differences: For sometimes it is a Commanded, sometimes Voluntary Worship: Commanded, when it is such as he requireth, who is Worshipped: Free, when it is such as the Worshipper thinks fit. When it is Commanded, not the words, or gestures, but the obedience is the Worship. But when Free, the Worship consists in the opinion of the beholders: for if to them the words, or actions by which we intend honour, seem ridiculous, and tending to contumely; they are not Worship; because a sign is not a sign to him that giveth it, but to him to whom it is made; that is, to the spectator.
<Worship Public and Private
>Again, there is a Public, and a Private Worship. Public, is the Worship that a Commonwealth performs, as one Person. Private, is that which a Private person exhibits. Public, in respect of the whole Commonwealth, is Free; but in respect of Particular men it is not so Private, is in secret Free; but in the sight of the multitude, it is never without some Restranshumanistt either from the Laws, or from the Opinion of men; which is contrary to the nature of Liberty.
<The End of Worship
>The End of Worship among men, is Power. For where a man sees another worshipped supposes him powerful, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do him, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to capacity, by those rules of Honour, that Reason dictates to be done by the weak to the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of damage, or in thankfulness for good already received from them.
Like where Hobbes is concerned with outward motions and expressive gestures to signify worship and honor as the inward conscious thoughts.
>And of that opinion, the external signs appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latins understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifies properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestows on any thing, with the purpose to make benefit by it.
>In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their minds.
Hobbes continues with the distinction of civil worship (the external praises and magnifying, actions and expressions to give a sense of honor to the State, such as the use of its emblems in currency and pilgrimages to its sites like Mt. Rushmore):
>To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person; and is not Idolatry.
>To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship; because we acknowledge no other power in him, but humane
Hobbes makes the distinction between civil and divine worship: the former any person makes in a way everyday, private and public, for ordinary things, and directed toward civil persons it is with the end of power; the latter is the worship of God, which does not proceed from want of power, but from our natural duty.
<Thomas Hobbes Publique Worship Consisteth In Uniformity
>And this is Publique Worship; the property whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship. And therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from the different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any Publique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all.
This all this from Hobbes reminds me of Plato's Republic.
Among the chief reason Plato wanted to abolish private property was to accomplish a unity of feeling. Where the State should be unified, and people should be united in feeling, in pleasure and pain, private property fractures the State: where others rejoice at their gain, others feel sorrow and loss, pitted against each other, and to the destruction of State.
Although I think Hobbes also has influence from Calvin here? (I might be wrong, but I think so).
Plato on Leader principle:
>The great principle of all is that no one of either sex should be without a commander; nor should the mind of any one be accustomed to do anything, either in jest or earnest, of his own motion, but in war and in peace he should look to and follow his leader, even in the least things being under his guidance; for example, he should stand or move, or exercise, or wash, or take his meals, or get up in the night to keep guard and deliver messages when he is bidden; and in the hour of danger he should not pursue and not retreat except by order of his superior; and in a word, not teach the soul or accustom her to know or understand how to do anything apart from others. Of all soldiers the life should be always and in all things as far as possible in common and together; there neither is nor ever will be a higher, or better, or more scientific principle than this for the attainment of salvation and victory in war. And we ought in time of peace from youth upwards to practise this habit of commanding others, and of being commanded by other.
<Hobbes Leviathan: The Word Person, Whence
>The word Person is latin: instead whereof the Greeks have Prosopon, which signifies the Face, as Persona in latine signifies the Disguise, or Outward Appearance of a man, counterfeited on the Stage; and sometimes more particularly that part of it, which disguises the face, as a Mask or Visard: And from the Stage, has been translated to any Representer of speech and action, as well in Tribunalls, as Theaters. So that a Person, is the same that an Actor is, both on the Stage and in common Conversation; and to Personate, is to Act, or Represent himself, or an other; and he that acts another, is said to bear his Person, or act in his name; (in which sense Cicero uses it where he says, “Unus Sustineo Tres Personas; Mei, Adversarii, & Judicis, I bear three Persons; my own, my Adversaries, and the Judges;”) and is called in diverse occasions, diversely; as a Representer, or Representative, a Lieutenant, a Vicar, an Attorney, a Deputy, a Procurator, an Actor, and the like.
Plato Republic Book 5:
>This, then, Glaucon, is the manner of the community of wives and children among the guardians. That it is consistent with the rest of our polity and by far the best way is the next point that we must get confirmed by the argument. Is not that so?” “It is, indeed,” he said. “Is not the logical first step towards such an agreement to ask ourselves what we could name as the greatest good for the constitution of a state and the proper aim of a lawgiver in his legislation, and what would be the greatest evil, and then to consider whether the proposals we have just set forth fit into the footprints of the good and do not suit those of the evil?” “By all means,” he said.
>“Do we know of any greater evil for a state than the thing that divides it and makes it many instead of one, or a greater good than that which binds it together and makes it one?”
>“We do not.”
>“Is not, then, the community of pleasure and pain the tie that binds, when, so far as may be, all the citizens rejoice and grieve alike at the same births and deaths?”
>“But the individualization of these feelings is a dissolvent, when some grieve exceedingly and others rejoice at the same happenings to the city and its inhabitants?” “Of course.” “And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’ and similarly with regard to the word ‘alien’?
>“Precisely so.”
>“That city, then, is best ordered in which the greatest number use the expression ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ of the same things in the same way.”
Plato State Corporatism / Unitary Policy:
State like an individual man (from Republic).
>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.
>For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connections stretching to the soul for ‘integration’
>with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole, though it is a part that suffers, and that is how we come to say that the man has a pain in his finger. And for any other member of the man the same statement holds, alike for a part that labors in pain or is eased by pleasure.”
>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”
>That is the kind of a state, [462e] then, I presume, that, when anyone of the citizens suffers aught of good or evil, will be most likely to speak of the part that suffers as its own and will share the pleasure or the pain as a whole.” “Inevitably,” he said, “if it is well governed.”
>But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.”
…
>Then will not law-suits and accusations against one another vanish, one may say, from among them, because they have nothing in private possession but their bodies, but all else in common.
>So that we can count on their being free from the dissensions that arise among men from the possession of property, children, and kin.
…
Plato Laws:
>For there are three forms of government, a first, a second, and a third best, out of which Cleinias has now to choose… The first and highest form of the state and of the government and of the law is that in which there prevails most widely the ancient saying, that 'Friends have all things in common.'. Whether there is anywhere now, or will ever be, this communion of women and children and of property, in which the private and individual is altogether banished from life, and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and blame and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasions, and whatever laws there are unite the city to the utmost —whether all this is possible or not, I say that no man, acting upon any other principle, will ever constitute a state which will be truer or better or more exalted in virtue. Whether such a state is governed by Gods or sons of Gods, one, or more than one, happy are the men who, living after this manner, dwell there; and therefore to this we are to look for the pattern of the state, and to cling to this, and to seek with all our might for one which is like this. The state which we have now in hand, when created, will be nearest to immortality and the only one which takes the second place; and after that, by the grace of God, we will complete the third one. And we will begin by speaking of the nature and origin of the second.
…
>Inasmuch as our citizens are not fitted either by nature or education to receive the saying, Friends have all things in common, let them retain their houses and private property, but use them in the service of their country, who is their God and parent, and of the Gods and demigods of the land.
>Their first care should be to preserve the number of their lots. This may be secured in the following manner: when the possessor of a lot dies, he shall leave his lot to his best-beloved child, who will become the heir of all duties and interests, and will minister to the Gods and to the family, to the living and to the dead.
>Of the remaining children, the females must be given in marriage according to the law to be hereafter enacted; the males may be assigned to citizens who have no children of their own.
>How to equalize families and allotments will be one of the chief cares of the guardians of the laws.
…
>Wherefore we will thus address our citizens:—Good friends, honour order and equality, and above all the number 5040.
>Secondly, respect the original division of the lots, which must not be infringed by buying and selling, for the law says that the land which a man has is sacred and is given to him by God.
#2:
- Unitary / State Corporatism: All men as one man.
Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.And also from Hobbes:
>And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”Now compare with Plato Republic:
>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.&
>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”&
>But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.”&
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.&
Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possibleBossuet on All of Israel Went Out as One Man:
>It is by the sole authority of government that union is established among men. This effect of legitimate command is marked to us by these words, so often repeated in the Scriptures: at the command of Saul, and of the legitimate authority "all Israel went out as one man. All the multitudes as one man, were forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Behold, such is the unity of a people, when each one renouncing his own will, transfers and reunites it to that of the prince and the magistrate. Otherwise there is no union; the people become wanderers, like a flock dispersed. "May the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, provide a man that may be over this multitude, and may go out and in before them, or bring them in: lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd."#4
Political & Economical no different.
I believe this is also maintained.
…
<Hobbes / That a Family is a little City
>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."
Thomas Hobbes
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth [state] or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union
&
>A great Family if it be not part of some Commonwealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign.
&
>And as small Familyes did then; so now do Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families
<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.
This is different from Aristotle's verdict, who opposes Monarchy to a political constitution as a household unit only and not proper for political rule (so mixed constitutionalists like the Windsorites deny monarchical rule of politics because of this teaching).
Aristotle writes in Politics,
>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state.
Aristotle:
>For some are of opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the same
Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.
#5:
In Hobbes Leviathan, there is a Sword and Crosier in one body, and the sovereign is also a pastor.
King James VI & I:
>As your office is likewise mixed, betwixt the Ecclesiastical and Civil estate: for a King is not mere laicus, as both the Papists and Anabaptists would have him, to the which error also the Puritans incline over far.
In Plato's Laws, religious and civil offices are aligned for cultivate civic virtue.
In Plato Statesmen:
>…In Egypt, the King himself is not allowed to reign, unless he have priestly powers, and if he should be of another class and has thrust himself in, he must get enrolled in the priesthood. In many parts of Hellas, the duty of offering the most solemn propitiatory sacrifices is assigned to the highest magistrates, and here, at Athens, the most solemn and national of the ancient sacrifices are supposed to be celebrated by him who has been chosen by lot to be the King Archon.
#6:
Jean Bodin testifies Plato having a composition of a Tyrannical & Popular estate (which he later goes on to deny any mixed constitutionalism whatsoever and say it was purely popular).
>Plato having presupposed the best form of a Commonwealth, to be that which was composed of a Tyrannical and Popular estate: in framing the same, is contrary unto himself, having established a Commonwealth not only Popular, but altogether also Popularly governed;
…
Looking at Leviathan, it's exactly that: Hobbes isn't a mixed constitutionalist, but Leviathan is a composition of Monarchy and the People:
>The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are citizens, that is to say, Subjects…
>And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seem a Paradox) the King is the People.
#7:
Beginning with the constitution of individuals and some families at odds – & later deference to an arbiter to hash out their differences and establish peace.
<Hobbes: The Sixteenth, Of Submission To Arbitrement; [OR, the NECESSITY of an arbitrary power]
>And because, though men be never so willing to observe these Laws, there may nevertheless arise questions concerning a mans action; First, whether it were done, or not done; Secondly (if done) whether against the Law, or not against the Law; the former whereof, is called a question Of Fact; the later a question Of Right; therefore unless the parties to the question, Covenant mutually to stand to the sentence of another, they are as far from Peace as ever. This other, to whose Sentence they submit, is called an ARBITRATOR. And therefore it is of the Law of Nature, "That they that are at controversy, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator."
…
This is a theme in Hobbes, and in Plato there is also a turn of deference of some Arbiter because of conflicting laws / customs of private families: these are in conflict, Plato establishes, but the unity of some Arbiter(s) takes what laws the private families have and decides which are best to keep from the families altogether… Which aligns with the absolutist agenda for deference to some arbiter to bring unity… in Hobbes case it is by virtue of fear (and I believe compulsion, but also a bit of persuasion through education), but for the Classics it is generally love of justice and laws and virtue… and persuasion over compulsion (which I can imagine with some very powerful music or eloquence to bring people together?)
…
Anyways, what I would point to is in Plato's Laws:
Plato Laws
>Athenian: And every man surely likes his own laws best, and the laws of others not so well.
–This right here is really the basis of what Hobbes gets at with a war of all against all – but more importantly, at this point, there is a failure to have a concord of hosts / partnership of clans, it is futile… every man will have the extent of his laws and boundaries in another man's boundaries, interceding and conflicting…. there must be deference to an Arbiter.
>Athenian: The next step will be that these persons who have met together, will select some arbiters, who will review the laws of all of them, and will publicly present such as they approve to the chiefs who lead the tribes, and who are in a manner their kings, allowing them to choose those which they think best. These persons will themselves be called legislators, and will appoint the magistrates, framing some sort of aristocracy, or perhaps monarchy, out of the dynasties or lordships, and in this altered state of the government they will live.
…
IN the same way, King James VI & I talks about this process above and being an arbiter:
King James VI & I
>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.
>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.
#8:
Persuasion.
While fear and compulsion are predominate factors for Hobbes, he did take note of persuasion too.
People are entitled to their private conscience and opinion even, but publicly show obedience and worship and conformity.
Plato advocates persuasion numerous times over compulsion: like a freeman's doctor or a slave's doctor (the freeman's doctor persuades his patient before acting, but a slave's doctor just does it anyways). And recommended a preamble for the laws (persuading people).
Hobbes: Public instruction
>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 trusteth in the administration of the Common-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not onely his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger that may arrive to himself in his naturall Person, from Rebellion.
#9:
Community of pleasures and pains through a Cult of Personality.
If there is one innovation here every monarchist should consider, it is the advent of the Cult of Personality, or work of One Person on the multitude.
Plato Republic
>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’
Plato Republic - Community of Pleasures & Pains
>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?
>No doubt.
>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized
This is a controversial point, but Hobbes first talks about appetites (pleasures) and aversions (pains) of the private persons, then consolidates all the persons into One Personhood.
…
Not only does this come to a State where by a plurality of voices, as if they all said YES but also that condition from Plato:
>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’
<Thomas Hobbes The Generation Of A Common-wealth
>The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will:
&
>This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, “I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.”
&
>This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. 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.
…
This (in)famous picture of ᴉuᴉlossnW with a plurality of Si, si, si, si, si, si behind his personage represents this unity of the representer and a cult of personality.
Imagine every Si behind ᴉuᴉlossnW as "Mine" and "Thine" like Plato says – it seems like the condition is met where all citizens utter in a unanimous voice "mine" and "thine" – without abolishing private property, but I'll talk about that soon.
…
Consider the Community of Pleasures and Pains, this is cultivated in Hobbes' Leviathan and private appetites and private aversions are not allowed to override the Leviathan:
>But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the Appetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of the State is the measure.
…
Now, considering private property: Hobbes allows the distribution of private property, but it is limited by the popular consent, the distribution from the Sovereign is also in accord with unanimous "mine" and "thine" in a way.
<Hobbes: Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Sovereign, But Only Of Another Subject
>From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consists in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Sovereign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Sovereign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he represents,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed voyd.
So particular subjects are limited in their estate, all property is limited by an absolute power – as well as subordinate corporations – by a sovereign, who has in his cult of personality "thine" and "mine" of every subject in a plurality of voices brought unto one voice.
….and I wish you a revolutionary birthday, dear Grace-poster <3
>>777462I.hope you kill yourself on your next one
>>777462beautiful artstyle, I love potato coded anime girls, like the stuff drawn by the author of girls last tour.
>>777542Monarchists should be bullied it's an antihuman ideology like zionism
https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2026-03-27-Between-Materialism-And-Aeonics.html>We find in the writings of the O9A discussions with regards questions of local governance and ethical principles abound. One place we shall look at for now is in the practices of the Rounwytha. The article 'Veiled Strength' by Dr. Chris Giudice (an article I very much recommend you read) is a good explication on how these ideas relate to social organization. The author draws a comparison between the social principles of the Rounwytha with the anthropological concept of the 'Mutterrecht'. Within this concept is not the articulation of "matriarchy" as some sort of juridical alternative to "patriarchy", but rather as a distinct mode of knowing an authority. In Mother Right, knowledge is situated, embedded, local. It is something that one gains from accumulated experience and an empathic connection to the surrounding environment. The mother has authority, not by some formalistic abstraction, but from having lived the longest in a shared horizon of endurance. Rather than coercion, there is an implicit influence based off of ties of obligation grounded on inheritance, kinship and shared existence. With the federation of cooperatives model that I have pointed to above, there is some movement towards reconciling this local situated model of knowledge and authority with the needs of large scale social organization. Of course, I do not believe that this is the end all of the story. Another organizational entity which I envision as being important to us shall be what I call the "meedshken". This would be a group of people with particular virtues, drawn from those discussing the Rounwytha and beyond, which shall share as an unofficial source of moral authority and group cohesion. A point of difference would be that while these people will be tied for the most part to a particular locality, they shall also fraternize and sororize with one another. They should also have some element of nomadicism in their behaviour, moving from locale to locale ensuring the transmission of local cultural practices to other localities. This is influenced by the traditional Igbo system of social organization based upon market days whereby different tribes will become the hub of trade in a cyclical manner as a means of ensuring there is not a concentration of power in just one. This could be adapted to a spiritualized form where it is a hub of exchange in culture and knowledge.>[…]Personally I believe this system of authority and governance is superior to fascism and monarchy insofar as it reflects a deeper understanding of their prior. In monarchy especially, there is a frequent legitimization based upon seeing larger society as an extension of the family. In such a framework, the monarch is the absolute patriarch of the entire family. One of my criticisms of such a system is not that it is backwards or barbaric, but that it is still maintains some of the naivites of modernitiy. What the monarch betrays is a raising up of the fetish of the absolute individual above all else. This goes against the ways families functioned in deep tradition. Before, it was understood that the raising of the child took a larger community, it can't be done by one or two people. This issue is only more pronounced when we move to the scale of an entire nation. The tyrannical excesses of monarchical powers in history have been a testament to this basic fact that you can not put so much responsibility on one individual alone. Based upon this observation, I think the meedhsken concept is ethically superior. It would be something akin more to the nocturnal council described by Socrates rather than that of the philosopher king, whilst still emphasizing the cultivation of virtue and altruistic obstinancy found in the latter. I am still somewhat attracted to the idea of a monarch, but more as a sort of collective scapegoat figure that is the "face" of the organization and upon which chaotic psychic energy is allowed to pool around. >>777671>I am still somewhat attracted to the idea of a monarch, but more as a sort of collective scapegoat figure that is the "face" of the organization and upon which chaotic psychic energy is allowed to pool around.Boo.
Ceremonial / symbolic "monarchists" have to go far, far away…
I'm not content with pictures or icons (like in Christianity) to be a substitute. Or even a real presence (like in Christianity with a Eucharist ceremony). So the same for royalty–I am not content with simply as it were that there were no actual, active, living & breathing kings who we can consult now and who is among us, but merely pictures of a mascot like a cereal mascot on a box of cereal (who never actually exists, but we have the image of).
Say there is a real king then but we simply take pictures and completely doesn't partake or govern or lead on his own initative or do anything – that doesn't qualify as monarchy for me – that is hardly better than the cereal mascot who never existed to begin with, except it could be a celebrity on the cereal box.
…You might have a cult of personality… but the utter lack of an arbiter, decision maker, leadership makes this cult of personality soulless and dead like a stone, boring and nonexistant… without an actual arbiter, the effects of a war of all against all, political pluralism, and the negative effect of people voting and coming into discontent amongst each other that way by the voting booth and amongst the actual leaders who rule by turn (without any connection to that cult of personality) – doesn't go away – it is the same problem I have with the Christianity and the Pope, where we simply have a ceremonial regime and elective monarchy as far as we're concerned where the rulers harvest a cult of personality and still rule by turns without a hereditary regime… and without any conscience attached to the king as if he was his own blood… but simply as a spiritual teacher…
I'm not really too keen on the peak Victorian era style of constitutional monarchy as a political ideology (really, I despise with the most livid passion 🔥 that era's dull Whiggy ideal of constitutional monarchy).
I'll re-state, there is nothing I detest more than the Whiggish, 19th century, Anglocentric Victoran era dull and droll view of "constitutional monarchy" that everyone celebrates and that has prevailed well after the English Civil Wars unto the 1800s with the decline of the French monarchy as an alternative model…
I hate it with a fierce zealotry, and I hate that this is the only prevalent mode of monarchy and how it is thought of – as opposed to French Absolutism or the Alexandrian Model that the Caesars embraced with their own imperial rule… notably the stories of the Julio-Claudian Emperors.
I hate it with every fibre of my being and my soul… with all my heart…
…I say that "constitutional monarchy" is a war against every notion of monarchical preeminence…
…There is a reason why I champion Louis XIV, King James I, or even Gaius Caligula… or even contemporary dictators… because I try to push far, far away from that.
…
I lament with Hobbes the prevalence of it:
<"…Saving only that he [the Earl] was carried away with the stream, in a manner, of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament…"
<"…Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy; all which governments they esteemed tyranny, and were in love with monarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy…"
<"…Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny…"
I praise Hitler over "constitutional monarchists" for attacking their sacred cow of parliamentarianism – If there is anything I'd laud Hitler over them for – is that Hitler criticizes the Anglocentric, Whiggish parliamentarianism and the mixed constitutionalism they all highly esteem.
Adolf Hitler concerning Austria's political situation:
>Among the institutions which most clearly manifested unmistakable signs of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all the institutions of State, ought to have been the most firmly founded–I mean the Parliament, or the Reichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria.
>The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed in England, the land of classic democracy. The whole of that excellent organization was bodily transferred to Austria with as little alteration as possible.
>There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace in which the new body of popular representatives was to be housed he had to turn to the ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of 'Western Democracy' was adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol of irony, the horses of the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling apart from one another towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no better symbol for the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same building
>The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of Austrian history in the decoration of this building, insisting that such would constitute an offence to them and a provocation. Much the same happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built by Wallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the cannons were thundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by an inscription.
>I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered the Palace on the Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first experience aroused in me a profound feeling of repugnance.
>I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.
>A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling of admiration almost without my being conscious of the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Press reported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any nobler form of government than self government by the people.
>But these considerations furnished the very motives of my hostility to the Austrian Parliament. The form in which parliamentary government was here represented seemed unworthy of its great prototype. The following considerations also influenced my attitude:
>The fate of the German element in the Austrian State depended on its position in Parliament. Up to the time that universal suffrage by secret ballot was introduced the German representatives had a majority in the Parliament, though that majority was not a very substantial one. This situation gave cause for anxiety because the Social-Democratic fraction of the German element could not be relied upon when national questions were at stake. In matters that were of critical concern for the German element, the Social-Democrats always took up an anti-German stand because they were afraid of losing their followers among the other national groups. Already at that time–before the introduction of universal suffrage–the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be considered as a German Party. The introduction of universal suffrage put an end even to the purely numerical predominance of the German element. The way was now clear for the further 'de-Germanization' of the Austrian State.
>The national instinct of self-preservation made it impossible for me to welcome a representative system in which the German element was not really represented as such, but always betrayed by the Social-Democratic fraction. Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.
>But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.
>That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.
>The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.
>I could not refrain from laughing
Hitler continued:
>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.
>A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.
>A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.
>Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence.
>Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the filth of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
…
>I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to my notice when I was still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany at that time I might easily have found only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered what an illogical thing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easily have gone to the other extreme and believed–as many people believed, and apparently not without good reason–that the salvation of the people and the Empire could be secured only by restrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those who had this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and were blind to the aspirations of the people.
>In Austria one could not be so easily misled. There it was impossible to fall from one error into another. If the Parliament were worthless, the Habsburgs were worse; or at least not in the slightest degree better. The problem was not solved by rejecting the parliamentary system. Immediately the question arose: What then? To repudiate and abolish the Vienna Parliament would have resulted in leaving all power in the hands of the Habsburgs. For me, especially, that idea was impossible.
>Since this problem was specially difficult in regard to Austria, I was forced while still quite young to go into the essentials of the whole question more thoroughly than I otherwise should have done.
Hitler continues to make some critical complaints about parliamentarianism:
>The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.
>The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?
>Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?
>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?
>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.
>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?
>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?
>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?
>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?
>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?
>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?
>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?
>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?
>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?
>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?
>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?
…
The Fuhrer asks the most fundamental question:
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
Hitler asks the right question here.
Which I see as another jab at Aristotle and mixed constitutionalism/political pluralism.
Hitler continues.
>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.
>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.
>The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority–which means the dunder headed multitude–hate nothing so much as a superior brain.
>For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is on a level with their own. Thus each one may have the opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers and, above all, each one feels that he may one day rise to the top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paul tomorrow?
>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.
Hitler writes here:
>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltranshumanists are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude
>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.
>The result of all this is that, in such a State, the succession of sudden changes in public positions and public offices has a very disquieting effect in general, which may easily lead to disaster when an adverse crisis arises. It is not only the ignorant and the incompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions, for the genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so, whenever Fate has chanced to place a capable man in the position of leader. Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the result will be that a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want to have only their own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in their ranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp in this particular.
>The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of 'leaders'.
>Though the Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by the King-Emperor, this act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the will of the parliament. The huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to every ministerial position showed all the typical marks of Western Democracy. The results that followed were in keeping with the principles applied. The intervals between the replacement of one person by another gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With each change the quality of the 'statesman' in question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type of political huckster remained. In such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.
>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.
>There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.
>It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has to- day, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.
>The parliamentary regime became one of the causes why the strength of the Habsburg State steadily declined during the last years of its existence. The more the predominance of the German element was whittled away through parliamentary procedure, the more prominent became the system of playing off one of the various constituent nationalities against the other. In the Imperial Parliament it was always the German element that suffered through the system, which meant that the results were detrimental to the Empire as a whole; for at the close of the century even the most simple-minded people could recognize that the cohesive forces within the Dual Monarchy no longer sufficed to counterbalance the separatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities. On the contrary!
why would someone who isn't a monarch support monarchy?
>>777686the monarch is not meant to solve those issues with democracy. that is partially addressed by the first part of my critique. the issue is with modern governments is that they rely on an abstract form of authority in order unify an entire nation of people. this is decided in an immediate way. everyone immediately votes for the leader of their entire nation without any intermediary. i regard such a state of affairs as utterly nonsensical. true authority is not something that comes from above, it must be something that is cultivated. you can not stroll in one day and establish it in an immediate fashion. there must be struggle and a sense of shared destiny before a people could ever be united under a head in the first place. the patriarchal form of the family is not even the natural form that humans necessarily take so the naturalistic argument is moot. the phallus must have descended from heaven, and the clearing of the celestial vault must have been apocalypse. at any rate, according to the principle of mutterrecht, the way authority is cultivated in deep tradition is done through localist shared struggle, the mother acquires her authority because she has begotten, she has survived, she has reared in the same shared struggle for existence as us. that is what makes her powerful. as such true leadership should first and foremost arise localistically. afterwards i propose two methods by which this authority scales up 1) by the progressive determination of higher levels of leadership, with each stage collections of localities unify into one hyper-locality 2) spiritually, by the migration of spiritual leadership from locale to locale assuring spiritual unity by interaction rather than abstract reinforcement. when you have these in place, the role of this ceremonial figure becomes increasingly less important, but it may still yet prove useful for giving outside observers something which they can latch unto and for members of the collective a symbol communicating how their collective sovereignty may be expressed under a single unity. the role of this matriarch would be to give a compressed voice to what has been already taken into account by the hierarchical fiscal leadership on one hand and the hyper-active spiritual leadership on the other, though perhaps even this is unnecessary
to summarize, there must be a democratic fractal localism combined with a hyper-active spiritual leadership. factionalization is reduced with the fact that authority is based cultivated localistically, as well as the fact that with the removal of of the ability to vote for higher leadership in an immediate way, the individual's will-to-power is unable to rise beyond the level of immediate locality. unity is insured with shared mythos and frequency of interaction. a cult of personality may be cultivated from out of the hyper-active spiritual leadership to give voice to this unity but it is not strictly necessary
>>777806https://hidwehproject.nekoweb.org/pages/blog/posts/2026-04-27-Brief-Remarks-On-Technology.html>With this said, I think the relational view leads Floridi to make a very commendable observations with regards to the reality of democracy, namely that good democracy should try and maximize the granularity of alternatives in regards to voting. With, for instance, the American election system, the voter can only really choose between two parties. There is no real third or fourth option. Moreover, upon choosing a party, they have very little control over the subsequent range of choices that can be made by said party. This ends up diminishing the presence of real representation. In this point we see an ontological turn in the conceptualization of politics. What is important is not only the ability to choose, but also having an effect on how the space of actions gets parametrized. The problem of information encapsulation has become a political problem. We might here make a distinction between quantitative and qualitative democracy to drive this point home.>The way things are done, there is very poor qualitative representation. Personally I believe localism can play an important role. At smaller scales of governance, individuals are able to have a more feasible shot at influencing choices not just quantitatively but also qualitatively as well. We should note here how action parametrization and hence qualitative representation is something that can be partially dissociated from the formally democratic form. For instance, in a capitalist economy, money becomes the main signal for action parametrization. The logic of "profit" and investor speculation ends up determining what companies persist and how these companies evolve over time. At the same time the range of qualitative actions has the corporation as a basic bottleneck. For instance, McDonalds has a different space of products compared to Starbucks, and the average person is not likely to eat anything that falls outside the things offered by fast food chains and grocery stores. Hence, we see how speculative and consumer dynamics become the main positive signals that build towards representation.>Note that we can apply this same logic to authoritarian and monarchical regimes as well. Even these political entities have their own subtle forms of qualitative democracy. For instance the monarch got their information and suggestions for possible actions to take from their advisors, and their advisors had various ways of gathering information contrained to the feudal mode of production and their lacking information technologies at the time. The Soviet bureaucrats also had devised ways to try and model something akin to consumer demand in an effort to keep their socialist economy running smoothly. A blogpost talking about Nick Land and his relation to Timenergy theory makes a great point as well in pointing out how the neo-reactionary advocation of monarchy is in fact a perfectly redundant gesture:<The real transformation is not the return of kingship as dream-image but the collapse of sovereignty into algorithmic governance. Decisions are increasingly delegated to predictive models, actuarial tables, risk algorithms, and automated logistics. Authority no longer resides in the symbolic pact between ruler and ruled. It is coded into the protocols of platforms, the scripts of financial markets, the architectures of surveillance. Moldbug’s neo-monarchist script is therefore less the master narrative than a symptom produced by this infrastructural displacement. He articulates in clumsy political theology what has already occurred silently in code: the outsourcing of command to systems indifferent to the subject.>In general it is important not to discount how much qualitative decision making is determined by the underlying mode of production, a constraint that is even placed upon an absolute monarch or dictator. There is an extent in which many of the average leftist's fears of authoritarianism is in a way just falling for the great man of history theory. In an ironic turn of events, they are often still not materialist enough. >>777768ok, I'm not defending democracy, but still don't see how monarchy is any better.
Also why doesn't Grace have cat ears like all the others
>>777427The Nietzsche quote shows why your ideology is dead. Demigods don't exist.
That's an absolutist position too.
>Even if your father is a thief, a murderer, a traitor, an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, or an atheist, you have a BLOOD DEEP loyalty.
…
People will make fun of Catholics for this, but take it upstairs beyond the Pope to God himself.
Look at the Bible verses where God commands the killing of entire cities, not even sparing the suckling babies, let alone hapless animals.
People will remain Christian in spite of this–even though for any other ruler, they'd consider it the greatest tyranny and rupture with human rights and dignity for any ruler to positively command the slaying of infants.
1 Samuel 15:3
>Now go and smite Am′alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
Deuteronomy 20:16-17: instructions regarding Canaanite cities.
>But in the cities of these peoples… you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
Joshua 6:20-21
>So the people shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, the people raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2
>When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir′gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per′izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb′usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, 2 and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them.
Jean Bodin also makes a case for Alexander the Great–that he didn't tolerate a traitor even for an enemy & rival king:
>Alexander the Great caused cruelly to be put to death him who had murdered King Darius, abhorring the subject who lays his hand upon his king: although Alexander himself by lawful war sought after his life & state, as his lawful enemy.
A monarch is reputed to be the life, unity, soul & being of the country, the father of the people (& the people his offspring, a tight knit familial bond descended from him as a people), the Sun, the root & motion of all civil activity, with a strong, blood-deep familial loyalty, like this DPRK video purports.
…
People can't comprehend a bond that deep–they identify as republicans, democrats, tories, labour, etc; they're used to being enemies.
They don't see themselves as a family, where the loyalty among each other is they must be a kindred people & not a nation divided against itself.
Familial loyalty is to be such a strong bond that it is immensely difficult to break it apart, even in the worst, very bad, most pressing trials that press kinfolk apart, a blood bound loyalty and communal affection between members of a family, loyal as kindred people.
Jean Bodin even acknowledges that Hell itself has a great monarch with kindred demons:
>If we should inspect nature more closely, we should gaze upon monarchy everywhere. To make a beginning from small things, we see the king among the bees, the leader in the herd, the buck among the flocks or the bellwether (as among the cranes themselves the many follow one), and in the separate natures of things some one object excels: thus, adamant among the gems, gold among the metals, the Sun among the stars, and finally God alone, the prince and author of the world. Moresoever, they say that among the evil spirits one alone is supreme. But, not to continue indefinitely, what is a family other than the true image of a state? Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king.
<Bodin's Anti-Regicide Remarks
>But when I perceived on every side that subjects were arming themselves against their princes; that books were being brought out openly, like firebands to set Commonweals ablaze, in which we are taught that princes sent by providence to the human race must be thrust out of their kingdoms under the pretense of tyranny, and that kings must be chosen not by their lineage, but by the will of the people; and finally that these doctrines were weakening the foundations not only of this realm only but of all states, then I denied that it was the function of a good man or of a good citizen to offer violence to his prince for any reason, however great a tyrant he might be; and contended that it was necessary to leave this punishment to God, and to other princes. And I have supported this by divine and human laws and authorities, and most of all by reason which compel assent.
>But if it be so that the soldier which had only broken the vine truncheon of his Captain, beating him by right or wrong, was by the law of arms to be put to death: then what punishment deserves the son which lays hand upon his father?
>But if the prince be an absolute Sovereign, as are the true Monarchies of France, of Spain, of England; Scotland, Turkey, Muscovy, Tartarie, Persia, Ethiopia, India, and of almost all the kingdoms of Africa, and Asia, where the kings themselves have the sovereignty without all doubt or question; not divided with their subjects: in this case it is NOT lawful for any one of the subjects in particular, or all of them in general, to attempt any thing either by way of fact, or of justice against the honour, life, or dignity of the Sovereign: albeit that he had committed all the wickedness, impiety, and cruelty that could be spoken; for as to proceed against him by way of justice, the subject has no such jurisdiction over his Sovereign prince: of whom depends all power and authority to command: and who may not only revoke all the power of his Magistrates; but even in whose presence the power of all Magistrates, Corporations, Colleges, Estates, and Communities cease, as we have said, and shall yet more fully in due place say. Now if it be not lawful for the subject by way of justice to proceed against his prince; the vassal against his lord; nor the slave against his master; and in brief, if it not be lawful, by way and course of justice to proceed against a king, how should it then be lawful to proceed against him by way of fact, or force. For question is not here, what men are able to do by strength and force, but what they ought of right to do: as not whether the subjects have power and strength, but whether they have lawful power to condemn their Sovereign prince. Now the subject is not only guilty of treason of the highest degree, who has slain his Sovereign prince, but even he also which has attempted the same; who has given counsel or consent thereunto; yea if he have concealed the same, or but so much as thought it… And albeit that the laws inflict no punishment upon the evil thoughts of men; but on those only which by word or deed break out into some enormity: yet if any man shall so much as conceit a thought for the violating of the person of his Sovereign prince, although he have attempted nothing, they have yet judged this same thought worthy of death, notwithstanding what repentance soever he have had thereof. As in proof it fell out with a gentleman of Normandy, who confessed himself unto a Franciscan Friar, to have had a purpose in himself to have slain Francis the first, the French king: of which evil purpose and intent he repenting himself, received of the frier absolution, who yet afterward told the king thereof, who sending for the gentleman, and he confessing the fact, turned him over to the parliament of Paris for his trial, where he was by the decree of that high court condemned to death, and so afterwards executed.
>One must not however label as evidence of tyranny the executions, banishments, confiscations, and other deeds of violence that mark a restoration [or transition] in a commonwealth. Such changes are necessarily violent, as was illustrated by what happened at the establishment of the Triumvirate in Rome, and at the election of many of the Emperors. It is not proper, either, to call Cosimo de Medici a tyrant for building a citadel, surrounding himself with foreign guards, and taxing his subjects heavily for their upkeep, after the assassination of Alessandro, Duke of Florence. Such medicine was necessary to a commonwealth ravaged by so many seditions and insurrections, and for a licentious and unruly populace, everlastingly plotting against the new duke, though he was accounted one of the wisest and most virtuous princes of his age.
>Not only is the subject guilty of high treason who kills his prince, but so also is he who has merely attempted it, counselled it, wished it or even considered it… We read that the most holy doctors that the Jews ever knew, those who were known as the Essenes or experts in the law of God, held that Sovereign princes, of whatever character, should be regarded by their subjects as sacred and inviolable, and given of God. One cannot doubt that David, king and prophet, was informed by the spirit of God if ever man was, having always before his eyes the law of God. It was he who said, "Slander not the Prince, nor speak evil of the magistrate." Nothing is more insisted on in the Holy Writ than the wickedness of compassing the death of the prince, or any responsible magistrate, or even making any attempt against their life or honour, even though, adds the Scripture, they be evil men.
And if anyone should have tried to kill Stalin or Hitler, those regimes would fully be capable of executing the would-be conspirators or assassins, no matter how evil they claimed Stalin or Hitler to be.
…
While Bodin sticks with a pretense, Hobbes makes no pretense whatsoever even barring the virtue of a sovereign.
<Covenants Not Discharged By The Vice Of The Person To Whom Made
>Others, that allow for a Law of Nature, the keeping of Faith, do nevertheless make exception of certain persons; as Heretics, and such as use not to perform their Covenant to others: And this also is against reason. For if any fault of a man, be sufficient to discharge our Covenant made; the same ought in reason to have been sufficient to have hindred the making of it.
<Jean Bodin: O how many Tyrants should there be:
>O how many Tyrants should there be, if it should be lawful for Subjects to kill Tyrants? How many good and innocent Princes should be as Tyrants perished by the conspiracy of their subjects against them? He that should of his subjects but exact subsidies, should be then, as the vulgar people esteem him, a Tyrant: He that should rule and command contrary to the good licking of the people, should be a Tyrant: He that should keep strong guard and garrisons for the safety of his person, should be a Tyrant: He that should put to death traitors and conspirators against his State, should be also counted a Tyrant. How should good Princes be assured of their lives, if under colour of Tyranny they might be slain by their subjects, by whom they ought to be defended?
>And in this, the princes much deceive themselves [and namely they which give reward to them that have slain Tyrants, to make them a way unto the sovereignty]. For they shall never assure themselves of their own lives, if they severely punish not the conspirators against their own prince and murderers of him, although he was never so great a Tyrant. As most wisely did Severus the emperour, who put to death all them which had any part in the murder of the emperour Pertinax: which was the cause (as says Herodian) that there was no man which durst attempt his life. So also Vitelliu the emperour put to death all the murderers and conspirators against Galba, who had presented requests signed with their own hands unto the emperour Otho, to have had of him reward for their disloyalty. And Theophilus emperour of Constantinople caused them all to be called together, who had made his father emperour, after they had slain Leo the Armenian, as if he would have well recompensed them for so great a turn: who being come together with many other, who though not partakers of the murder, were yet desirous to be partakers of the reward; he caused them altogether to be slain. And that more is, the emperour Domitian put to death Epaphroditus, Nero his servant, and secretary to the state, for having helped Nero to kill himself, who most instantly requested him so to do, being thereby delievered from the executioner's hands, and cruel exemplary death. And these things we read not only Tyrants, but even good kings also to have done, not so much in regard of their own safety, as of the dignity of them who were slain. As David did unto him who in hope of reward brought him his father in law's head cut off, but slain by his enemies. And Alexander the Great caused cruelly to be put to death him who had murdered king Darius, abhorring the subject which durst to lay hand upon his king: although Alexander himself by lawful war sought after his life and state, as being his lawful enemy.
The same, I'll add, happened to a notable conspirator against Caligula, Cassius Chaerea.
<It is okay to judge and kill Limited Monarchs, but not Absolute Sovereign Monarchs; Or if Defeated by Right of Conquest by a Foreign nation or Prince
>But the chief question of this our discourse, is to know, whether a Sovereign Prince come unto that high estate by election, or by lot, by rightful succession, or by just war, or by the especial vocation of Almighty God; forgetting his duty, and become without measure cruel, covetous, and wicked, so perverting the laws of God and man, and such an one as we commonly call a Tyrant, may be lawfully slain or not. And true it is that many interpreters, both of God's and man's laws, have said it to be lawful: many of them without distinction joining these two incompatible words together, a King a Tyrant: which so dangerous a doctrine has been the cause of the utter ruin and overthrow of many most mighty empires, and kingdoms. But to decide this question well, it behooves us to distinguish an Absolute Sovereign Prince, from him which is not so: and also subjects from strangers, according as wee have before declared. For it is great difference to say that a Tyrant may lawfully be slain by a prince a stranger; or by his own subject.
>And for that only cause Timur, whom our writers commonly call Tamerlane emperour of the Tartars, denounced war unto Bayezid I, Sultan of the Turks, who then besieged Constantinople; saying that he was come to chastise his tyranny, and to deliver the afflicted people; whom indeed he in a set battle vanquished in the plains near unto Mount Stella: and having slain three hundred thousand Turks, kept the tyrant (taken prisoner) in chains in an iron cage until he died.
<Neither in this case is it material whether such a virtuous prince being a stranger proceed against a Tyrant by open force, or fineness, or else by way of justice. True it is that a valiant and worthy prince having the tyrant in his power, shall gain more honour by bringing him unto his trial, to chastise him as a murderer, a manqueller, and a robber: rather then to use the law of arms against him.
>Wherefore let us resolve upon that, that it is lawful for any stranger to kill a Tyrant; that is to say a man of all men infamous, and notorious for the oppression, murder, and slaughter of his subjects and people. But as for subjects to do the same, it is to be known whether the prince that bears rule be an Absolute Sovereign; or not: for if he be no Absolute Sovereign, then must the Sovereignty of necessity be either in the People, or in the Nobility: in which case there is no doubt, but that it is lawful to proceed against a Tyrant by way of justice, if so men may prevail against him: or else by way of fact, and open force, if they may not otherwise have reason. As the Senate did in the first case against Nero: and in the other against Maxi∣minus: for that the Roman Emperours were at the first nothing else but princes of the Commonweal, that is to say the chief and principal men, the sovereignty nevertheless still resting in the People and the Senate: as I have before showed, that this Commonweal was then to have been called a principality: although that Seneca speaking in the person of Nero his scholar says: I am the only man amongst living men, elect and chosen to be the Lieutenant of God on earth: I am the Arbitrator of life and death: I am able at my pleasure to dispose of the state and quality of every man. True it is that he took upon him this Sovereign authority by force wrested from the Senate and people of Rome: but in right he had it not, the state being but a very principality, wherein the People had the Sovereignty. As is also that of the Venetians, who condemned to death their Duke Falier, and also executed many others, without form or fashion of any lawful process: forasmuch as Venice is an Aristocratical principality, wherein the Duke is but the first or chief man, sovereignty still remaining in the state of the Venetian Gentlemen. As is likewise the Germain Empire, which is also nothing else but an Aristocratical principality, wherein the the Emperour is head and chief, the power and majesty of the Empire belonging unto the States thereof: who thrust out of the government Adolphus the emperour in the year 1296: and also after him Wenceslaus in the year 1400, and that by way of justice, as having jurisdiction and power over them. So also might we say of the state of the Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the State, sometime for their faults condemned to pay their fine; as was king Agesilaus: and sometime to death also as were Agis and Pausanias. Which hath also in our time happened unto the kings of Denmark and Sweden, whereof some have been banished, and the others died in prison: for that the nobility pretends them to be nothing but princes, and not Sovereigns, as we have before showed: so also are they subjects unto those states which have the right of their election. And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes calls Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justifiable unto the Nobility, who had all the Sovereignty: causing them even to be put to death, if they had so deserved. And that is it for which Amphiorix the captain general, whom they called the king of the Liegeois said; Our commands (says he) are such, as that the people hath no less power over us, then we over the people: wherein he showed evidently that he was no sovereign prince: howbeit that it was not possible for him to have equal power with the People, as we have before showed.
<Wherefore these sorts of princes, having no Sovereignty, if they polluted with wickedness and villainy, cannot be chastised by the authority and severity of the magistrate, but shall abuse their wealth and power unto the hurt and destruction of good men; it always has and shall be lawful not for strangers only, but even for the subjects themselves also, to take them out of the way.
>And least any man should think themselves to have been the authors of these laws and decrees, so the more straightly to provide for their own safety and honour, let us see the laws and examples of holy Scripture. Nebuchadnezzar king of Assyria, with fire and sword destroyed all the country of Palestine, besieged the city of Jerusalem, took it, robbed and razed it down to the ground, burnt the temple, and defiled the sanctuary of God, slew the king, with the greatest part of the people, carrying away the rest that remained into captivity into Babylon; and yet not so contented, caused the image of himself made in gold, to be set up in public place, commanding all men without exception to adore and worship the same, upon pain of being burnt alive: and caused them that refused so to do, to be cast into a burning furnace: and yet for all that the holy Prophets directing their letters unto their brethren the Jews, then in captivity at Babylon, will them to pray unto God, for the good and happy life of Nebuchadnezzar and his children, and that they might so long rule and reign over them as the heavens should endure. Yea even God himself doubted not to call Nebuchadnezzar his servant; saying, That he would make him the most mighty prince of the world. And yet was there ever a more detestable tyrant than he? who not contented to be himself worshipped, but caused his image to be also adored, and that upon pain of being burnt quick. And yet for all that we see the prophet Ezechiel, inspired with the spirit of God, angry with Sedechia king of Jerusalem, greatly to detest his perfidious dealing, disloyalty, and rebellion against king Nebuchadnezzar whose vassal all he was, and as it were rejoiced him to have been most justly slain.
>We have also another more rare example of Saul, who possessed with an evil spirit, caused the priests of the lord to be without just cause slain, for that one of them had received David flying from him, and did oftentimes what in his power was, to kill, or cause to have been killed the same David, a most innocent prince, by whom he had got so many victories over his enemies: at which time he fell twice himself into David his hands; who blamed of his most valiant soldiers (over whom he then commanded) for that he would not suffer his so mortal an enemy then in his power, to be slain, being in most assured hope to have enjoyed the kingdom after his death, he detested their counsel, saying, God forbid that I should suffer the person of a king, the Lords anointed to be violated. Yea moreover he himself defended the same king persecuting of him, when as he commanded the soldiers of his guard overcome by wine and sleep to be wakened. And at such time as Saul was slain, and that a soldier thinking to do David a pleasure, presented him with Saul his head: David forthwith caused the same soldier to be slain, which had brought him the head, saying, Go thou wicked, how durst thou lay thine impure hands upon the Lords anointed? thou shalt surely die therefore: and afterwards without all dissimulation mourned himself for the dead king. All which is worth our good consideration. For David was by Saul persecuted to death, and yet wanted not power to have revenged himself, being become stronger than the king by the aid of his enemies, unto whom he fled even against his will: besides that he was the chosen of God, and anointed by the hands of Samuel, to be king of the people, and had also married the kings daughter: and yet for all that he abhorred to take upon him the title of a king, and much more to attempt any thing against the life or honour of Saul, or to rebel against him, but chose rather to banish himself out of the realm, than in any sort to seek the kings destruction. So we also read, that the most holy and best learned men that ever were amongst the Jews whom they called the Essei (that is to say, the true executors of the law of God) held, that Sovereign Princes whatsoever they were, ought to bee unto their subjects inviolable, as persons sacred, and sent unto them from God. And we doubt not, but that David a king and prophet, led by the spirit of God, had always before his eyes the law of God, which says, Thou shalt not speak evil of thy prince, nor detract the Magistrate. Neither is there any thing more common in all the holy Scripture, than the forbidding not only to kill or attempt the life or honour of a prince, but even for the very magistrates also, although (says the Scripture) they be wicked and naught. If therefore he be guilty of treason against God and man, which doth but detract the magistracy; what punishment then can be sufficient for him that shall attempt his life?
>For the law of God is in this case yet more precise than are the laws of men: For the law Julia holds but him guilty of treason, which shall give counsel to kill the magistrate, whereas the law of God expressly forbids in any sort to speak of the magistrate evil, or in any wise to detract him. Wherefore to answer unto the vain and frivolous objections & arguments of them which maintain the contrary, were but idly to abuse both our time and learning. But as he which doubts whether there be a God or nor, is not with arguments to be refuted, but with severe punishments to bee chastised: so are they also which call into question a thing so clear, and that by books publicly imprinted; that the subjects may take up arms against their prince being a Tyrant, and take him out of the way howsoever:
<Howbeit that the most learned divines, and of best understanding, are clear of opinion, that it is not lawful for a man not only to kill his Sovereign Prince, but even to rebel against him, without an especial and undoubtful commandment from God; as we read of Jehu, who was chosen of God, and by the prophet anointed king of Israel, with express commandment utterly to root out all the house of king Achab. He before as a subject had right patiently borne all his wickedness and outrages. Yea the most cruel murders and torturing of the most holy prophets, and religious men, the unworthy murders, banishments, and proscriptions of the subjects; as also the most detestable witchcraft of queen Jezebel: yet for all that durst he attempt nothing against his Sovereign Prince, until he had express commandment from God, by the mouth of his prophet, whom God indeed so assisted, as that with a small power he slew two kings, caused seventy of king Achab his children to be put to death, with many other princes of the kings of Israel and of Juda, and all the idolatrous priests of Baal, that is to say of the Sunne, after that he had caused Jesabel the queen, to be cast headlong down from an high tower, and left her body to be torn in pieces and eaten up of dogs.
>But we are not to apply this especial commandment of God, unto the conspiracies and rebellions of mutinous subjects against their Sovereign Princes. And as for that which Calvin says, if there were at this time magistrates appointed for the defense of the people, and to restrain the insolency of kings, as were the Ephori in Lacedemonia, the Tribunes in Rome, and he Demarches in Athens, that they ought to resist and impeach their licentiousnesse and crueltie: he sheweth sufficiently, that it was never lawful in a right Monarchy, to assault the prince, neither to attempt the life or honour of their Sovereign King: for he speaks not but of the popular and Aristocratique states of Commonwealths. And we have before showed, that the kings of Lacedemonia were no more but plain Senators and captains: and when he speaks of states, he says, Possibly, not daring to assure any thing. Howbeit that there is a notable difference betwixt the attempting of the honour of his prince, and the withstanding of his tyranny; between killing his king, and the opposing of ones self against his cruelty.
I feel more sympathetic to Hobbes' positions than Jean Bodin.
Thomas Hobbes: The Causes of Rebellion:
<The things that dispose to rebellion. Discontent, pretence, and hope of success
>To dispose men to sedition three things concur. The first is Discontent; for as long as a man thinks himself well, and that the present government stands not in his way to hinder his proceeding from well to better; it is impossible for him to desire the change thereof. The second is Pretence of right; for though a man be discontent, yet if in his own opinion there be no just cause of stirring against, or resisting the government established, nor any pretence to justify his resistance, and to procure aid, he will never show it. The third is Hope of success; for it were madness to attempt without hope, when to fail is to die the death of a traitor. Without these three: discontent, pretence, and hope, there can be no rebellion; and when the same are all together, there wanteth nothing thereto, but a man of credit to set up the standard, and to blow the trumpet.
Two Sorts of Discontent
>And as for discontent, it is of two sorts: for it consisteth either in bodily pain present or expected, or else in trouble of the mind (which is the general division of pleasure and pain, Part I. chap. VII, sect. 9). The presence of bodily pain disposes not to sedition; the fear of it does. As for example: when a great multitude, or heap of people, have concurred to a crime worthy of death, they join together, and take arms to defend themselves for fear thereof. So also the fear of want, or in present want the fear of arrests and imprisonment, dispose to sedition. And therefore great exactions, though the right thereof be acknowledged, have caused great seditions. As in the time of Henry VII. the seditions of the Cornish men that refused to pay a subsidy, and, under the conduct of the Lord Audley, gave the King battle upon Blackheath; and that of the northern people, who in the same king’s time, for demanding a subsidy granted in parliament, murdered the Earl of Northumberland in his house.
>Thirdly, the other sort of discontent which troubleth the mind of them who otherwise live at ease, without fear of want, or danger of violence, ariseth only from a sense of their want of that power, and that honour and testimony thereof, which they think is due unto them. For all joy and grief of mind consisting (as hath been said, Part I. chap. IX, sect. 21) in a contention for precedence to them with whom they compare themselves; such men must needs take it ill, and be grieved with the state, as find themselves postponed to those in honour, whom they think they excel in virtue and ability to govern. And this is it for which they think themselves regarded but as slaves.
>Now seeing freedom cannot stand together with subjection, liberty in a commonwealth is nothing but government and rule, which because it cannot be divided, men must expect in common; and that can be no where but in the popular state, or democracy. And Aristotle saith well (lib. 6, cap. 2 of his Politics), The ground or intention of a democracy, is liberty; which he confirmeth in these words: For men ordinarily say this: that no man can partake of liberty, but only in a popular commonwealth. Whosoever therefore in a monarchical estate, where the sovereign power is absolutely in one man, claimeth liberty, claimeth (if the hardest construction should be made thereof) either to have the sovereignty in his turn, or to be colleague with him that hath it, or to have the monarchy changed into a democracy
Noteworthy: discontent of liberty, covertly a plea for more honours
>But if the same be construed (with pardon of that unskilful expression) according to the intention of him that claimeth, then doth he thereby claim no more but this, that the sovereign should take notice of his ability and deserving, and put him into employment and place of subordinate government, rather than others that deserve less. And as one claimeth, so doth another, every man esteeming his own desert greatest. Amongst all those that pretend to, or are ambitious of such honour, a few only can be served, unless it be in a democracy; the rest therefore must be discontent. And so much of the first thing that disposeth to rebellion, namely, discontent, consisting in fear and ambition.
<[Semi-relevant, from a previous chapter]
<[The subjection of them who institute a commonwealth amongst themselves, is no less absolute, than the subjection of servants. And therein they are in equal estate; but the hope of those is greater than the hope of these. For he that subjecteth himself uncompelled, thinketh there is reason he should be better used, than he that does it upon compulsion; and coming in freely, calleth himself, though in subjection, a FREEMAN; whereby it appeareth, that liberty is not any exemption from subjection and obedience to the sovereign power, but a state of better hope than theirs, that have been subjected by force and conquest. And this was the reason, that the name that signifies children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifies freemen. And yet in Rome, nothing at that time was so obnoxious to the power of others, as children in the family of their fathers. For both the state had power over their life without consent of their fathers; and the father might kill his son by his own authority, without any warrant from the state.]
<[Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest. A freeman therefore may expect employments of honour, rather than a servant. And this is all that can be understood by the liberty of the subject. For in all other senses, liberty is the state of him that is not subject.]
On Pretence of Right
>The second thing that disposeth to rebellion, is Pretence of right. And that is when men have an opinion, or pretend to have an opinion: that in certain cases they may lawfully resist him or them that have the sovereign power, or deprive him or them of the means to execute the same. Of which pretences there be six special cases. One is, when the command is against their conscience, and they believe it is unlawful for a subject at the command of the sovereign power to do any action, which he thinketh in his own conscience not lawful for him to do, or to omit any action, which he thinketh not lawful for him to omit. Another is, when the command is against the laws, and they think the sovereign power in such sort obliged to his own laws, as the subject is; and that when he performeth not his duty, they may resist his power. A third is, when they receive commands from some man or men, and a supersedeas to the same from others, and think the authority is equal, as if the sovereign power were divided. A fourth is, when they are commanded to contribute their persons or money to the public service, and think they have a propriety in the same distinct from the dominion of the sovereign power; and that therefore they are not bound to contribute their goods and persons, no more than every man shall of himself think fit. A fifth, when the commands seem hurtful to the people; and they think, every one of them, that the opinion and sense of the people is the same with the opinion of himself, and those that consent with him; calling by the name of people, any multitude of his own faction. The sixth is, when the commands are grievous; and they account him that commandeth grievous things, a tyrant; and tyrannicide, that is, the killing of a tyrant, not only lawful, but also laudable.
>The fifth opinion: that the people is a distinct body from him or them that have the sovereignty over them, is an error already confuted, Part II. chap. XXI, sect. 11, where it is showed, that when men say: the people rebelleth, it is to be understood of those particular persons only, and not of the whole nation. And when the people claimeth any thing otherwise than by the voice of the sovereign power, it is not the claim of the people, but only of those particular men, that claim in their own persons; and this error ariseth from the equivocation of the word people.
>Besides discontent, to the disposing of a man to rebellion, and pretence, there is required, in the third place, hope of success, which consisteth in four points:
Four Dispositions for the Hope of Successful Rebellion:
<1. That the discontented have mutual intelligence;
<2. That they have sufficient number;
<3. That they have arms;
<4. That they agree upon a head.
<The Anatomy of Hopeful Rebellion
>For these four must concur to the making of one body of rebellion, in which intelligence is the life, number the limbs, arms the strength, and a head the unity, by which they are directed to one and the same action.
<Authors of Rebellion
>The authors of rebellion, that is, the men that breed these dispositions to rebel in others, of necessity must have in them these three qualities:
<1. To be discontented themselves;
<2. To be men of mean judgment and capacity;
<3. To be eloquent men or good orators.
>And as for their discontent, from whence it may proceed, hath been already declared. And for the second and third, I am to show now, first, how they may stand together; for it seems a contradiction, to place small judgment and great eloquence, or, as they call it, powerful speaking, in the same man: and then in what manner they both concur to dispose other men to sedition.
>It was noted by Sallust, that in Catiline (who was author of the greatest sedition that ever was in Rome) there was Eloquentiæ satis, sapientiæ parum; eloquence sufficient, but little wisdom. And perhaps this was said of Catiline, as he was Catiline: but it was true of him as an author of sedition. For the conjunction of these two qualities made him not Catiline, but seditious
>And that it may be understood, how want of wisdom, and store of eloquence, may stand together, we are to consider, what it is we call wisdom, and what eloquence. And therefore I shall here again remember some things that have been said already, Part I. chap. V, VI. It is manifest that wisdom consisteth in knowledge. Now of knowledge there are two kinds; whereof the one is the remembrance of such things, as we have conceived by our senses, and of the order in which they follow one another. And this knowledge is called experience; and the wisdom that proceedeth from it, is that ability to conjecture by the present, of what is past, and to come, which men call prudence.
>This being so, it is manifest presently, that the author of sedition, whosoever he be, must not be prudent. For if he consider and take his experiences aright, concerning the success which they have had, who have been the movers and authors of sedition, either in this or any other state, he shall find that of one man that hath thereby advanced himself to honour, twenty have come to a reproachful end
>The other kind of knowledge is the remembrance of the names or appellations of things, and how every thing is called, which is, in matters of common conversation, a remembrance of pacts and covenants of men made amongst themselves, concerning how to be understood of one another. And this kind of knowledge is generally called science, and the conclusions thereof truth. But when men remember not how things are named, by general agreement, but either mistake and misname things, or name them aright by chance, they are not said to have science, but opinion; and the conclusions thence proceeding are uncertain, and for the most part erroneous
>Now that science in particular from which proceed the true and evident conclusions of what is right and wrong, and what is good and hurtful to the being and well-being of mankind, the Latins call sapientia, and we by the general name of wisdom. For generally, not he that hath skill in geometry, or any other science speculative, but only he that understandeth what conduceth to the good and government of the people, is called a wise man. Now that no author of sedition can be wise in this acceptation of the word, is sufficiently proved, in that it hath been already demonstrated, that no pretence of sedition can be right or just; and therefore the authors of sedition must be ignorant of the right of state, that is to say, unwise.
>It is required therefore in an author of sedition, that he think right, that which is wrong; and profitable, that which is pernicious; and consequently that there be in him sapientiæ parum, little wisdom
>Eloquence is nothing else but the power of winning belief of what we say; and to that end we must have aid from the passions of the hearer. Now to demonstration and teaching of the truth, there are required long deductions, and great attention, which is unpleasant to the hearer; therefore they which seek not truth, but belief, must take another way, and not only derive what they would have to be believed, from somewhat believed already, but also by aggravations and extenuations make good and bad, right and wrong, appear great or less, according as it shall serve their turns. And such is the power of eloquence, as many times a man is made to believe thereby, that he sensibly feeleth smart and damage, when he feeleth none, and to enter into rage and indignation, without any other cause, than what is in the words and passion of the speaker.
>This considered, together with the business that he hath to do, who is the author of rebellion, (viz.) to make men believe that their rebellion is just, their discontents grounded upon great injuries, and their hopes great; there needeth no more to prove, there can be no author of rebellion, that is not an eloquent and powerful speaker, and withal (as hath been said before) a man of little wisdom. For the faculty of speaking powerfully, consisteth in a habit gotten of putting together passionate words, and applying them to the present passions of the hearer.
<Rebellion, a condition of war
>because the nature of this offence, consists in renouncing of subjection; which is a relapse into the condition of war, commonly called Rebellion; and they that so offend, suffer not as Subjects, but as Enemies. For Rebellion, is but war renewed.
<Hurt To Revolted Subjects Is Done By Right Of War, Not By Way Of Punishment
>Lastly, Harme inflicted upon one that is a declared enemy, fals not under the name of Punishment: Because seeing they were either never subject to the Law, and therefore cannot transgresse it; or having been subject to it, and professing to be no longer so, by consequence deny they can transgresse it, all the Harmes that can be done them, must be taken as acts of Hostility. But in declared Hostility, all infliction of evill is lawfull. From whence it followeth, that if a subject shall by fact, or word, wittingly, and deliberatly deny the authority of the Representative of the Common-wealth, (whatsoever penalty hath been formerly ordained for Treason,) he may lawfully be made to suffer whatsoever the Representative will: For in denying subjection, he denyes such Punishment as by the Law hath been ordained; and therefore suffers as an enemy of the Common-wealth; that is, according to the will of the Representative. For the Punishments set down in the Law, are to Subjects, not to Enemies; such as are they, that having been by their own act Subjects, deliberately revolting, deny the Soveraign Power.
<The Punishment Of Innocent Subjects Is Contrary To The Law Of Nature
>All Punishments of Innocent subjects, be they great or little, are against the Law of Nature; For Punishment is only of Transgression of the Law, and therefore there can be no Punishment of the Innocent. It is therefore a violation, First, of that Law of Nature, which forbiddeth all men, in their Revenges, to look at any thing but some future good: For there can arrive no good to the Common-wealth, by Punishing the Innocent. Secondly, of that, which forbiddeth Ingratitude: For seeing all Soveraign Power, is originally given by the consent of every one of the Subjects, to the end they should as long as they are obedient, be protected thereby; the Punishment of the Innocent, is a rendring of Evill for Good. And thirdly, of the Law that commandeth Equity; that is to say, an equall distribution of Justice; which in Punishing the Innocent is not observed.
<But The Harme Done To Innocents In War, Not So
>But the Infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the Common-wealth, and without violation of any former Covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature. For all men that are not Subjects, are either Enemies, or else they have ceased from being so, by some precedent covenants. But against Enemies, whom the Common-wealth judgeth capable to do them hurt, it is lawfull by the originall Right of Nature to make warre; wherein the Sword Judgeth not, nor doth the Victor make distinction of Nocent and Innocent, as to the time past; nor has other respect of mercy, than as it conduceth to the good of his own People. And upon this ground it is, that also in Subjects, who deliberatly deny the Authority of the Common-wealth established, the vengeance is lawfully extended
<Attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion
>And for the other instance of attaining Sovereignty by Rebellion; it is manifest, that though the event follow, yet because it cannot reasonably be expected, but rather the contrary; and because by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt thereof is against reason. Justice therefore, that is to say, Keeping of Covenant is the Rule of Reason, by which we are forbidden to do anything destructive to our own life; and consequently a Law of Nature.
<Hobbes' Warning to Rebels, On Their Sovereignty Attained: Be careful not to boast or plant the seeds of more pretences
<There is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified
>One reason whereof (which I have not there mentioned) is this, That they will all of them justify the War, by which their Power was at first gotten, and whereon (as they think) their Right dependeth, and not on the Possession. As if, for example, the Right of the Kings of England did depend on the goodnesse of the cause of William the Conquerour, and upon their lineall, and directest Descent from him; by which means, there would perhaps be no tie of the Subjects obedience to their Soveraign at this day in all the world: wherein whilest they needlessely think to justify themselves, they justify all the successefull Rebellions that Ambition shall at any time raise against them, and their Successors. Therefore I put down for one of the most effectuall seeds of the Death of any State, that the Conquerours require not onely a Submission of mens actions to them for the future, but also an Approbation of all their actions past; when there is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified.
<Dissolution Of Common-wealths Proceedeth From Imperfect Institution
>Though nothing can be immortall, which mortals make; yet, if men had the use of reason they pretend to, their Common-wealths might be secured, at least, from perishing by internall diseases. For by the nature of their Institution, they are designed to live, as long as Man-kind, or as the Lawes of Nature, or as Justice it selfe, which gives them life. Therefore when they come to be dissolved, not by externall violence, but intestine disorder, the fault is not in men, as they are the Matter; but as they are the Makers, and orderers of them.
>For men, as they become at last weary of irregular justling, and hewing one another, and desire with all their hearts, to conforme themselves into one firme and lasting edifice; so for want, both of the art of making fit Laws, to square their actions by, and also of humility, and patience, to suffer the rude and combersome points of their present greatnesse to be taken off, they cannot without the help of a very able Architect, be compiled, into any other than a crazy building, such as hardly lasting out their own time, must assuredly fall upon the heads of their posterity.
>Amongst the Infirmities therefore of a Common-wealth, I will reckon in the first place, those that arise from an Imperfect Institution, and resemble the diseases of a naturall body, which proceed from a Defectuous Procreation.
<Liberty Of Disputing Against Soveraign Power
>To which may be added, the Liberty of Disputing against absolute Power, by pretenders to Politicall Prudence; which though bred for the most part in the Lees of the people; yet animated by False Doctrines, are perpetually medling with the Fundamentall Lawes, to the molestation of the Common-wealth; like the little Wormes, which Physicians call Ascarides.
<Excessive Greatnesse Of A Town, Multitude Of Corporations
>Another infirmity of a Common-wealth, is the immoderate greatnesse of a Town, when it is able to furnish out of its own Circuit, the number, and expence of a great Army: As also the great number of Corporations; which are as it were many lesser Common-wealths in the bowels of a greater, like wormes in the entrayles of a naturall man.
<From Behemoth
<B:
>It seems not only by this, but also by many examples in history, that there can hardly arise a long or dangerous rebellion, that has not some such overgrown city with an army or two in its belly to foment it.
<A:
>Nay more; those great capital cities, when rebellion is upon pretence of grievances, must needs be of the rebel party: because the grievances are but taxes, to which citizens, that is, merchants, whose profession is their private gain, are naturally mortal enemies; their only glory being to grow excessively rich by the wisdom of buying and selling.
<B:
>But they are said to be of all callings the most benefical to the commonwealth, by setting the poorer sort of people on work.
<A:
>That is to say, by making poor people sell their labour to them at their own prices; so that poor people, for the most part, might get a better living by working in Bridewell, than by spinning, weaving, and other such labour as they can do; saving that by working slightly they may help themselves a little, to the disgrace of our manufacture. And as most commonly they are the first encouragers of rebellion, presuming of their strength; so also are they, for the most part, the first to repent, deceived by them that command their strength.
<Two Great Virtues
<A:
>The two great virtues, that were severally in Henry VII and Henry VIII, when they shall be jointly in one King, will easily cure it. That of Henry VII was, without much noise of the people to fill his coffers; that of Henry VIII was an early severity; but this without the former cannot be exercised.
<B:
>This that you say looks, methinks, like an advice to the King, to let them alone till he have gotten ready money enough to levy and maintain a sufficient army, and then to fall upon them and destroy them.
<A:
>God forbid that so horrible, unchristian, and inhuman a design should ever enter into the King’s heart. I would have him have money enough readily to raise an army able to suppress any rebellion, and to take from his enemies all hope of success, that they may not dare to trouble him in the reformation of the Universities; but to put none to death without the actual committing such crimes as are already made capital by the laws.
Rebel Intelligentsia / Universities [providing mutual intelligence for hopeful rebellion?]
<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
<Thomas Hobbes on monarchomachists & pro-regicides
>From the reading, I say, of such books, men have undertaken to kill their Kings, because the Greek and Latin writers, in their books, and discourses of Policy, make it lawfull, and laudable, for any man so to do; provided before he do it, he call him Tyrant. For they say not Regicide, that is, killing of a King, but Tyrannicide, that is, killing of a Tyrant is lawfull.
<Hobbes / From the same books (like Aristotle's Politics), they think in Democracies they are all freemen, but under Monarchies, all slaves
>From the same books, they that live under a Monarch conceive an opinion, that the Subjects in a Popular Common-wealth enjoy Liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all Slaves. I say, they that live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion; not they that live under a Popular Government; for they find no such matter.
<Anti-Monarchy writers, they're like Rabid Dogs
<Like rabid dogs won't drink water & have a rabid hydrophobia, rabid democratical writers have a rabid tyrannophobia;
<A monarchy bitten by rabid, snarling democratical writers wants nothing more than a strong, mean Monarch
<Once there is that Strong Monarch, it is a self-fulfilling prophesy & they abhor their Tyrant
>In sum, I cannot imagine, how anything can be more prejudicial to a Monarchy, than the allowing of such books to be publicly read, without present applying such correctives of discreet Masters, as are fit to take away their Venom; Which Venom I will not doubt to compare to the biting of a mad Dog, which is a disease the Physicians call Hydrophobia, or Fear Of Water. For as he that is so bitten, has a continual torment of thirst, and yet abhors water; and is in such an estate, as if the poison endeavoured to convert him into a Dog: So when a Monarchy is once bitten to the quick, by those Democraticall writers, that continually snarl at that estate; it wants nothing more than a strong Monarch, which nevertheless out of a certain Tyrannophobia, or fear of being strongly governed, when they have him, they abhor.
<From Aristotle, they learned to call anything but mixed constitutionalism / representative, Western multi-party democracy – Tyranny
>From Aristotle's Civil Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner of Commonwealths but the Popular, (such as was at that time the state of Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants… A Tyrant originally signified no more simply, but a Monarch: But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that kind of government was abolished, the name began to signify, not only the thing it did before, but with it, the hatred which the Popular States bare towards it: As also the name of King became odious after the deposing of the Kings in Rome, as being a thing natural to all men, to conceive some great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is given in despight, and to a great Enemy. And when the same men shall be displeased with those that have the administration of the Democracy, or Aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their anger in; but call readily the one Anarchy, and the other Oligarchy.
Hobbes' Nominalism & the arbitrary, petty Namecalling of the political arena
<Tyranny and Oligarchy, But Different Names of Monarchy, and Aristocracy
>There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy; as Tyranny, and Oligarchy: But they are not the names of other Forms of Government, but of the same Forms misliked. For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny; and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, call it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy, (which signifies want of Government;) and yet I think no man believes, that want of Government, is any new kind of Government: nor by the same reason ought they to believe, that the Government is of one kind, when they like it, and another, when they mislike it, or are oppressed by the Governours.
<Thomas Hobbes / The toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a toleration of a hatred of Commonwealth in general, & another evil seed
>And because the name of Tyranny, signifies nothing more, nor less, than the name of Sovereignty, be it in one, or many men, saving that they that use the former word, are understood to be angry with them they call Tyrants; I think the toleration of a professed hatred of Tyranny, is a Toleration of hatred to Commonwealth in general, and another evil seed, not differing much from the former.
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").
<Louis XIV on HRE
>An on this subject, my son, lest they should try to impress you sometimes with the wonderful names of Roman Empire, of Caesar, of Imperial Majesty, of successor to the great emperors from whom we derive our origin, I feel obliged to indicate to you how far the emperors of today are removed from the greatness of the titles that they affect.
>When these titles were introduced into our house, it reigned all at once over France, the Low Countries, Germany, Italy, and most of Spain, which it had distributed among various individual lords, while preserving sovereignty over it. The bloody defeats of many peoples issuing from the north and from the south for the ruin of Christendom had made the French name the terror of the whole earth. Charlemagne, finally, seeing no king in all Europe, nor, to tell the truth, anywhere else in the world, whose fortunes could compare with his, this title seemed henceforth unsuitable either for them or for him. He had risen to this high point of glory not by the choice of some prince, but by courage and by victories, which are the choice and the votes of Heaven Itself when It has resolved to subordinate the other powers to a single one. And there had not been any dominion as extensive as his except for the four famous monarchies to which the empire of the entire world is attributed, although they had never conquered nor possessed any more than a small part of it, yet important and well known in the world. That of the Romans was the last, entirely extinct in the West and with only some feeble remnants in the East, miserable and languishing.
>However, as if the Roman Empire had recovered its strength and begun to revive in our climes, which was not the case at all, this the greatest title then in the memory of man alone seemed capable of defining and designation the extraordinary loftiness of Charlemagne, and even though this loftiness itself, which he derived only from God and from his sword, gave him every right to assume whatever title he would have wanted, the Pope, who along with the entire Church was extremely indebted to him, was most pleased to contribute whatever he could to his glory and to render this capacity of emperor more authentic to him through a solemn coronation, which, like the consecration, even though it does not give us royalty, proclaims it to the people and renders it more august, more inviolable, and more sacred in us. But this greatness of Charlemagne, which was so fit to establish the title of emperor or even more magnificent ones if there had been any, did not long survive him; diminished first by the partitions that were made then among the sons of France, then by the weakness and by the lack of dedication of his descendants, particularly of the branch that had established itself on this side of the Rhine; for empires, my son, are preserved only as they are acquired, that is, by vigor, by vigilance, and by work.
>The Germans, excluding the princes of our blood, soon thereafter appropriated this dignity, or rather, substituted another in its place that had nothing in common either with the old Roman Empire nor with the new empire of our ancestors, by which they tried, as in all great changes, to arrange that everyone would find his advantage and thus not oppose it. The people and the individual states entered into it owing to the great privileges that were given to them in the name of liberty, the princes of Germany because this dignity was made elective instead of hereditary and they thereby acquired the right to appoint to it, to claim it, or both; the popes, finally, because one always professes to derive it from their authority and, basically, a great and true Roman protector. In this sense, the kings of Spain still titled themselves, only a few years ago, advocates of some of the cities that I have conquered in Flanders, that country being almost entirely divided into different advocates or protectorates of this type.
>But to return to the emperors of today, you can easily, my son, understand from this entire discussion that they are in no way comparable to the old Roman emperors, nor to Charlemagne and his first successors. For, to give them their due, they can be considered merely as heads, or captains-general, of a German republic, rather new by comparison with many other states, and which is neither so great nor so powerful that it should claim any superiority over neighboring nations. Their most important decisions are subject to the deliberations of the Estates of the Empire. One imposes whatever conditions one wants upon them at their election. Most of the members of the republic, that is, the princes and the free cities of Germany, defer to their orders only when they please. In their capacity as emperors they have very little revenue, and if they did not possess other hereditary domains of their own, they would be reduced to residing, out of all the Empire, in the sole city of Bamberg, which the bishop who is its sovereign lord would be obliged to cede to them. Thus many princes who might have attained to this dignity by election have rejected it, believing it to be more a burden than of an honor. An the Elector of Bavaria could have been emperor in my time if he had not refused to appoint himself, as the law permits, by combining his vote with those that I had secured for him in the electoral college.
>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. It cannot be denied, nonetheless, that the popes, as a consequence of what they had done, have gradually given precedence at the court of Rome to the ambassadors of the Emperor over all the others and most of the courts in Christendom have imitated this example without our predecessors having made any effort to prevent it.
>In short, my son, while I have not believed I should ask for anything new in Christendom on this matter, I have believed even less that, in my position, I should in any way tolerate anything new by which these princes might affect to assume the least superiority over me; and I counsel you to do the same, noting, however, how much virtue is to be esteemed, since, after such a long time, that of the Romans, that of the first Caesars, and that of Charlemagne still secure, without adequate reason, more honor than is due to the empty name and to the empty shadow of their empire.
Louis XIV memoir here–end–
<Jean Bodin, like Voltaire, on the HRE
>The way in which the Germans define a monarchy is absurd, that is, according to the interpretation of Philip Melanchthon, as the most powerful of all states. It is even more absurd that they think they hold the empire of the Romans, which of course would seem laughable to all who have well in mind the map of the world. The empire of the Romans was most flourishing under Trajan.
>The Germans, however, hold no part of the Roman Empire except Noricum and Vindelicia. Germany is bounded by the Rhine, the Danube, the Vistula, the Carpathian Mountains, and the ocean, but all authority ends at the foothills of the Alps in the south; by the Rhine and a few cities this side of the Rhine in the west; by Silesia, in turn, on the east; by the Baltic regions on the north. How much truer it is of the king of the Turks, who took Byzantium, the capital of the empire, from the Christians, the region of Babylon, which is discussed in the book of Daniel, from the Persians, and joined a great part of his dominion beyond the Danube, up to the mouth of the Dnieper, to the old Roman provinces? Now, if we identify monarchy with force of arms, or with great wealth, or with fertility of areas, or with the number of victories, or with the size of population, or with etymology of the name, or with the fatherland of Daniel, or with the seat of the Babylonian empire, or with the amplitude of sway, it will be more appropriate, certainly, to interpret the prophecy of Daniel as applied to the sultan of the Turks."Turning to foreign nations, what has Germany to oppose to the sultan of the Turks? Or which state can more aptly be called a monarchy? This fact is obvious to everyone–If there is anywhere in the world any majesty of empire and of true monarchy, it must radiate from the Sultan. He owns the richest parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe, and he rules far and wide over the entire Mediterranean and all but a few of its islands. Moreover, in armed forces and strength he is such that he alone is the equal of almost all the princes, since he drove the armies of the Persians and the Muscovites far beyond the boundaries of the empire. But he seized provinces of the Christians and the empire of the Greeks by force of arms, and even devastated the lands of the Germans. I shall not discuss the prince of Ethiopia, called by his people Jochan Bellul, that is, precious gem, whose empire is little less than all Europe. What of the emperor of the Tartars, who rules tribes barbarous in their savagery, countless in number, unconquered in strength? If you compare Germany with these, you compare a fly to an elephant.
…
>Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes.
…
<Jean Bodin: Indigenous, Native People of America Retain Royal Power & Marvel at Rule of Optimates like Germany & Venice
>Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be.
<Alexis de Tocqueville: The mother of modern socialism, – Royal Despotism
>Long before, Louis XIV. had publicly promulgated in his edicts the theory that all the lands in the Kingdom had been in the origin conditionally granted by the State, which was therefore the only real landowner – the actual holders having mere possessory rights, and an imperfect and questionable title. This doctrine sprang out of the feudal system, but it was never openly professed in France till that system was on the point of death; courts of justice never admitted it. It was the mother of modern socialism, which thus, strange to say, seems to have been the offspring of Royal Despotism.
<Admiration of China
>I do not exaggerate when I affirm that every one of them wrote in some place or other an emphatic eulogium on China. One is sure to find at least that in their books; and as China is very imperfectly known even in our day, their statements on its subjects are generally pure nonsense. They wanted all the nations of the world to set up exact copies of that barbarous and imbecile government, which a handful of Europeans master whenever they please. China was for them what England, and afterwards America, became for all Frenchmen. They were filled with emotion and delight at the contemplation of a government wielded by an absolute but unprejudiced Sovereign, who honored the useful arts by plowing once a year with his own hands; of a nation whose only religion was philosophy, whose only aristocracy were men of letters, whose public offices were awarded to the victors at literary tournaments.
>It is generally believed that the destructive theories known by the name of socialism are of modern origin. This is an error. These theories are coeval with the earliest economists. While some of them wanted to use the absolute power they desired to establish to change the forms of society, others proposed to employ it in ruining its fundamental basis.
>Read the Code de la Nature by Morelly; you will find therein, together with the economist doctrines regarding the omnipotence and the boundless rights of the State, several of those political theories which have terrified France of late years, and whose origin we fancy we have seen – community of property, rights of labor, absolute equality, universal uniformity, mechanical regularity of individual movements, tyrannical regulations on all subjects, and the total absorption of the individual into the Body Politic.
<Jean Bodin – HRE & Aristotle & Hereditary Kings
>Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes.
<Sir Robert Filmer – Slavish Royalty of the Oligarchies
>We do hear a great rumour in this age, of moderated and limited Kings; Poland, Sweden, and Denmark are talked of for such; and in these kingdoms, nowhere, is such a moderated government, as our Observator means, to be found. A little inquiry would be made into the manner of the government of these kingdoms: for these northern people, as Bodin observeth, breathe after liberty.
>First, for Poland, Boterus saith, that the government of it is elective altogether, and representeth rather an aristocracy than a kingdom: the nobility, who have great authority in the diets, choosing the King, and limiting his authority, making his sovereignty but a slavish royalty: these diminutions of regality began first by default of King Lewis, and Jagello, who to gain the succession in the kingdom contrary to the laws, one for his daughter, and the other for his son, departed with many of his royalties and prerogatives, to buy the voices of the nobility. The French author of the book called The Estates of the World, doth inform us that the princes' authority was more free, not being subject to any laws, and having absolute power, not only of their estates, but also of life and death.
Jean Bodin – Not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice & the Oligarchy
>Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king.
King James VI & I - True Law of Free Monarchies
>I mean always of such free Monarchies as our king is, and not of elective kings, and much less of such sort of governors, as the dukes of Venice are, whose Aristocratic (Oligarchic) and limited government, is nothing like to free Monarchies; although the malice of some writers has not been ashamed to mis-know any difference to be betwixt them.
Jean Bodin - All Honours, but no power - the device of Oligarchic & Popular Estates to Subdue Monarchy
>Wherefore in well ordered Aristocratic (Oligarchic) and Popular Commonwealthes (States), the greatest honours are granted without power of command, and the greatest powers to command are not granted without a companion therein.
>But the manner of well governed Aristocratic (Oligarchic) states, is to grant unto him the least power to whom they give the greatest honour: and sometimes also least honour unto them that be of most power: as of all others the Venetians in the ordering and government of their Commonweal best know how to use that matter.
>And so oftentimes it happens that they which have the greatest honours, are yet destitute of all power and command: as amongst the Venetians the Chancellor is created out of the people, which is with them the greatest honour; and yet without any power. So the Procurators of S. Mark, are also (with them) highly honoured, and in all Commonwealths the counsellors of estate, Embassadours, Bishops, and prelates, who have no command, and yet are more respected, than the other little Provosts, and diverse other judges, which have power to command, and jurisdiction to decide controversies, with administration of justice both high and low.
>[They are contenting themselves with the title of Highness, which is not Majesty or the mark of Sovereignty or monarchical pre-eminence]: and the duke of Venice with the addition of his Serenity, who (to speak properly) is but a very prince, that is to say, the first, for he is nothing else but the first of the gentlemen of Venice: and has no more above the rest of the Senators, than the chief place and dignity of the State or Commonwealth in all their assemblies, wherein he sits as chief; and the concluding voice into what corporation or college he come, if there be any question of voices.
A great policy of Aristocratic / Oligarchic estates
>A great policy in Aristocratical estates to give unto him least power to whom they give the most honour.
Bodin on Principality – or First Among Equals or Equal among the Estates or One Among Equals; or, the concordant power of the estates (Aristotle) opposed to majesty of sovereignty of a monarch
>The other reason was, for that the Roman emperours at the first had not any sovereign power, but were only called princes, that is to say, the chief men in the Commonwealth; which form of a Commonwealth or State – is called a principality, and not a Monarchy: but a principality is called a certain form of an Aristocracy (Oligarchy), wherein one is in honour, dignity and place, above the rest: as amongst the Venetians: For the Roman emperour or prince, at the first was in honour above the rest, but not in power: howbeit that in truth the greatest part of the Roman emperors were indeed tyrannical monarchs [who usurped the Roman republic].
<Jean Bodin: The Analogy of Three Cities with Different Forms of Commonwealth (or State) Mixing together: The Three Forms of State are of Contrary Natures:
>"So as if the mixture of things of diverse and contrary natures, arises a third all together differing form the things so together mixed. But that State which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales differs in deed nothing from a mean popular State (democracy); For if three cites, whereof one of them is governed by a King, and so a Monarchy (One); the second by an Optimacy, and so an Oligarchy (Few); the third by the People, and so a Democracy (Many); should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale (State), and so the chief power and Sovereignty communicated unto all; who is there that can doubt but that that State shall be altogether a State popular (Democracy)? except the Sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the King, then to the Nobility, and afterwards to the People; As in the vacancy of the Roman Kingdom, the King being dead, the Senators ruled by turns: yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonwealth, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all."
<Jean Bodin: Mixed Constitutonalism. An Opinion Not Only Absurd… but Treasonable
>"There are those who say, and have published in writing, that the constituton of France is a mixture of the three pure types, the Parlement representing Oligarchy (few), the Estates-General representing Democracy (many), and the King representing Monarchy (one). But this is an opinion not only absurd but treasonable. It is treasonable to exalt the subjects to be the equals and colleagues of their Sovereign Monarch."
>For otherwise if the King should be subject unto the assemblies and decrees of the People, he should neither be King nor Sovereign; and the Commonwealth not a Monarchical State, but a mere Oligarchy of many Lords in power equal, where the greater part commands the less in general, and every one in particular: and wherein the edicts and laws are not to be published in the name of him that rules, but in the name and authority of the states, as in an Aristocratical Seignorie, where he that is chief has no power, but owes obedience unto the commandments of the seignorie: unto whom they all and every one of them feign themselves to owe their faith and obedience: which are all things so absurd, as hard it is to say which is furthest from reason. SO when Charles the Eight, the French king, [being but so young], held a parliament at Tours, although the power of the parliament was never before so great as in those times, yet Relli, then speaker for the people, turning himself unto the King, thus begins his oration, which is yet in print. Most high, most mighty, and most Christian King, our natural and onely Lord, we your humble and obedient subjects, &c. Which are come hither by your command, in all HUMILITY, REVERENCE, and SUBJECTION present ourselves before you, &c. And have given me in charge from all this noble assembly, to declare unto you the good will and hartie desire they have with a most firm resolution and purpose to SERVE, OBEY, and AID you in all your affairs, commandments, and pleasures. In brief, all that his oration and speech is nothing else but a declaration of all their good wills towards the King, and of their humble obedience and loyalty.
John Cook / Aristotle's King>…And whereas it is called a Human Ordinance, 1 Peter. 2. 13. ''Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as supreme; that is either to be intended of a King that is guided and directed by his Parliaments or Counsells who in cases of Competition must yield to them with such power as a Duke of Venice or Geneva may have, or else it is an agreement and constitution of Irrational people, a nation delighting rather in servitude than freeddome; and those ancient Scholasticks & Philosophers which made such learned arguments of the best kind of Government, whether Monarchy, Aristocracy or Democracy, were to be preferred, many holding that Monarchy ought to have the preeminence, specifically where Kings were good men; Certainly they did not intend it of absolute unaccountable Monarchs, for Aristotle's King, was no more than a Duke of Venice, greater than any one, but less than all; the Prince of Orange had two votes in Counsell, which yet was more than right reason allows;Monarchy, no creature of Gods making, &c. wherein is proved by Scripture and reason, that monarchicall government is against the minde of God, and that the execution of the late king [King Charles I] was one of the fattest sacrifices that ever Queen Iustice had … / by Iohn Cookehttps://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A34420.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext;q1=Monarchy Alfredo Rocco in The Political Doctrine of Fascism also makes out a historical outlook sympathetic to monarchical absolutism:
>This innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle Ages. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement started by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution was directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as a negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and fulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages. Socially and politically considered, the Middle Ages wrought disintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual weakening and ultimate extinction of the State, embodied in the Roman Empire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to Germany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady advance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the State and reciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant particularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement of the 17th and 18th centuries was not directed against the Middle Ages, but rather against the restoration of the State by great national monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions that had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new states, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against the State. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The novelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and in its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the feudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations had been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the bourgeoisie and of the popular classes.
Many traditionalists too prefer constitutionalism on the basis that it had precedence in the Middle Ages contrary to absolutism of the early modernity starting in the late 1500s. & ancaps today repeat the Tocquevillist mantra and see Medievalism and the Holy Roman Empire as an anarchy and decentralization they admire.
Alfredo Rocco brings up Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia & Aquinas De Regno:
>It was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest political writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of unity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the dangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the State, says St. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly than he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as far as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always one. In the physical body only one organ is dominant—the heart; in the spirit only one faculty has sway—reason. Bees have one sole ruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign—God. Experience shows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of disc0rd while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice, and plenty. The states which are not ruled by one are troubled by dissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which are ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are gladdened by affluence.
>Italy in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in practice the authority of the State was being dissolved into a multiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of State unity and authority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of the Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for centuries the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it existed no longer. Dante's De Monarchia deduced the theory of this empire conceived as the unity of a strong State. "Quod potest fieri per unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura," he says in the 14th chapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as an instrument for the attainment of the ends of the State, he concludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country. "Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars quaedam civitatis … homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum." (lib. II. 8).
The Tocquevillist Slander
Personally, I'm convinced it the decentralization / centralization babble in essence goes back to Plato and Aristotle.
Aristotle disagreed with Plato, stating contrary to Plato that economical and political do have a contrary character, whereas Plato confers that they are no different and aren't of a contrary character.
Because Aristotle asserts that political rule is the rule of constitutional freemen, and that democracy is freedom; but also that monarchy is the rule of a household, and monarchy is only concerned with staying in power – Aristotle sets the record that monarchy is despotism over constitutional freemen and ought to be one among equals or always to stay with popular convention of freemen and not like a master.
Prior to the 1700s, there wasn't much talk of decentralization vs centralization like with left or right politics that's a staple of our more contemporary political lexicon–albeit we know the rudiments for this discussion in the past and how they came to be. Of course there was party politics and divisions of land and their concentration and separation. But after the colonization and constitutional debates between Americans over their colonial territory, after the French Revolution, & about the time of Alexis de Tocqueville and Bastiat, the terms decentralization and centralization were introduced with much more gravity and weight. They are words with no bearing on the concept of sovereignty.
Imo, the pretense of decentralization has always been that: the independent rule of freemen, as Aristotle puts it, contrary to Plato: the idea that political and economical are of contrary characters, and that we must respect the political estate differently. That independent heads of houses are set apart from the city itself as freemen: but in this context it's not heads of households as freemen, but autonomous regions making the pretense against the notion of states and any wider authority.
This is why Alexis de Tocqueville in the pretext of his work on the Old Regime sets it apart as the pretense of Liberty vs Despotism: that Liberty must prevail of Despotism. And despotism is the idea that the character of the political and economical are no different, like we say, back to Plato.
The followers of Tocqueville and his political legacy, like Hoppe and De Jouvenel, tend to be aristocratic apologists.
Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of the Ancien Regime brings up, however, that his study of the Middle Ages in search of the Old European Constitution is related largely to Germany / HRE (which, as we all know, muh border gore). It's what Ancaps and neofeuds always appeal to.
Jean Bodin classifies the HRE / Germany to be an Aristocracy or kind of Oligarchy, so while Alexis de Tocqueville starts his analysis for the Old Constitution of Europe and his appeal to decentralization – it's important to note how it begins with a form of state that had been recognized as aristocratic or oligarchical. Because Alexis de Tocqueville's big blurt is about centralization and decentralization: his entire critique is standing upon this chair, and if you kick this chair from beneath the feat of Alexis de Tocqueville – he will collapse and break his bones.
Alexis de Tocqueville notes in his work how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy (Oligarchy/few), and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy (Oligarchy/few)
Which is important to see how this is related to his study of Germany and the Prussian influence.
Now I would babble about how these words decentralization / centralization are anathema to sovereignty and our political understanding, but suffice to say, that this pretense begins with Aristotle saying that the economy has a different character from the political will suffice enough, esp. when it comes to his idea of freemen (which Hobbes criticizes duly). A lot we see with American exceptionalism and democracy in terms of freedom and constitutionalism goes back to Aristotle. For a mixed constitution, it is largely attributed to Aristotle and Polybius, particularly Aristotle since Aristotle views whatever is whole to be a composite.
The doctrine of absolutism that Tocqueville slanders as the mother of all modern socialism has been acknowledged beforehand numerous times. He only begrudgingly admits that it had origins in the feudal system and his only pretense is the courts never admitted it – but if you read there's plenty of testimony behind the doctrine. – What I hate about Tocqueville here is the appeal to the Middle Ages and making a huff about how medieval royalism was different to renaissance and early modern royalism kinda originates with him and ancaps and anarcho-monarchists annoy me with it like Tocqueville does.
Alexander Hamilton, for instance, says this:
Alexander Hamilton
>Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper.
>When a nation abolishes aristocracy, centralization follows as a matter of course.
-Alexis de Tocqueville
How do I see Tocqueville's political legacy today?
Tocqueville & Bastiat -→ De Jouvenel & Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -→ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
A big influence on right libertarians w/ these names.
There is a fine line between having a Monarchy with a Nobility and having an Aristocracy or Oligarchy with a petty king involved.
<Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy
>"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines… And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty.
Every movement away from Nobility / Aristocracy, Tocqueville calls centralization; every movement towards Nobility / Aristocracy, – decentralization. (The latter is where is stress is – so the Nobility is stressed above Monarchy and Democracy to achieve this aim, but not stressed on Monarchy itself which he dubs centralization).
…
De Jouvenel also stressed, following the lead of De Tocqueville, "Liberty's Aristocratic Roots" & against Caesarism (Monarchy) which he linked with Monarchy itself.
Following Tocqueville's lead, De Jouvenel placed all liberty and appeals to the Nobility and rule of a few.
<De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial
>According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considere to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense.
>Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind.
<On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle.
>On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will.
As you see here, De Jouvenel takes the Aristotelian view that political & economical differ with his distinction here^
…
<De Jouvenel / Securitarian vs Libertarian
>The conclusion is that there never was a time in any society whatsoever when some individuals did not feel themselves to be insufficiently protected, and others did not feel themselves to be insufficiently free. The former I call "securitarians" and the latter "libertarians".
De Jouvenel also tackled the issues I pointed out earlier about Plato (& where the more unitary vs pluralistic views of State come into being – Aristotle, for his part, is more senatorial and many of the like appeals De Jouvenel makes are found in Aristotle's City, which is the senatorial kind of assemblage of heads of estates and of families – the political constitution stresses the estates of the city rather than the unity of the city itself under one head like a family – I touched on this issue with the doctrine that political and economical don't differ).
In my sincere opinion, De Jouvenel obviously appeals to the "old republic" and those senatorial ideals – it doesn't matter if it be a landed, hereditary nobility with their estates OR a bunch of senators in one room – we are simply adjusting the scale from Aristotle's City projected onto nobles and their estates spread apart like in Aristotle's City the various estates of the city converging.
–So this is why I look at Tocquevillism with immense annoyance when so many monarchists, be it constitutional monarchists and right libertarians and ancaps, spurn absolute monarchy in order to achieve "decentralization" and "liberty" as ascribed here, because it bears that stamp of the heads of the estates which are always few and resemble an oligarchical form.
Why is this like rocket science to explain to other monarchists? I don't think, but I believe it is because they don't take Monarchy seriously or believe what Darius says in the Herodotus Debate or Homer's monarchist maxim in the Iliad. They've been collectively taught to embrace the Nobility as opposed to Absolute Monarchy on these grounds of decentralization and libertarian ideals… this sentiment permeates the monarchist community so thoroughly and is everywhere and is unanimous for these monarchists whether constitutionalist or libertarian, but it's very popular with traditionalists.
>De Jouvenel covering Plato's politics
>…Hegel turned it to good account: recalling that Plato in his Republic had rigorously stressed the importance of the citizens remaining undifferentiated and had seen in that the essential condition of social unity, Hegel asserted that the characteristic of the modern state was, contrarywise, to allow a process of differentiation, by which an ever growing diversity could be rangedd within an ever richer unity.
>But there would be grave dangers in so avowedly normative an approach as this. It would in the first place build an ivory tower which was so remote from reality that advice issuing from it would be unable to influence the citizens of the real world: so it was with Plato's Republic, which was built on just these foundations. Worse still, the attraction exercised by pretty pictures of this kind lures men into importing them into reality and leads them on to tyrannical actions to achieve their ideals: there is a tyranny in the womb of every Utopia.
>(Footnotes): For a denunciation of the oppressive character of the institutions conceived by Plato, see my Power, Book III, ch. VII. Almost simultaneously there appeared in London a work of vast erudition and great intellectual vigour by Professor Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies. The ideas developed in the present chapter often join hands with those of Professor Popper's fine book.
While it's true that we are critical of Plato ourselves, we do have this view of the State as a unitary being (which Plato calls in his organicism of all members of society acting like one man) and that political and economical don't differ. You've seen how De Jouvenel is opposed to these unitary views. And when it comes to Monarchy itself, the stress on the chiefs and senatorial view is akin to Aristotle's City and notion of Politics. You could say, however, that I am misrepresenting De Jouvenel and I'd be fine if anyone would say so, but the overall sentiment I feel from the Tocquevillists (De Jouvenel & Alexis de Tocqueville) is this stress on the Nobility and for all the aforementioned reasons I disapprove of it and wish monarchists would stop with their Tocquevillism and with the influx of right libertarians and constitutional monarchists in agreement with those right libertarians and all this flirtation with the traditionalists about the clerical estate, have turned themselves into a hate train against absolute monarchy. I deal with their snubbing way too often and can't stand the majority of the monarchist community because they're drunk with it. The same with NeoAbsolutists who formed a cult around De Jouvenel with their blogs (but thankfully died down when Von Hallerism took over). I swear the monarchist community is so stupid.
De Jouvenel - Republic of Old
>The republic of old had no state apparatus. It needed no machinery for imposing the public will on all the citizens, who would have had none of such a thing. The citizens, with their own wills and their own resources – these latter small at first but continuously growing – decide by adjusting their wills and execute by pooling their resources.
>We do not find anywhere in the ancient republic a directing will so armed with its own weapons that it can use force. There were the consults, I may be told. But to start with there were two of them, and it was an essential feature of the office that they could block one another's activities.
>Only those decisions were possible on which there was general agreement, and, in the absence of any state apparatus, their execution depended solely on the cooperation of the public. The army was but the people in arms, and the revenues were but the sums gifted by the citizens, which could not have been raised except by voluntary subscriptions. There was not, to come down to the essential point, an administrative corps.
>In the city of old, no public office is found filled by a member of a permanent staff who holds his place from Power; the method of appointment is election for a short period, usually a year, and often by the drawing of lots, which was called by Aristotle the true democratic method.
>It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one piece. On the contrary, the magistrates, great and small, discharge their duties in a way which verges on independence….
>How was a regime of this kind able to function at all? Only be great moral cohesion and the inter-availability of private citizens for public office….
…So De Jouvenel espouses anti-monarchical, Aristotelian political pluralism against state corporatism / absolute monarchy, just like Aristotle did…
Like Aristotle, along with rejecting the rule of a wise man like Plato's philosopher kings, also counterpoised a strong middle class and that an oligarchy would invite the poor into assembly to help preserve the oligarchy and pass any conflicts, but keeping the main advantage.
Tocqueville thought the same with a middle class.
Aristotle also acknowledged the advent of the middle class as the decline of monarchies and that is where that meme comes from… like in that interview with the Shah of Iran asking him about whether there are other hereditary monarchies in the world and how he expects to rule when people get wealthier.
<De Jouvenel on Middle Class
<How can men whose authority rests on Power's guarantee oppose to it the proud independence which honourably distinguished the ancient aristocracy? Lacking now all strength of their own, they no longer uphold Power; no longer upholding Power, they have become incapable of limiting it. The notions of aristocracy and liberty have parted company.
>The heirs of their libertarian aspirations are the middle class. We will define the middle class, if we must, as composed of those who have enough social strength to stand in no need of any special protection and to desire the largest measure of liberty, but have on the other hand not enough strength to make their liberties oppressive to others.
De Jouvenel on chiefs of clans
>However it may be with these conjectures, it is a certain point of historical development we meet with the ambitious king who aims at extending his own prerogative at the expense of the chiefs of clans –"the absolute monarchs of their families," as Vico calls them–and is jealous of their independence.
Rather, Aristotle paints the other picture around – of a usurping middle class and oligarchy not standing the pre-eminence of one person like an absolute monarch.
Aristotle – No longer bearing the pre-eminence of one
>The first governments were kingships, probably for this reason, because of old, when cities were small, men of eminent virtue were few. Further, they were made kings because they were benefactors, and benefits can only be bestowed by good men.
>But when many persons equal in merit arose, no longer enduring the pre-eminence of one, they desired to have a commonwealth, and set up a constitution.
And this Aristotle reins in as the inevitable decline of monarchy with chiefs of equal merit wanting a constitution and aristocracy.
Now remember De Jouvenel is famous for his HLvM (Monarchy + Democracy vs Aristocracy) where Power advances by this conflict of the High meeting with the Low to screw over the Middle. This is the paradigm that many in the right libertarian circles see: and De Jouvenel himself goes along with the narrative that Marx has that absolute monarchy merged with the bourgeois to institute itself. So be mindful of that.
This is something we see in the advent of NRx terms like BioLeninism: where those in power usurp the superiors with the degenerates for their slave loyalty.
<De Jouvenel - Absolutist work of Monarchy vs libertarian work of Aristocracy
>Will historians, in their passion for libertarian and anti-absolutist institutions, admire the resistance of aristocracy to the formation of absolutism? Sismondi, for instance, states that in the Middle Ages "all the real advances made in independence of character, in the safeguarding of rights, and in the limitations forced by discussion on the caprices and vices of absolute Power, were due to the hereditary aristocracy."
<De Jouvenel – The only thing Caesarism fears, right libertarians
>In this way is removed the only obstacle that Caesarism has to fear–a movement of libertarian resistance, emanating from a people with subjective rights to defend and under the natural leadership of eminent men whom their credit qualifies and whom the insolence of wealth does not disqualify.
De Jouvenel - Monarchy First Instituted Power
>We see then that the monarchical period established in the body of society a distinct organ: this was Power, which has its own life, its own interests, its own characteristics, its own ends. It needs studying under this aspect.
(I believe this was after De Jouvenel's talk of the old republic).
Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.
Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.
Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart those laws which render the State as unified as possible
Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
<With Aristotle's Politics:
Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.
Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life.
And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life;
>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.
Aristotle Politics / Anti-State Corporatism / Anti-Absolute Monarchy
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.
Aristotle writes in Politics,
>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state.
Aristotle:
>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head:
>whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals.
<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.
State Corporatism is a unitary politics with the State as one personhood, a living organism, a higher personality and being; not to be confused with a collection of private corporations.
The ideology of State Corporatism traces its lineage back to Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan, and the formation of one-party States and Fascism.
In Plato's Republic is State Corporatism:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.
In Hobbes' Leviathan is State Corporatism:
>And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.”
In Italian Fascism is State Corporatism:
Gentile
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
Giuseppe Bottai
>However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers – relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger."
A brief disclaimer: this is the what the corporatism of Fascism is, State Corporatism, and not to be mistaken with the corporative system itself which act as internal organs of this higher personality. Those corporate bodies are limited and are organs, and that kind of corporatism is more analogous to guilds, the primary corporatism of Fascism is State Corporatism, these are corporations are organs and limited internally in relation to "The State" (which in this connotation refers to State Corporatism especially).
Mario Palmieri:
>To make this discipline possible, and the sovereignty effective in practice as well as in theory, Fascism has devised the “Corporazione,” an instrument of social life destined to exercise the most far-reaching influence upon the economic development of Fascist States. (The Italian word “Corporazione” which is currently translated into English by the apparently analogous word “Corporation,” means, more exactly in the Italian language, what the word “Guild” means in English; that is: associations of persons engaged in kindred pursuits. We shall nevertheless follow the general usage to obviate the danger of misunderstandings.)
>Within the Corporations the interests of producers and consumers, employers and employees, individuals and associations are interlocked and integrated in a unique and univocal way, while all types of interests are brought under the aegis of the State.
Fausto Pitigliani
>That the Corporation has no legal independent personality but is an organ of the State Administration.
>To these organs, which take the name of Corporations and link the various productive activities of the country as members of one body
>The Corporations constitute the unitary organisation of the forces of production and represent all their interests.
>In virtue of this integral representation, and in view of the fact that the interests of production are the interests of the Nation, the law recognises the Corporations as State organs.
For clarity, Hobbes Leviathan also takes this stance on the limitation of subordinate corporations and the sovereign relationship of the state corporation:
>Of Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but their own Representative: such are only Common-wealths [or States]; Of which I have spoken already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent; that is to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one, as also their Representative is Subject.
>Of Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private. Politicall (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,) are those, which are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the Common-wealth. Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects amongst themselves, or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority derived from forraign power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique there, but Private.
>In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power of The Representative is Limited.
>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.
Jean Bodin also adds.
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.
>I have said "limited", since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State.
>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.
State Corporatism is anything but Aristotelian.
Where Plato praises it, Aristotle condemns it.
Aristotle Politics
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.
Contrast this with Plato again.
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.
As you can see, Plato supports many in one, but Aristotle condemns it.
The taboo in the West against one-party States (for leftist vanguardism AND fascism) originates with Aristotle, and Aristotle condemns it for the same reason Aristotle condemns an absolute monarchy: it is seen as a tyranny over constitutionalism and the multi-parties and estates.
Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW:
Speech of the Ascension, May 26, 1927
The Unitary State
>But in the meantime I come to an essential point of my speech: perhaps the most important. What have we Fascists done in these last five years? We did something huge, monumental, centuries in the making. What have we made? We have created the Italian Unitary State. Consider that from the time of the Empire onward, Italy was no longer a unitary State. Here we solemnly reaffirm our doctrine concerning the State; here I reaffirm my formula in the speech I delivered at La Scala in Milan: "Everything within the State, nothing against the State". I do not even think anyone in the 20th century can live outside the State, unless they are in a state of barbarism, a state of savagery.
>It is only the State that gives people a consciousness of itself. If the people are not organized, if the people are not a State, they are simply a population that will be at the mercy of the first group of internal adventurers or external invaders. Because, dear gentlemen, only the State with its juridical organization, with its military force, prepared at all times, can defend the national collectivity; but if the human collectivity is broken up and reduced to the mere nucleus of the family, a few hundred Normans will suffice to conquer Puglia.
>What was the State – that State which we took over as it was breathing its last breath, gnawed by constitutional crises, debased by its organic impotence? The State which we conquered at the time of the March on Rome was the one which has been handed down from 1850 onward. It was not a State, but a system of badly organized prefectures, in which the prefect had but one preoccupation: that of being an efficient electoral errand boy.
Fascism and Democracy
>In that State, until 1922, the proletariat – what shall I say? the entire people – was absent, refractory, hostile. Today we announce to the world the creation of the powerful Unitary Italian State from the Alps to Sicily. And this State expresses itself in a centralized, organized, unitary democracy in which the people move about at ease, because, gentlemen, either you place the people within the citadel of the State, and they will defend it, or they will be outside, and they will assault it.
Hobbes Elements of Lawhttp://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/31/91.pdf>And as this union into a city or body politic, is instituted with common power over all the particular persons, or members thereof, to the common good of them all; so also may there be amongst a multitude of those members, instituted a subordinate union of certain men, for certain common actions to be done by those men for some common benefit of theirs, or of the whole city; as for subordinate government, for counsel, for trade, and the like. And these subordinate bodies politic are usually called CORPORATIONS; and their power such over the particulars of their own society, as the whole city whereof they are members have allowed them.
>In all cities or bodies politic not subordinate, but independent, that one man or one council, to whom the particular members have given that common power, is called their SOVEREIGN, and his power the sovereign power. which consisteth in the power and the strength that every of the members have transferred to him from themselves, by covenant. And because it is impossible for any man really to transfer his own strength to another, or for that other to receive it; it is to be understood: that to transfer a man's power and strength, is no more but to lay by or relinquish his own right of resisting him to whom he so transferreth it. And every member of the body politic, is called a SUBJECT, (viz.) to the sovereign…
>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same hath not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union. <Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.
<Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth
>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.
<Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.
>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.
<Hobbes / That a Family is a little City
>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."
Thomas Hobbes
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth [state] or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union
&
>A great Family if it be not part of some Commonwealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign.
&
>And as small Familyes did then; so now do Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families
<Rousseau / Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government
>Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government… With the help of this supposition, it is easy to make out that royal government is preferable to all others, because it is unquestionably the strongest; and in addition to that, all it needs to be the best but doesn't have – is a corporate will that is more in conformity with the general will.
<Giuseppe Bottai
>All modern history, that is, all contemporaneous life, leads to the corporative conception of the State with the inclusion of Economics within the State or the identification of Economics with Politics.
<Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Family & Nation
>If a family is to manage its household affairs well only one member of the family should control its finances. Likewise, if a nation is to manage its economic life properly it must use its finances on the principle of a single management system.
Jean Bodin on Aristotle & Monarchy
>[Aristotle], who defines a King to be him, who chosen by the people, reigns according to the desire of them his subjects: from whose will (as he in another place says) if he never so little depart, he becomes a TYRANT. Which his description is not only without reason, but also dangerous: for that sovereign power which he said to be most proper unto a King, must so needs fail, if the King could nothing command against the liking and good will of his subjects; but must to the contrary be constrained to receive laws of them – in brief it should be lawful for the people to do all things; and the most just and best Kings should be so accounted for TYRANTS: neither were a King to be reputed of anything else, than of a mean magistrate, unto whom power were to be given, and again taken away at the people's pleasure.
<Which are all things impossible, and no less absurd also, than is that which the same Aristotle says, That they are barbarous people, where their kings come by succession. When as yet his own King and Scholar Alexander the Great, was one of them which descended in right line from the blood of Hercules, and by right succession came to the kingdom of Macedon. The Lacedemonians should also be barbarous, who from the same stock of the Heraclides, had had their Kings about a thousand years. The people of Asia also, the Persians, and Egyptians, should all be barbarous: in whom not only rested, but from whom all humanity, courtesy, learning, knowledge, and the whole source and fountain of good laws and Commonwealths have sprung: and so at last none but Aristotle with some handful of Greeks should be free from barbarism.
>Whereas indeed nothing can be devised more dangerous unto the State of a Commonwealth, than to commit the election of Kings unto the suffrages of the people; as shall in due place be hereafter declared. Although Aristotle be in that also deceived, where he says, That there be three sorts of Kings; & yet having in his discourse reckoned up four, in casting up the account he finds out a fifth.
>The first he calls Voluntary Kings, as reigning by the will and good liking of the people, such as were the Kings come by the will and good liking of the people, such as were the Kings of Heroic times, whom he supposes to have been Captains, Judges, and Priests.
>The 2nd he says, are proper unto the barbarous nations, where Kings come by succession.
>The 3rd are made by election.
>The 4th was proper to the Lacedemonians, whom he says to have been perpetual generals in their wars; the son still succeeding his father.
>The 5th and last kind, is of them which having themselves got the Lordly sovereignty, use their subjects, as does the Master of the household his slaves.
>As for the first sort of Kings, we find, that they indeed executed the offices of Judges, Captains, and Priests, yet none of them are found to have ruled at the will and pleasure of the people, neither to have received their authority from the people, before Pitacus King of Corinth, and Timondas King of Nigropont: but to the contrary, Plutarch writes, That the first princes had no other honor before their eyes, then to force men, and to keep them in subjection as slaves; whereof the Holy Scripture also certifies us of the first Lordly Monarchy Nimrod; leaving the sovereignty to their children, in right of succession; as says Thucydides. Which has also been well confirmed by the succession of a great number of Kings of the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Indians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Lacedemonians, Macedonians, Sicyonians, Epirots, Athenians: and their lines failing, the people in part proceeded to make choice of their Kings by way of election, some others invaded the State by force, other some maintained themselves in Aristocratic and popular seigneury; as witnesses Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Berosus, Plutarch, Xenophon, and other most ancient historiographers of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, sufficient to convince the opinion of Aristotle of untruth in those things that he has writ concerning Kings.
Aristotle & Tyranny, even the slightest bit contrary to the will of the people
>What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king.
Jean Bodin / The native people of America retained royal power, shaped by their Leader – Nature – they were not trained by Aristotle
>Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be.
Jean Bodin - Aristotle & hereditary kings
>Finally, all the peoples of the earth except Germans, Swiss with their allies, Venetians, Ragusans, Lucchese, and Genoese, who are ruled by the power of Optimates or have Popular governments. But if so many people are uncivilized because they have hereditary kings, oh, where will be the abode of culture? The fact that Aristotle thought it disastrous, however, seems to me much more absurd. For in the first place an interregnum is clearly dangerous, since the State, like a ship, without a pilot, is tossed about by the waves of sedition and often sinks. This happened after the death of Emperor Frederick II. The country, in a state of anarchy, was without an emperor for eighteen years on account of the civil war among the princes.
Jean Bodin on Aristotle & Monarchy Continued
>For even Aristotle himself is of opinion, That Monarchs should be created by election, calling the people barbarous, which have their Kings by right of succession. And for which cause he deemed the Carthaginians more happy than the Lacedemonians, for that these had their Kings by succession from the fathers to the the sons in the stock and line of Hercules, whereas the others still had them by election and choice. But so he might call the Assyrians barbarous, the Medes, the Persians, the Egyptians, the people of Asia, the Parthians, the Armenians, the Indians, the Africans, the Turks, the Tartars, the Arabians, the Muscovites, the Celts, the Englishmen, the Scots, the Frenchmen, the Spaniards, the Peruvians, the Numidians the Ethiopians; and an infinite number of other people, who still have, and always before had, their Kings by right of succession. Yea and we find in Greece (the country of Aristotle himself) that the Athenians, the Lacedemonians, Sicyonians, the Corinthians, the Thebans, the Epirots, the Macedonians, had more than by the space of six hundred years, had their Kings by right of lawful succession, before that ambition had blinded them to change their Monarchies into Democracies and Aristocracies. Which had likewise taken place in Italy also, whereas the Hetruscians and Latins for many worlds of years had their Kings still descending from the fathers to the sons.
<Now if so many people and nations were all barbarous, where then should humanity and civility have place? It should be only in Poland, in Denmark, and in Sweden; for that almost these people alone have their Kings by election: and yet of them none, but such as were themselves also royally descended.
>Cicero says, humanity and courtesy to have taken beginning in the lesser Asia, and from thence to have been divided unto all the other parts of the world: and yet for all that the people of Asia had no other kings, but by succession from the father to the son, or some other the nearest of kin.
>And of all the ancient kings of Greece, we find none but Timondas, who was chosen King of Corinth, and Pittacus of Nigropont. And at such time as the royal name and line sailed, oftentimes the strongest or the mightest carried it away as it chanced after the death of Alexander the Great, who was in right line descended from Hercules, and the Kings of Macedon, who had continued above five hundred years: whose lieutenants afterwards made themselves Kings, Antipater of Macedon, Antigonus of Asia the less, Nicanor of the upper Asia, Lysimachus of Thracia: So that there is not one to be found among them, which was made King by election. So that even Greece itself (the nurse of learning & knowledge) should by this reason, in the judgement of Aristotle, be deemed barbarous. Howbeit that the word Barbarous, was in ancient time no word of disgrace, but attributed unto them which spoke a strange language and not the natural language of the country. For so the Hebrews called also the ancient Egyptians, then of all nations the most courteous and learned, Barbarous–
Jean Bodin
>"Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be."
>"What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king"
From Samuel Johnson's Taxation No Tyranny
>The Colonies of England differ no otherwise from those of other nations, than as the English constitution differs from theirs. All Government is ultimately and essentially absolute, but subordinate societies may have more immunities, or individuals greater liberty, as the operations of Government are differently conducted. An Englishman in the common course of life and action feels restraint. An English Colony has very liberal powers of regulating its own manners and adjusting its own affairs. But an English individual may by the supreme authority be deprived of liberty, and a Colony divested of its powers, for reasons of which that authority is the only judge.
>In sovereignty there are no gradations. There may be limited royalty, there may be limited consulship; but there can be no limited government. There must in every society be some power or other from which there is no appeal, which admits no restrictions, which pervades the whole mass of the community, regulates and adjusts all subordination, enacts laws or repeals them, erects or annuls judicatures, extends or contracts privileges, exempt itself from question or control, and bounded only by physical necessity.
>By this power, wherever it subsists, all legislation and jurisdiction is animated and maintained. From this all legal rights are emanations, which, whether equitably or not, may be legally recalled. It is not infallible, for it may do wrong; but it is irresistible, for it can be resisted only by rebellion, by an act which makes it questionable what shall be thenceforward the supreme power.
>An English Colony is a number of persons, to whom the King grants a Charter permitting them to settle in some distant country, and enabling them to constitute a Corporation, enjoying such powers as the Charter grants, to be administrated in such forms as the Charter prescribes. As a Corporation they make laws for themselves, but as a Corporation subsisting by a grant from higher authority, to the control of that authority they continue subject.
Samuel Johnson continued
>A COLONY is to the Mother-country as a member to the body, deriving its action and its strength from the general principle of vitality; receiving from the body, and communicating to it, all the benefits and evils of health and disease; liable in dangerous maladies to sharp applications, of which the body however must partake the pain; and exposed, if incurably tainted, to amputation, by which the body likewise will be mutilated.
>The Mother-country always considers the Colonies thus connected, as parts of itself; the prosperity or unhappiness of either is the prosperity or unhappiness of both; not perhaps of both in the same degree, for the body may subsist, though less commodiously, without a limb, but the limb must perish if it be parted from the body.
>Our Colonies therefore, however distant, have been hitherto treated as constituent parts of the British Empire. The inhabitants incorporated by English Charters, are entitled to all the rights of Englishmen. They are governed by English laws, entitled to English dignities, regulated by English counsels, and protected by English arms; and it seems to follow by consequence not easily avoided, that they are subject to English government, and chargeable by English taxation.
>To him that considers the nature, the original, the progress, and the constitution of the Colonies, who remembers the first discoverers had commissions from the Crown, that the first settlers owe to a Charter their civil forms and regular magistracy, and that all personal immunities and legal securities, by which the condition of the subject has been from time to time improved, have been extended to the Colonists, it will not be doubted but the Parliament of England has a right to bind them by statutes, and to bind them in all cases whatsoever, and has therefore a natural and constitutional power of laying upon them any tax or impost, whether external or internal, upon the product of land, or the manufactures of industry, in the exigencies of war, or in the time of profound peace, for the defence of America, for the purpose of raising a revenue, or for any other end beneficial to the Empire.
Archibald Kennedy
>There is, in every Family, a Sort of Government without any fixed Rules; and indeed it is impossible, even in a little Family, to form Rules for every Circumstance; and therefore it is better conceived than expressed; but perfectly understood by every Individual belonging to the Family. The Study of the Father or Master, is for the Good of the Whole; all Appeals are to him; he has a Power, from the Reason and Nature of Things, to check the Insolent, or Indolent, and to encourage the Industrious: In short, the whole Affairs of the Family are immediately under the Care or Direction of the Father or Master; and this is a natural Prerogative, known and acknowledged by every Man living, who has ever had a Family, or been any Ways concerned in a Family, in all Ages and in all Places. His Majesty, as he is our political Father, his political Prerogative, from the like Circumstances and Reasons, is equally necessary. And this political Authority has been allowed the supreme Director, in all States, in all Ages, and in all Places; and without it, there would be a Failure of Justice.
Robert Filmer / Directive Power
>The first Father had not only simply power, but power monarchical, as he was a Father, immediately from God. For by the appointment of God, as soon as Adam was created he was monarch of the world, though he had no subjects; for though there could not be actual government until there were subjects, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity: though not in act, yet at least in habit. Adam was a King from his creation: and in the state of innocency he had been governor of his children; for the integrity or excellency of the subjects doth not take away the order or eminency of the governor.
>but as for directive power, the condition of human nature requires it, since civil society cannot be imagined without power of government: for although as long as men continued in the state of innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things which were necessarily and morally to be done; yet things indifferent, that depended merely on their free will, might be directed by the power of Adam's command.
I think a good illustration between the stress of absolute monarchy & "neofeudalists"/some constitutional monarchists is between the Catholic Church's Ultramontanism/Papal Primacy versus Orthodoxy's autocephalous churches.
…
Papalism has a unitary/corporate structure.
Orthodoxy has Aristotle's partnership of clans, numerous churches and their primates, with Constantinople being the first among equals in honors.
…
Jean Bodin considered Papalism to really be Conciliarism either way, but the pretense of Papalism is basically unitary.
Those two samples is a good illustration for why absolute monarchy of the 16th-19th centuries is more earnest monarchism than the pretenses of Medievalists with their De Jouvenel and "traditional monarchy"–(they're just looking out for Papalism at the end of the day).
Anyways, all Christians are monarchists for Jesus no matter the Church organization–so keep this in mind too.
Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
…
>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
…
>They who compare a City and its Citizens, with a man and his members, almost all say, that he who hath the supreme power in the City, is the relation to the whole City, such as the head is to the whole man. But it appears by what has been already said, that he who is endued with such a power (whether it be a man, or a Court) has a relation to the City, not as that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill.
Don't take anyone's loyalty for their word or think it will come naturally with the gentle breeze. It takes a lot of effort. And even then… By default, don't consider people reliable that way. Seek out the opportunity, but definitely don't take anything for granted.
Like Machiavelli suggests, there are many counterfeit loyalties. When the heat is on, people bail.
…
As for revolting, Tempest Shadow (from the MLP movie) & Hobbes are more accurate: people revolt either when it is opportune or when their discontent foments from personal harm to them directly as to kill them. They don't revolt because it is their duty. Their natural state might as well be revolt (war of all against all)–no need for Aquinas to tell them.
…
People don't care. –They don't really care if USA is bombing and killing other people far away or if others they barely know suffer–and they'll bring up the suffering to take advantage of it against their opponents to shame them, not out of compassion for the suffering.
…
When it comes to resistance theory, and in particular Aquinas, another factor Hobbes has over them is that while they anticipate people will revolt when there is injustice – I think what Hobbes has over Aquinas here is that civilization is not a free gift of the human spirit, or a political animal, and that people are naturally inclined to stick together for the benefit of their body-politic – rather, ruling the people is like ruling wolves, who are ready to pounce and bite at any instance, unjustly or justly, they'll pounce if you stick your neck out and give them the opportunity… and among the reasons they don't revolt is because there is an influx of doggy treats holds off discontent and fear for their livelihood if they do–but this view, that people are predisposed to revolt, basically unravels pulls the rug from underneath resistance theory by changing the perspective, as Hobbes says, that the tongue of a man is like a trumpet of war, and this pessimistic tone that civilization is fragile and can fracture at any moment puts more stress on security and stability in spite of this.
…
I'm not altogether sure I would say people are totally motivated by self-interest/life preservation, but I agree with Hobbes that people aren't born apt for political society (which Hobbes states against Aristotle) – at least, if anything, people aren't born ready for royal monarchy – instead they have to be reared and educated consistently – like Xenophon says, don't think loyal followers grow like grass in the field.
…
Civilization might easily fall apart like a jenga tower: If there is anything I agree with Hobbes about is how fragile it is–it takes incredible effort and education to keep a political organism alive, and it might fall even at the best of times–that is how fickle it all is.
…
That is what you see today: plenty of compulsory education to keep people in line, and routines prescribed like that–people might not think the tongue of a man is a trumpet of war, but that is because all the civic education and the cult of personality of these states makes it the norm, and pretty much domesticates people, and keeps the influx of treats going.
Opinion on work / life balance
Ideally, on the level of comfort, you wouldn't have to work constantly to survive, but have some level of subsistence if you wanted a break.
My friend had a nice life / work balance by occasionally working every few months to rake up money, then after his job… taking his own time off to have free time.
He could only get away with this lifestyle thanks to living with his parents.
Work probably wouldn't be as grating if it wasn't something you were shackled into by a number of forces like make you have to stick to the grind.
If people had security to join and leave the workforce every once in a while and bide their time, kind of like a part time worker, that would be better.
>Would it solve all humanity's problem?
It's not only for profit and necessity that people are constantly working.
Government begins with the economy and workplace itself. That is where the business of government takes place, to tidy you up, and begin to influence your life. It is really like the 2nd layer after compulsory education in a long series of events to rake people in and discipline them and take time to preach whatever the regime wants to teach the populace, which also happens through employment because the government can also have its gospel carried down through the employers to teach the employees how to behave… is one way employers and the government work together to enforce an agenda in coordinating how the public is taught to behave.
There is a saying, Unworked hands are dangerous hands.
If people were unemployed, a concern is they'd take time to break into rebellion or commit petty crime constantly like hoodlums. That is another reason why from the governor's perspective it is better to have the general populace working, since ample leisure time not only inhibits their capacity to discipline and mold you, but also generally speaking gives people time to rebel and do petty crime, especially if they aren't hooked, and a plethora of other problems if people are interacting more.
>It is also in the interests of the tyrant to make his subjects poor [so they keep working]… the people are so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no time for plotting [or revolution]I honestly agree more with Hobbes than Aristotle… people are more inclined to bitterly fight and compete against one another than be kept by ties of companionship, so fundamentally a concord of hosts or partnership of clans fails to take heed and deference ultimately goes to an arbiter to keep the wheels turning functionally.
That is nothing to parade about, but do people revolt for justice or injustice?–No, they revolt when it is opportune or due to harm–people do not revolt when it is their duty, but again when it is opportune or they are in harm's way.
If people revolted because it was their duty, which many people are mistaken to think is the case, and that the masses are incorruptible judges… well… they would have moved to overthrow during the Epstein files–the reality is people just don't give a fuck in general. They don't care if the US bombs brown people or atrocities are committed, and they gladly also eat the spoils of war like fledgling birds with their mouths open.
People are also far easier to play divide and conquer with–than to unite–and naturally, any government (not only a dictatorship or tyranny, lest you only scruple them) has a keen interest keeping the general populace employed enough to not revolt, as is the case not only for so-called tyrants but republics and democracies like our own.
The natural state of people is already a revolt… that what keeps that revolt at bay is an influx of dog treats… and subsistence… it takes layers upon layers of training to achieve the state of society to keep the people's loyalty not only to a regime, but also loyalty amongst themselves, and they are far from born loyal, but have to be reared and taught like Xenophon says,
>But never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the fieldHobbes writes, in denial of Aristotle:
>1st. For first among them there is a contestation of honour and preferment; among beasts [such as ants or bees] there is none: whence hatred and envy, out of which arise sedition and war, is among men; among beasts no such matter. People are prone to fight for honor and rewards, they envy the wealth and riches of each other, and class conflict is re-occuring–many redpilled anons romanticize an aristocracy of nobles as a class of rigid men who keep the moral code, but what you get is a more competition, in-fighting, and division of people like multi-party democracies do, with their political parties, dividing the public against each other, making people mutual enemies rather than mutual friends or family…
>3rd. Thirdly, those creatures which are void of reason, see no defect, or think they see none, in the administration of their Commonweales; but in a multitude of men there are many who supposing themselves wiser than others, endeavour to innovate, and diverse Innovators innovate diverse ways, which is a mere distraction, and civil war.So they tend to fracture into many political parties and factionalism.
>4th. Fourthly, these brute creatures, howsoever they may have the use of their voice to signify their affections to each other, yet want they that same art of words which is necessarily required to those motions in the mind, whereby good is represented to it as being better, and evil as worse than in truth it is; But the tongue of man is a trumpet of war, and sedition; and it is reported of Pericles, that he sometimes by his elegant speeches thundered, and lightened, and confounded whole Greece itself. It's easier for people to break into drama like they do feuding like what notoriously happens on a Disc0rdcuck server.
>5th. Fifthly, they cannot distinguish between injury and harm; Thence it happens that as long as it is well with them, they blame not their fellowes: But those men are of most trouble to the Republique, who have most leisure to be idle; for they use not to contend for publique places before they have gotten the victory over hunger, and cold. So even in the moments of peace, men are searching for conflict.
That is why I agree more with the modern outlook, that is Machiavellian or Hobbesian, than Aristotle's. And fear of an enemy works to keep people together. If fear of an enemy disappears, the people fight amongst themselves.
The more art of Alunya like this… the more I need to come up with pictures to fire back…
What the Rothschild puppeteers says is basically so, reach & repetition is what matters for the propagandist.
This cartoon illustrates that. People are surrounded with the repetition of themes–it surrounds their consciousness and soon the environment clouds their thoughts–where they see honor and worship extended out, and others participating in it, they'll likely follow.
…
Carl Schmitt, for instance, criticizes Hobbes' for allowing private conscience, but Hobbes' mentality is reach and repetition when it comes to public worship.
Where men see public worship, they fall into a state of awe by the power of others & private conscience is seeped into.
…
Fascist propaganda takes the same lessons expounded in Hobbes' Leviathan: there is a use of repetition and civil worship.
Duce, duce, duce.
Si, si, si, si.
Vincere, vincere, vincere.
These propagandists know repetition is useful for breaking into a train of thought & inspiring actions by a sequence of their thoughts.
Hobbes: Civil Worship
>But in a larger use of the word Image, is contained also, any Representation of one thing by another. So an earthly Soveraign may be called the Image of God: And an inferiour Magistrate the Image of an earthly Soveraign.
>To be uncovered, before a man of Power and Authority, or before the Throne of a Prince, or in such other places as hee ordaineth to that purpose in his absence, is to Worship that man, or Prince with Civill Worship; as being a signe, not of honoring the stoole, or place, but the Person;
>To pray to a King for such things, as hee is able to doe for us, though we prostrate our selves before him, is but Civill Worship;
>And of that opinion, the externall signes appearing in the Words, and Actions of men, are called Worship; which is one part of that which the Latines understand by the word Cultus: For Cultus signifies properly, and constantly, that labour which a man bestows on any thing, with a purpose to make benefit by it. Now those things whereof we make benefit, are either subject to us, and the profit they yield, follows the labour we bestow upon them, as a natural effect; or they are not subject to us, but answer our labour, according to their own Wills. In the first sense the labour bestowed on the Earth, is called Culture; and the education of Children a Culture of their mindes.
>The End of Worship among men, is Power. For where a man sees another worshipped supposes him powerful, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater.
>And this is Publique Worship; the property whereof, is to be Uniforme: For those actions that are done differently, by different men, cannot be said to be a Publique Worship. And therefore, where many sorts of Worship be allowed, proceeding from the different Religions of Private men, it cannot be said there is any Publique Worship, nor that the Common-wealth is of any Religion at all.
>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…
>The End of Worship among men, is Power. For where a man sees another worshipped supposes him powerful, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater.
This is definitely a fetishpost. Just admit your desire for submission, boo.
Monarchia Triumphans:
>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies,
>Who have no King, by their confusion dies.
>Others live long, as th' Ant and Royal Bee.
>A Guard who keeps, lives, dyes in Majesty.
>Their Hives, Walls, Combs, Cities, Holes, Houses are,
>Stings are their Arms, one rules in peace and war.
Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Queen Bee
>Just as worker bees form a group and live in a disciplined way, centring on a Queen Bee, so the collective must have a centre and discipline.
Kim Il Sung – Party Organization
>Kim Il Sung repeated this question to himself, picking up a pencil and tapping it lightly on the table. After a while, he asked the foreign quest: "Do you know how bees live?"
<"What do you mean?" asked the latter
>With a meaningful smile on his face, Kim Il Sung resumed: Bees are united around the Queen Bee. Of course, this mode of experience is a natural phenomenon based on their instinct, but it may provide an answer to the question of how to build up a party.
>He went on: "Just as bees live in an orderly fashion united around the Queen Bee, there must be a centre and discipline within a collective."
>He said that what was essential in building up a party was to unite all its members firmly around the leader, concluding that a party, which achieved the unity of all its members in ideology and will with the leader at the centre, would be ever-victorious.
Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Household
>If a family is to manage its household affairs well only one member of the family should control its finances. Likewise, if a nation is to manage its economic life properly it must use its finances on the principle of a single management system.
Kim Il Sung – The Peach Story
>Kim Il Sung looked around the room, and picked up a peach from the table.
>Then he answered, "A party should be built like a peach."
<"Like a peach?"
<The guests looked at the peach.
>Pointing at the peach in his hand, Kim Il Sung said: Success can be achieved in the revolution and construction only when the single-hearted unity of a leader, the party and the masses is achieved; compared with this peach, the masses are the flesh, the party is the stone, and the leader is the core in the stone.
Kim Jong Il – The leader is the life of the socio-political community
>The essence of the leader in all context lies in his being the centre of lthe life of the socio-political community. There is no doubt that the center of life is important for the existence and activities of the organism. Unless the masses are united, centring on the leader, they cannot acquire vitality as an independent socio-political community. We must understand and believe that the leader is the centre of the life of the socio-political community and that it is only when we are linked to the leader organizationally, ideologically and as comrades that we can acquire immortal socio-political integrity.
Kim Jong Il - Fatherly Leader & Motherly Party
>In order to have a deep understanding of the value of the organization, one must consider it in relation to one's own socio-political integrity. Only through the party organization, the parent body, can the popular masses be integrated into an independent socio-political organism and become the real masters of their own destiny. We must value and respect the Party organization as the parent body of our integrity. We refer to the leader as the fatherly leader and to the Party as the motherly Party because the Party organization with the leader at its centre is the parent body of our socio-political integrity.
DPRK Book:
>Great leader Comrade Kim il Sung said that the DPRK has the unity of the Leader, the Party and the masses. Nothing can be done, without the Leader. The Party only is not enough. There must be the Leader. There are queen in the group of bees and king in ants' group. The Party must be built just like the peach.
>He further explained meaningfully that as the DPRK has the unity of the Leader, the Party and the masses, she is strong against whatever threat of the US and that the unity prevents the country from the ruin which makes the people beggars.
>"It is an essential requirement of a working-class party to ensure the unity of ideology and leadership. This is effected by establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system. Only when this is done can the whole Party be armed with the Leader's intention and become a living organism, breathing and acting in conformity with his idea and will."
>"It is important in establishing the Party's monolithic ideological system to pervade the whole Party with the Leader's idea."
>"The Leader is the embodiment of the organizational will of the whole Party and his idea is explicitly the guiding ideology of the Party. The ideological unity of the Party is brought about only on the basis of the Leader's idea."
- Kim Jong Il
—
>"The revolutionary cause of the working class is precisely the cause of its Leader. The Leader is the top brain of the revolution and its highest Leader and as such he plays the decisive role in the accomplishment of the revolutionary cause of the working class."
- Kim Jong Il
—
>"The Party's monolithic ideological system is, in other words, the Leader's ideological system and system of guidance. Without them the existence of our Party is inconceivable. The revolutionary idea of the Leader is the eternal guiding ideology of our Party and revolution."
- Kim Jong Il
—
>"If the Masses are an Almighty Being, our Leader is the Sun of the Masses, who personifies the hearts of the People."
- Kim Jong Il
—
>"The process of the building of our Party is a process of patterning it on the Juche idea. Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea is a continuation and a higher stage of our Party's historic struggle to model itself on that idea."
>"Imbuing all Party members with the Juche idea means, in essence, strengthening and developing our Party for all time into a party of Comrade Kim Il Sung."
>"Strengthening and developing our Party into the party of the great Comrade Kim Il Sung implies having him eternally at its head and holding fast to his ideology and line and implementing them throughout all generations."
>"The respected Comrade Kim Il Sung is the great leader who has, for the first time in their history of several thousand years, been acclaimed by our People; he is the Teacher and Father of our Party and People."
- Kim Jong Il
>"The unity and cohesion of our Party are great and unbreakable because the entire membership is united around the great Comrade Kim Il Sung and because they are based on its infinite loyalty to the Party and the Leader. The Leader is the centre of the Party's unity and cohesion, and its strength depends on how firmly the entire membership is united behind him. The unity and cohesion of our Party are not just achieved out of duty. They are based on the membership's infinite respect for, and absolute trust in, the Party and the Leader, and founded on its unshakeable revolutionary belief and sense of gratitude which cause it to defend and protect the Party and the Leader politically and ideologically and to fight for them even at the cost of its members' lives."
>"The unity and cohesion of our Party are great and unbreakable because they are based on unity of idea and purpose. The important thing in the Party's unity and cohesion is to achieve the unity of idea and will. Unity based on a single idea and purpose must be durable, otherwise it cannot achieve lasting unity. The single ideology means precisely the revolutionary idea of the Leader, the founder of the Party. The Leader's revolutionary idea is the basis of the Party's unity and cohesion; the unity and cohesion of the working-class party is the unity of idea and purpose based on the revolutionary idea."
- Kim Jong Il
>"The Leader is, indeed, the infinitely benevolent father of our people and our children. We must give schoolchildren a clear understanding that their happiness is entirely due to the Leader's love for them and his consideration for them. Only then will the children remember the Leader's benevolence, support him from the bottom of their hearts and become revolutionary fighters who are unfailingly faithful to him, when they are adults."
- Kim Jong Il
>"Our Leader is the supreme revolutionary genius, the Sun of the nation and the benevolent father of our People, who has built a socialist paradise on this land and brought the People the happiness and glory we see today, by leading the arduous Korean revolution along the path of trials to victory without the slightest vacillation. Because of the immortal feats he has performed for mankind, his extraordinary intelligence, outstanding leadership ability and lofty communist virtues, the Leader is supported and boundlessly revered by the People. Our People eagerly desire to meet their fatherly Leader who, by devoting his entire life to the freedom and liberation of the People and leading the vanguard of the revolution and socialist construction, has provide them with the greatest happiness and continues to provide the condition for their lives to flourish, and once they have met him, they brim over with the resolution to give their wholehearted loyalty to the Leader, and are engrossed in infinitely solemn feelings and emotions."
- Kim Jong Il
>Our Party equipped all our people fully with the Juche idea, united them closely behind the Leader organizationally, ideologically and morally, and thus made the revolutionary ranks a socio-political organism.
>Today the Workers' Party of Korea stands firmly in the centre of the revolutionary ranks in our country, and the masses of the people, who have withstood every manner of ordeal by sharing their destiny with the Party in the long revolutionary struggle, are united rock-firm behind the Party and the Leader, sharing one mind and one will.
- Kim Jong Il
>Our Party regarded education in the monolithic ideology as its basic ideological task and carried it out energetically. As a result, a single ideology has prevailed throughout the Party, and all its members have been armed firmly with the Leader's revolutionary idea, the Juche idea, and have come to think and act as required by this idea.
>Another important factor in establishing the monolithic ideological system is to achieve the Leader's unitary leadership absolutely.
>The Leader is the supreme controller of a party, and the party's leadership is precisely his leadership. Our Party has set up a well-regulated system under which all its organizations and members act as one man under the unitary leadership of the great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung, give absolute authority to Party policies and defend and implement them without question.
- Kim Jong Il, The Workers' Party of Korea is a Juche type revolutionarty party which inherited the glorious tradition of the DIU
Kim Jong Un Aphorism #1
>The socialist motherland is the Leader and the embrace of the motherland is his embrace.
Kim Jong Un Aphorism #2
>Devotion to the country is precisely loyalty to the Leader.
Kim Il Sung Aphorisms: Love of Family, love of Country
>A man who does not love his home, parents, wife and children cannot love his country and people.
>Earnest devotion to the revolution represents the supreme love for one's family.
>Only a man who loves both his country and his family can be called a truly dutiful son.
>One's family is the original source of one's patriotism and revolutionary spirit.
>When his love for his family cools, a man's enthusiasm for the revolutionary struggle will cool also.
<Dante: Notable Praise of Monarchy from De Monarchia
>Justice is the strongest with the Monarch. For the best structure of the world, it is necessary for Monarchy or Empire to exist.
>Therefore it is better that the human race should be ruled by one than by more, and that the one should be the Monarch, who is a unique Prince. And if it is better, it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And inasmuch as between two things, that which is better will likewise best, between this rule by "one" and this rule by "more", rule by "one" is acceptable to God not only in comparative but in the superlative degree. Wherefore the human race is ordered for the best when ruled by One sovereign.
>In regard to the will, it must first be noted that the worst enemy of Justice is cupidity… When cupidity is removed altogether, nothing remains inimical to Justice… Cupidity is impossible when there is nothing to be desired, for passions cease to exist with the destruction of their objects. Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean, there is nothing for a Monarch to desire… So we conclude that among the mortals the purest subject for the indwelling of Justice is the Monarch.
>Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude towards Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in him can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective… That right love should indwell in the Monarch more than in all men besides itself thus: Everything loved is the more loved the nearer it is to him who loves; men are nearer to the Monarch than other princes; therefore they ought to be most loved by him.
>The Monarch is capable of the highest degree of judgment and Justice, and is therefore perfectly qualified, or especially well qualified to rule. Those two qualities are most befitting a maker and executor of the law.
>Therefore it is established that every good thing is good because it subsists in unity. As concord is a good thing itself, it must subsist in some unity as its proper root, and this proper root must appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord. Now concord is the uniform movement of many wills; and unity of will, which we mean by uniform movement, is the root of concord, or rather concord itself. For just as we should call many clods concordant because all descend toward the centre, and many flames concordant because they ascend together to the circumference, as if they did this voluntarily, so we call many men concordant because they move together by their volition to one end formally present in their wills… All concord depends upon unity in wills; mankind is at its best in concord of a certain king. For just as one man at his best in body and spirit is a concord of a certain kind, and as a household, a city, and a kingdom is likewise a concord, so it is with mankind in its totality. Therefore the human race for its best disposition is dependent on unity in wills. But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity.
>With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gods. If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book, concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for ts own sake and not for the sake of another is free. For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake.
>If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others: in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern according to the Philosopher when he says, "Every household is ruled by its eldest."
>Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father. As "Man and the sun generate man," according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits. Now, human reason apprehends most clearly through philosophy that the entire heaven in all its parts, its movements, and its motors, s controlled by a single motion, the primum moble, and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when n all its movements and motors is controlled by One prince as by one mover, by one law as by one motion. On this account it is manifestly essential for the well-being of the world that there should exist a Monarchy of unified Principality, which men call the Empire. This truth Boethius sighed for in the words, "O race of men how blessed, dd the love which rules the heavens rule like your minds!"
>Monarchy is therefore indispensible to the world, and this truth the Philosopher saw when he said, "Things have no desire to be wrongly ordered; inasmuch as a multitude of Princedoms is wrong, – let there be One Prince."
<Robert Filmer: That the First Kings were Fathers of Families
>It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shows the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Hers to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Supreme Jurisdiction; and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers: And therefore we find, that God told Cain of his Brother Abel, His Desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him. Accordingly, when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus, Be Lord over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee. [Gen. 27. 29.]
>It is confessed, that in the Infancy of the World, the Paternal Government was Monarchical… That the paternal Power cannot be lost… The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God, for the preservation of Mankind… All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly power, there being no other original to be found on any Power whatsoever… Even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood; he is both the King and Father of us all; as God hath exalted the Dignity of Earthly Kings, by communicating to them his own Title, by saying they are gods; so on the other side, he hath been pleased as it were to humble himself, by assuming the Title of a King, to express his Power, and not the Title of any popular Government.
>Father and King are not so diverse; it is confessed, that at first they were all one, for there is confessed Paternum imperium & haereditarium, and this Fatherly Empire, as t was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by Patent, and seizable by an Usurper, as other goods are: and thus every King now is, hath a Paternal Empire, either by inheritance, or by Translation, or Usurpation; so a Father and a King may be all one.
>As long as the first Fathers of Families lived, the name of the Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them: but after a few Descents, when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct, and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir, then the Title of Prince or King was more significant, to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy; by this means it comes to pass, that many a Child, by succeeding a King, hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude, and hath the Title of Pater Patriae.
>It may be demanded what becomes the Right of Fatherhood, in Case the Crown does esheat for want of an Heir? Whether doth it not then Dissolve to the People? The Answer is, It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir: For an Heir there always is. If Adam himself were still living, and now ready to die, it is certain that there is One Man, and but One in the World who is next Heir, although the Knowledge who should be that One Man is quite lost.
>In all Kingdoms or Commonwealths in the World, whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People, or but the true Heir of such a Father, or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation, or by Election of the Nobles, or of the People, or by any other way whatsoever; or whether some Few or a Multitude Govern the Commonwealth: Yet still the Authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all these, is the only Right and natural Authority of a Supreme Father. There is, and always shall be continued to the end of the World, a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude, although by the secret Will of God, many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it.
>If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People.
>According to that of Aristotle, A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government.
<Dante on Aeneas as father of the Roman People
>That the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king; and Titius Livus, illustrious writer of Roman deeds, confirms this testimony in the first part of his volume which begins with the capture of Troy. So great was the nobleness of this man, our ancestor most invincible and most pious, nobleness not only of his own considerable virtue, but that of his progenitors and consorts, which was transferred to him by hereditary right, that I cannot unfold it in detail, "I can but trace the main outlines of truth."
>He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and her empire.
<Giambattista Vico's New Science on Pater Familias
>Axioms 67-76, and particularly the corollary to 69, show us that fathers in the family state must have exercised monarchical power which was subject to God alone. This power extended over the persons and property of their children, and to a greater extent over those of the family servants, famuli, who had sought refuge on their lands. This made them the first monarchs of the world. (We must interpret the Bible as referring to such men when it calls them patriarchs, which means "ruling fathers".) Throughout the Roman republic, their monarchical rights were guaranteed by the Law of the Twelve Tables, which says, "The family father shall have the right of life and death over his children". And it adds that "Whatever a son acquires, he acquires for his father".
The day you kill yourself will be the happiest day in my life.
Gryffith Williams / A Kingdom = Great Family
>A family being nothing else but a small Kingdom, wherein the paterfamilias had Regal power… and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family.
Why are ants and bees called royal animals?
Because like Aristotle notes.
Aristotle / Suckled by the same milk, of the same blood
>And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk']
All ants in a monogamous ant colony are related to the ant queen as their parent and they are offspring.
A royal monarchy as father or mother of the people emulates this relationship:
Jean Bodin / The best prince, the best father
>The best Prince is the best Father.
>The Prince, whom you may justly call the Father of the Country, ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father, as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God.
Robert Filmer / Kings are the Fathers of their People
>It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shews the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction.
>If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference but only in the Latitude and Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferior Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People.
Thomas Hobbes / Kings are the fathers of families
>To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death.
>But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty.
King James VI & I / For a King is truly Parens Patriae
>Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his People.
Bossuet / My Father the King
>Man who, as has been said, saw the image of a kingdom in the union of several families under the leadership of a common father, and who had found gentleness in that life, brought themselves easily to create societies of families under kings who took the place of fathers… it is apparently for that reason that the ancient people's of Palestine called their kings Abimelech, that is to say: my father the king. Subjects took themselves to be children of the Prince: and, each calling him, My father the king.
Aristotle / The Association of Father & Son, the Ideal of Monarchy
>For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule.
Ramses II / Speech for his Father
>For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him.
>My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me.
<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.
<Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth
>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.
<Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.
>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.
<Hobbes / That a Family is a little City
>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."
Thomas Hobbes
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth [state] or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union
&
>A great Family if it be not part of some Commonwealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign.
&
>And as small Familyes did then; so now do Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families
<Rousseau / Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government
>Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government… With the help of this supposition, it is easy to make out that royal government is preferable to all others, because it is unquestionably the strongest; and in addition to that, all it needs to be the best but doesn't have – is a corporate will that is more in conformity with the general will.
<Giuseppe Bottai
>All modern history, that is, all contemporaneous life, leads to the corporative conception of the State with the inclusion of Economics within the State or the identification of Economics with Politics.
<Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Family & Nation
>If a family is to manage its household affairs well only one member of the family should control its finances. Likewise, if a nation is to manage its economic life properly it must use its finances on the principle of a single management system.
Hesiod: The Wisdom of Kingship
>All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. he addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeases the parties with soft words.
The Herodotus Debate: Darius
Darius (Monarchy)
>Darius was the third to declare his opinion. "Methinks," said he, "Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them; for each one wishing to be chief of all and to make his counsels prevail, violent enmity is the outcome, enmity brings faction and faction bloodshed; and the end of bloodshed is monarchy; whereby it is shown that this fashion of government is the best. Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; so his case also proves that monarchy is the best government. But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom — from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done."
Jean Bodin on Herodotus:
>It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms
>Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities.
>Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written.
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
E-monarchist politics is one big massive headache and not worth delving into.
If you assembled the vast majority of these people, superficially it might seem like these people were in it for the design of monarchy, but you'd sooner find out these monarchists are themselves the biggest roadblocks to this design.
Group A: Christian Integralists
Contrary to popular opinion, there is deep disharmony with Christianity and monarchy–all the success of monarchy is not by any plan or design, but typically by accident.
The Christian integralists only want an enforcer / church lackey / denominational jewelry – that is where their interest begins and that is where their interest ends and in fact they will do everything to clip the wings and make sure to humiliate such kings before a Pope or Clergy because they have phantasms of Nero, Henry VIII, or Emp Peter I.
–Their interest is only propping up the whole cult surrounding Jesus as their actual true King, so in effect they're only really monarchists for Jesus and only work towards -that- design–Jesus.
Group B: Hoppeans
These are anarcho-capitalists–do I need to explain the problem with them?
Deep down, the problem with them is the same with constitutional monarchists–they're political pluralists and against any unitary mode of politics / corporatism (& monarchy is intrinsically this–yes, I know historically monarchies haven't cleanly been this way, but that is accidental–history is messy)… a lot of their talking points date back to Aristotle and those problems with monarchy TBH.
Group C: Windsorites
Effectively only want a ceremonial royalty with the full brunt of multi-party democracy and nothing different.
TL;DR:
If you gathered all these groups, they'd find something to quack about and deny monarchy one way or another and these people pretty much run the whole conversation to my dismay… this goes to show that no monarchy will ever be achieved by the planning, deliberation, and consent of monarchists themselves–that is impossible.
…
A brutal consideration is… even Communists make much better monarchists for Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Kim Jong Un than these monarchists make for this dying breed of Christian royalty.
Kill yourself
Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors
>But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected.
But three Commonwealths or forms of State
>Forasmuch as we have before sufficiently spoken of Sovereignty, and of the rights and marks thereof; now it behooves us to consider who they be which in every Commonweal hold that Sovereignty; thereby to judge what the estate is: as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy: but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [Or, in more proper wording, Oligarchy]. Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governours good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths; we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite. Now it is certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and exctricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion infinite numbers of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths: a thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say that there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths.
Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy
>There can be no forth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular, (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice).
Rejection of a mixed State or mixed Constitution
>All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point.
Jean Bodin
>Wherefore let us firmly set down and resolve there are but three forms of Commonweals, and no more, and those simple also, and without any confused mixture of the with another, albiet that the government be sometimes contrary to the state. As a Monarchy is contrary to a Democracy or popular estate; and yet nevertheless the sovereignty may be in one only prince, who may popularly govern his estate, as I have before said; and yet it shall not be for that a confusion of the popular estate with a Monarchy, which are states of themselves incompatible, but is well (as it were) combining of a Monarchy with a popular government, the most assured Monarchy that is
…
<As a Monarchy is contrary to a Democracy or popular estate; and yet nevertheless the sovereignty may be in one only prince, who may popularly govern his estate, as I have before said; and yet it shall not be for that a confusion of the popular estate with a Monarchy, which are states of themselves incompatible, but is well (as it were) combining of a Monarchy with a popular government, the most assured Monarchy that is
<Jean Bodin / Dictators are Sufficient Proof that Monarchy is necessary for the preservation of society
>And what power soever they have by virtue of their places, yet Popular and Aristocratical commonweales, finding themselves embarked in any dangerous war, either against the enemy, or among themselves, or in difficulty to proceed criminally against some mighty citizen, or to give order for the plague, or to create magistrates, or to do any other thing of great consequence, did usually create a Dictator, as a sovereign Monarch: knowing well that a Monarchy was the anchor whereunto of necessity they must have recourse.
>The impunity of vices, and the contempt of magistrates in a Popular estate, does sufficiently show that Monarchs are necessary for the preservation of the society of mankind, seeing that the Romans who for the error of one Prince, had all kings in hatred, made a Dictator for the conduct of all their great affairs.
>So did the Lacedemonians in their extremities create a magistrate with power like unto the Dictator, whom they called Harmoste: and the Thessaliens, him whom they called Archus: as in the like case the Mityleniens their great Aezimnere; to whom the great Providador of the Venetians may be in some sort compared: finding by experience that an absolute power united in one person, is more eminent and of greater effect.
my bbc owns you royal niqqas
I viewed the latest Lavader video.
Watched his videos on Corporatism, on Monarchy and Fascism, on the Medieval kingship and his appeal to Aquinas (& I snickered about that), on the Iranian Revolution.
Every video I found something to disagree with Lavader about.
While I am somewhat satisfied with Lavader's latest video and his criticism of Alain de Benoist, yet I still see some of the old Lavader I take issues with.
#1.
I'm not sure if Lavader reads my comments, but I -try- to tell him that the basis of anti-nationalism on the right-wing is either found among religious integralists or right libertarians – the regionalists and pan-Europeans don't count for me, because I consider them to be subvariants of nationalist, the pan-European is a macro-nationalist, the regionalist is a micro-nationalist, and arbitrarily are derisive of nationalism – while the neofeudalists/ancaps who hate nationalism again hate it because they prefer confederacy… and the people who make pretense of empire and loyalty to a monarch and being like the HRE/Austro-Hungarian Empire are also advocating confederacy and not even empire like the Roman Empire – the advocacy of confederacy and political pluralism, as opposed to operating society as one body, as advocated in Plato's Republic or Hobbes Leviathan or Fascism – is simply a rehash of that Aristotelian sentiment that society should be a partnership of clans or a concord of hosts, except with the regions – and that is what Tocqueville appeals to by "Old Constitution of Europe", that is, when the depth of political discussion was primarily lead by knowledge of Aristotle in the early Middle Ages and informed by Christian integralism as the primary corporatism/unitary feeling, that of Corpus Christi.
#2.
The fundamental problem with Lavader is I can tell see the influence of De Jouvenel working in him and his preferences.
The problem with these French intellectuals like Charles Maurras, De Jouvenel, and Alain de Benoist is they all have the old bug of Tocquevillism – along with Hans Hermann Hoppe & the right libertarian ancaps advocating for "Europe of a Thousand Liechensteins" and political pluralism – all that in turn like I have re-iterated is another variation of the old bug of Aristotelianism in politics with regard to its opposition to both absolute monarchy and state corporatism.
#3.
Lavader contrives "monarchical centralization" & "revolutionary centralization"…
…I feel out of air how many times I have to explain this to other monarchists…
I know De Jouvenel writes of the Republic of Old – that doesn't move as one body – and the basis of all this, no matter how much we compare it to "revolutionary centralization" and "Jacobism" is nonetheless anti-monarchical at its root, and the same for the stigma around this word "centralization" – which dennotes in these speakers an aversion towards any unitary mode of politics (which monarchy inherently is by its nature).
…
The actual distinction between these words "monarchical centralization" & "revolutionary centralization" is simply "Absolute Monarchy" & "State Corporatism"… both of which Aristotle condemned–the only confusion when it comes to this is the stupid influence of the integralists because they want limited monarchy for another absolute monarchy and so people are confounded, but in either case you have the preeminence of a royal household and the preeminence of a political party, and like Plato says these are the same art whether you call it a royal estate or a one-party state, both are a unitary mode of politics and outlook.
…
Aristotle writes in Politics condemning State Corporatism on the same basis he has problems with monarchical rule… so I think it isn't very generous of monarchists like Lavader to be too harsh about "revolutionary centralization" or to quibble about "centralization" too much because the same could be said for monarchy and in fact they do for "Absolute Monarchy" and all these "monarchists" hate "absolute monarchy" because they are either mislead by the competing influence of right libertarians or integralists to which Shaw aptly says that the Pope is like a Whig in politics.
#4.
It's interesting that Lavader's stance is close to Giovanni Gentile's stance that the national identities are always a work in progress and evolving – for as much as Lavader condemns Fascism, he is so close to it, only that he hates the nationalism and unitary politics… –I think Lavader should toss off those greviances that all the other monarchists are fed about centralization and absolute monarchy because it contradicts the character of monarchy no matter how much they appeal to the unity of religion / integralism or how things were in the past due to accident.
Lavader brought up regionalism – which is just micro-nationalism – and asked about how states like Prussia and Bavaria have a claim – or how Prussia has a claim over Bavaria, and since Lavader brought up that violence encompasses this, I feel like he read my response to him when he posed that question – because like Bismarck suggests, blood and iron.
Jean Bodin makes this clear in distinguishing Lordly Monarchy.
>And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice… that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just.
Which was the case after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire – there were no superiors, so yes Prussia gained the preeminence as the primary kingpin of German identity by conquest.
Now he also poses that these identities are invalidated by a broader German identity, but they did have a German identity prior to this contrary to Lavader says. It's just like the twelve tribes of Israel, there are different tribes, but each tribe fell under the branch of being an Israelite. –Same for Bavaria and Prussia and overall Germany… the major contention is not this when it comes to Nationalism – I feel Lavader is not fundamentally even tackling Nationalism… the real grievance against Nationalism has always been the religious integralists, so while Lavader is looking from the perspective of the right libertarians of this dilemma… who long for a form of confederacy (mistakenly with monarchy, which they snear at "absolute monarchy" because they're not actually monarchists like Hoppe himself confessed, but simply want a partnership of clans with noble clans, not the preeminence of one royal estate which they scold as absolutism…).
–Nonetheless, I agree with him that national identity is something that grows and changes but develops and that resides with a cult of personality or as Lavader invokes with hesitation "social construct"… I largely agree with his sentiments there that the identity of a people changes with the rulers… the conflict seen between "monarchy centralization" and "revolutionary centralization" and nationalism overall is a weak contrivance and really a problem of Christianity TBH, nothing inherently opposed to monarchy itself IMHO – Christianity is inherently anti-nationalist and it can easily be anti-monarchy too if said monarch is not with the Christian integralists and monopoly of the Clergy… contrary to what most monarchists think and hope for.
…
The basis for "monarchical centralization" is like what Robert Filmer says, that the monarchy retains authority in the same way that a father of a family is said to retain the position of being pater familias even over the children after they grow old and move out of the father's estate – the absolute monarchist position is based on this unitary outlook and that the cities / political states were colonies of which grew out of the father's estate, as if they were simply rooms in the same original estate, that the city with all the sons leaving the original father's household were under the same authority, but instead of being buildings were rooms, even though they were apart – that is the case with sovereignty and tbh any group that seeks monarchical preeminence even the absurd degree that the ultramontanists claim to it with universal monarchy & Jesus, yes, so it is. –That brings up Aristotle's third man argument when Lavader dawdles on the dilemma of swapping authorities arbitrary – who is the unity? the father, the regional lord, the king, the emperor, the pope, jesus? –it can easily keep going up and up, like Aristotle says, and utterly destroy a state by being too unitary… as he wards against Plato, and I reluctantly agree with Lavader that this is a genuine criticism of Plato which ultimately has been rescued by forms consisting in themselves or ultimately as a last resort – God – to which all consist in, but even the perennielists confound this by whichever God and nullify even the religions… that is a conversation for another day and ultimately while there is a unitary politics that has been approached by different worldviews even apart from Plato and that has been made more severe with the advent of Christianity… –but different worldviews like with Hobbes or Fascism… both achieved a kind of monarchical preeminence…
…
But back to the question of Prussia and Bavaria, before they were centered on a broader identity and superior government of the Holy Roman Empire, but that was dissolved in the time of Napoleon – so like Bodin says, where there are no superiors, then another party will swallow it up… the Holy Roman Empire and political Catholicism needlessly confuses monarchists for the agenda of these Christian integralists… along with ancaps… again, like Shaw says, the Pope has become a Whig in politics… so have the agents of Catholicism… to my frustration obscuring a clear understanding of monarchy here and why ultimately it defers to absolute monarchy and a kind of unitary politics.
The world won't have peace until OP kills himself.
>>812922 grace poster, who do you think should be queen/king in real life?????? And what do u think about Kim Jong Un
>>812929 i will kill you with my bare hands in roblox
>>813045 me too
>>813071>who do you think should be queen/king in real life?The old royalty are a dying breed and cannot reproduce the dying brand of Christian monarchy.
New royalty, IMHO, will come from dictatorships / caesarism / bonapartism, whatever you call it, and any kind of state corporatism (fascism, hitlerist, socialist, militarist coup). Those are the future monarchies and while they lack the conventional stamp of religion that makes conservatives embrace it – make up for it with political ideology – and because these times are like Bodin and Hobbes says, the name of King is despised – so instead new Kings will have to be called anything but a King and something different and new Kings will have to wear anything but a Crown – because a Crown has become an instrument against Monarchy rather than an instrument for Monarchy – a burden, not in any way that makes Monarchy, but inhibits it from any potential, a burden that is like adding a big bullseye to your head, a burden that only makes more enemies, a burden that makes people think less of you rather than more of you – worst, nobody believes in it, so it is better to pry away from the monopoly of the clergy on this institution and embrace Leviathan. Moving beyond Christianity at this point is becoming increasingly necessary for their survivial not only because of the unbelief of the people themselves but also because Christians themselves are becoming increasingly Neronian / persecution complex, 2nd society, cult-like agitators, and hostitle to any other gentile Kings themselves apart from Jesus.
>what do u think about Kim Jong UnI view Kims – like other hereditary dictatorships / corporatist regimes with dynasties – with the hope they'll become the new modern royalty. State Corporatism demands a unitary form of State modeled after "one person" and that inevitably lends itself to the actual rule and preservation of one person – and it comes packed with autonomy that warrants its own absolutism and its own arbiter. Unlike Lavader, I don't contrast "monarchical centralization" and "revolutionary centralization" – we're simply looking at the gulf between old monarchies and new monarchies, the state corporatism itself is not an enemy of monarchy inherently – but an enemy of Christianity & only inconveniences Christian kings – the unitary mode of politics of state corporatism complements monarchy rather than inherently opposes it and that is why dictators of any corporatist regime gradually become monarchical and any means to preserve the monarchical form means potentially a dynasty, so this almost naturally lends itself to the creation of new monarchies – which is warranted.
So regimes like the Kim dynasty, Duvalier dynasty, Assad dynasty, Pahlavi dynasty, Lopez dynasty in Paraguay, Berdimuhamedow dynasty, & etc – contrary to what other monarchists say that there aren't conventional monarchies but "hereditary dictatorships" – they only say that because it lacks the monopoly of the Christian clergy, these are monarchists who cannot think outside the box of their standard convention and dying breed of royalty, and at the end of the day like I said the integralists are truly only looking out for one king – Jesus – and no other king's kingdom. These regimes might not have the same appearance and staple of religion they are used to seeing in the long dead anachronistic expectation they have (because TBH even conventional Christian royalty today don't have Christian coronations anymore and already are in a halfway Limbo point between the old and new) – this is for the better. It really has become an over-glorified baggage with some malice in their word "duty" because they have transformed it into an anti-monarchy monarchy with the current institution of "constitutional monarchy" – so-called "constitutional monarchy" cannot be the new monarchies, but they're a denial of the further advent of Christian monarchies – again, the new monarchies are found in Caesarism, Bonapartism, State Corporatism, hereditary dictatorships – those are your truly modern monarchies, not the anglocentric Victorian breed of "constitutional monarchy".
>who do you think should be queen/king in real life?I'd say that the legitimatist monarchists – contrary to their own pretense – are going against even the pretense of the nature of things, because very rarely or no dynasties come back after 100+ years. The legitimatist integralist monarchists have a fatal combination of supporting the easy overthrow of royal dynasties with no resistance and great disbelief (at any small offense) but being incredibly stubborn about the restoration and preservation of royalty dynasties – because they see them no better than as their enforcers and denominational jewelry and their royalism is a fashion statement and only support royalty after they're dead (because of their ineptitude) – this is extremely useless and trivial – the only practical window of opportunity for a dynasty restoration is typically within the span of 45 or a few more years (if they're lucky) from the precedent I know, not hundreds of years. At that point no matter how just or unjust they feel the dynasty was overthrown, it is time to move on and consider new blood. These conventional monarchists make the worst monarchists and only proper monarchists for Jesus at best. That is the ultimate problem I have with them. Everywhere the Christian integralists have fought, they have been ruthlessly crushed and would have been crushed in Spain if not for ᴉuᴉlossnW's & Hitler's assistance & ᴉuᴉlossnW / Hitler represent where the trend of rightwing politics is headed, like I said, with Caesarism/Bonapartism/State Corporatism.
>who do you think should be queen/king in real life?Like Louis XIV says, whoever has the courage to establish a new dynasty and is fortunate and capable of making it stick to the wall. The North Koreans have had success compared to others I think because of the wars and they quickly cemented it in their ideology Juche about the importance of the Leaders and because Koreans are customarily used to this due to centuries of Confucianism and their own culture. –Westerners are a harder shell to crack because Christianity & the Classics aren't as harmonious a foundation with monarchical rule contrary to how traditionalist monarchists feel – for every Bible verse that seems to praise kings, there are ten other Bible verses than condemn kings and what has ultimately made me sign off that Christianity is more onerous to the whole idea is the verses in Genesis with Abraham and the Pharaoh and Isaiah about kings licking the dust off feet and, yes, in Samuel about the warnings against a king – compared with the history of uneasy feelings with Pharaoh, Nero, Henry VIII, & Enlightenment tier monarchs like Joseph II or Peter I… makes Christians view monarchies mostly like a Babylonian Captivity – they're more appropriate to be anarchists than monarchists at this point with their 2nd society antics – unless you play into their integralism to absurd degrees that only goes to alienate everyone else but the most hardcore, fringe Christians nowadays… and for the Classics, well, Hobbes talks about the inconvenience of the Greeks and Romans well enough and especially with Aristotle in particular when it comes to monarchy.
–So for countries without an established royalty, I think it goes to whoever is capable and fortunate enough to establish a dynasty.
As Bodin says,
>And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice… that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just.& while that might not be a necessary component for its preservation – it is a crucial part of its initiation, because any corporatist aim relies upon some degree of an arbiter and all the dictators and even traditionalist regimes push away the other political parties in order to attain a greater unity.
So I don't really have any pretense for pretenders at this point – I think the more pretenders, the more ineffective and divided it is, (again, monarchists make the worst monarchists actually, them and their habit of playing between pretenders like political parties and dividing themselves only weakens them more and they're already in a pretty weak position to begin with and the expectations they have for noble houses along with this game contradict monarchy itself – they're useless).
So that is my position – I'm for any new blood. I think new trees need to be planted.
A big incentive that has personally driven me to kicking off Christianity & rejecting for its disharmony with monarchy has been my bad experience with Christian integralists and monarchy.
They claim to be monarchy's best friend & for its interests all the way, but everytime I interact with them – these tradcath integralists work to counteract it and break the fundamental design of monarchy.
I cannot sum this situation up better than what George Bernard Shaw says.
…
>"In politics–the Pope is always a Whig, because every earthly monarch's court is a rival to the Vatican."…
It honestly is like this.
The worst manifestation of this is that it's no coincidence that these Tradcath Christian integralists form the most annoying tag-team imaginable with Right Libertarian Austrian School / Ancapy / Hoppean people – they both share similar interests, both want to to severely limit and humiliate political states and hate our corporatist / unitary agenda, except the Papist hates it for his own corporatist / unitary agenda – but as two agents of 2nd society and imperium in imperio, the ancap and tradcath Christian make natural allies because both benefit from private society and partiality against the political states they reside in.
This little alliance is the most annoying partnership to deal with as an absolute monarchist because ultimately it shows how much they work to undermine monarchy no matter the pretense of religion.
…
I was really tired of playing games with integralists, but the straw that broke the camel's back is reading the passages in Isaiah all about humiliating kings (which integralists now see as the church). Or looking into Genesis where Abraham gives Sarah to Pharaoh and confides a false loyalty. –That is when I ultimately threw up my hands and said that Christian monarchy is a big mistake and the problems that keep coming up are due to problems with Christianity itself.
…
It's obvious to me why right libertarianism and the integralists come together in their agenda – both want limited states / mixed constitutions for their own separate reasons, and both value 2nd society / private society when it comes to politics.
If I could count the number of times I've been rivaled by this combination of interests working in tandem– I'd be rich.
They attack us under the banner of "neofeudalism" and "traditional monarchy"… and under these names, they actually mean to diminish monarchy contrary to the pretense. –These integralists are permanently resentful whether they contrive a Henry VIII, Pharaoh, Nero, or Julian the Apostate and that resentment is mutual.
I have seen the popularity of the term "neofeudalist" among them which just means they want a strong nobility and a strong clergy to severely limit monarchy and flatten it like a pancake and embrace their own political pluralism (because the goal of integralists is to reduce the strength of courts to ensure the strength of the church – and the goal of ancaps is decentralization at the expense of monarchy – these two groups conjoin to co-op and ruin monarchy).
I hate dealing with these Integralists and I hate dealing with these Hoppeans, but sadly they run the show and every other monarchist revolves around these groups (to my great dismay).
The state of monarchist discussion is a really sorry state – these Integralists have overshadowed and pushed the discussion of monarchy out of the way to make room for only shilling their Church affiliation.
–And no, that in turn is not making room for monarchies… these Integralists are (despite the appearance of sympathy) harbor a deeply bitter attitude towards absolutist monarchies and those honestly feelings are mutual.
There's no point discussing who wronged who first–only pointing out the inconvenience of this situation that despite the appearances of things going forward these integralists are not really always looking out for the interests of monarchies (despite their claim to be) – sure, they'll even say they aren't because of the rule of law or common good… albeit while going out of their way to sap the discussion in crucial areas.
…
This video rails about Bourbon monarchies courting the revolution by wanting to get rid of Jesuits due to interference in politics… coaxed by revolutionaries… to get more power.
>"In politics–the Pope is always a Whig, because every earthly monarch's court is a rival to the Vatican."This quote of Shaw's is so true – whenever I see these Catholic integralists courting right libertarians like Hoppeans or De Jouvenel or making a bunch of mixed constitutionalist pretenses for limited & mixed monarchy – they're no better, but as Shaw says, rather become Whigs in politics. –That is also the case with traditionalism upholding that pretense with Spain against absolutism and strongly advocating decentralization/limited monarchy, because they are more of a strong clericalist party tbh.
This has made the whole discussion around monarchy a confounded mess because of these trivalities and rivalries – and the major parties making a pretense of supporting monarchy become its own worst enemies and rivals.
The Tsar of Russia failed and was "punished" for being the kind of monarch these integralists want. It only shows how thankless a job it is courting these people.
what causes one dynasty to become decadent, incompetent, buffoonish, and lose their grip on power? while others manage to keep the family business running smoothly?
for example. the kim's of people's korea so far have manged to succesfully transition between generations.
>>813125>for example. the kim's of people's korea so far have manged to successfully transition between generationsFor starters, I would say many dictatorships appear illegitimate because they are followed by usurpation which often leads to more usurpation like a succession of knives in the back. It leaves a very ugly mark like a mark of Cain and gives people certain ideas. –So many dictatorships that come from usurpation or civil war struggle.
The case is that many dynasties don't stick or dictators – I would say that it isn't always even entirely their personal virtue or competence but simply the case that many are thrown at the wall and don't stick and some have managed to stick around and establish a foothold.
Whereas the Kims have the benefit of simply combating a foreign invasion (Japan or US). –The appearance of a foreign enemy is a VERY convenient prompt to unify under one commander and the Kims wisely took that opportunity to set down and establish the ideological tenet of the Leaders in the foundation of their country and party ideology so there would be no confusion "ifs" or "what ifs" going forward–Communism also helped because Leninism and the idea of democratic centralism also works against factionalism.
Koreans also benefit from a long heritage of having dynasties – so it isn't met with proactive resistance.
Numerous times the fear of an enemy comes in handy whereas the lack of a fear of an enemy leads to internal turmoil and in-fighting – and North Korea is a state in which there is very strong fear of an enemy and so the appeal to an arbiter comes with ease, just as the Romans would appeal to a dictator whenever any domestic or foreign threat compelled them to.
Sometimes you could be the most competent, brightest ruler and lose your grip on power, sometimes you can be incompetent, decadent, a buffoon and carry on well enough–depending on how fortunate these circumstances come and go.
That is what I would say so far as the justification process is concerned – foreign enemy as an external threat and Communism dealt with the internal threats and factionalism.
Fear of an enemy meant an easy recourse to an arbiter needed to establish greater unity behind a leadership and they were equipped with the Juche ideology which inherently propped up the Leaders and gave them a central place. –No unitary formation like this can happen without recourse to the Sword as well. Lending the utiltiy of the Sword and the Crosier that are definitely in want for monarchical rule.
I would add on top of it the prudence of the Leaders looking after their successors of their blood, but also pruning the milk duds (as you see with Kim Jong Il and his succession). Which is a very tricky predicament but the importance is the arbitration stayed with the Leader and inherently that keeps the unity of command. Yes, naturally, the recourse to proximity and blood is a safeguard in the case of preserving that cult of personality – but I think in that case with Kim Jong Il favoring Kim Jong Un ultimately worked out well and is a rare instance of that being successful.
Nothing really lasts forever and all dynasties come to an end – and politics can make victims of even very competent men. For Christian royalty and their downfall, it's simply the case that Christianity itself lost steam and the inconveniences of its factionalism. Like I was saying earlier, ruling empires is like holding a wolf by the ears – you could be overthrown not because of your competence but simply because of any factionalism or the opportunity was ripe or harm caused a revolt.
IDK I have to agree with Hobbes that the earlier the preeminence and sovereignty of a monarch is established without disputation and a cult of personality becomes a kind of civic religion, the better it is.
Have a strong & early precedent for monarchical authority.
Because I have read and seen how Whiggish agents have abused the pretense of precedent really hard against monarchy in those days in England.
Of course, they'll always find any pretense no matter how resolute and firm it has been set down later on… but laying it down early on is important to try and combat this. –Yet I'll admit the greatest defense of a monarch is not how firm the ideology is, but warding off these contenders and keeping fear of someone else at hand. Aristotle says a tyrant is fond of war for that reason – it keeps people drawn to his unity of command and Hobbes is also vindicated to appraise that fear of internal and domestic enemies.
>>813083Are you larping or do you believe all this? If so, how is it beneficial for your wellbeing to live under a totalitarian dictatorship, taking into account that you're not royalty in this scenario? For all you know your posts could be outlawed in this dictatorship and it ain't nothing you can do about it.
pls don't answer with an essay
>>813187>Are you larping or do you believe all this?>If so, how is it beneficial for your wellbeing to live under a totalitarian dictatorship, taking into account that you're not royalty in this scenario?I'm not larping.
The same question could be chucked back at most of leftypol, you know.
It could be chucked back at most of /pol/ as well.
Could honestly be chucked at so many people "Are you really serious about this?" – & I agree, for many, there are many reasons to prefer the status quo, as it affords stability, protection, liberality or freedom. I don't underestimate that. If most of us were really serious, we would be revolting and people underestimate that. I don't.
People can bitch and complain about the way things are, but yes, you're right–overall there are many comforts and nevertheless the people who say they would throw their life away to upend it – don't, like everybody else.
>If so, how is it beneficial for your wellbeing to live under a totalitarian dictatorshipWhat I'm saying is more of a projection of how I think monarchies will be.
The corporatist ideologies are the only people bringing the impetuous for this to come about.
It sounds ludicrous the way you say it, but nevertheless there have been many people have embraced that. It sounds strange to people to want this–who don't see the appeal of any unitary politics, right? why would anyone want that? It really is an acquired taste that is hard to explain.
I lay out many different scenarios why people would want this–I think Plato when he talks about a community of pleasures and pains is very seductive appeal–one side of the city is celebrating, the other side of the city is lamenting–think of multi-party politics, one side of the country is celebrating, the other side is lamenting, is that not bothersome to you? –Or, to be a little /pol/, the inevitable conflict with identity politics and race, George Floyd – one side of the community is lamenting, the other side is celebrating.
Many constitutional monarchists say they want a monarch for a symbol of unity for that exact reason, but that doesn't stamp out the causes…
>For all you know your posts could be outlawed in this dictatorship and it ain't nothing you can do about it. >For all you know your posts could be outlawed in this dictatorship and it ain't nothing you can do about it.
The jannies here could do the same and so I am at their mercy, but I'm suave enough to know to bribe the jannies and make leftypol want me here.
I honestly think the same for Traditionalists, lmao, the way you look at me as peculiar – obviously, many of these people enjoy the fruits of Liberalism in spite of how much they ramble about wanting to return to a Christian fundamentalist theocracy–they love their anime, they love their freedoms/libertarianism, they love p0rn and big anime tiddies, much like Haz says, "you have an anime pfp!"
…
Earlier I brought up Plato, but honestly I really have to say Hobbes sums up my feelings better for how monarchy is involved. The Hobbesian war of all against all is really akin to what Plato is lamenting. Hobbes also gives deference to an arbiter – in this case, a sovereign monarch – to establish an equalibrium and peace and put "mine" and "thine" in harmony, and much of that is what I see in monarchy.
I look at political parties and Christian denominations as a relentless battle of "mine" and "thine" and I think partisan lines are a stupid reason to hate a leader – many people will say that a dictatorship is bad because "but what if the opposite party you belong to is in charge? – you don't want precedent for that, right?" – my contention is I want to do away with all of that, no more fussing about what party you belong to, unity behind an monarch, we are family irrespective of this fuss… Like most conservative tendencies, I admire that a family sticks together irrespective of the opinions of family members, and that is what I hope to see in monarchy, a kind of big tent party that brings all people into its fold.
A personal anecdote of mine is as a child I felt sympathetic to conservative politics in a leftwing household and leftwing area–and I also hid my beliefs–but I blamed that on party politics and the multi-party system for why I felt at odds with my family and divided.
On a micro-level, multi-party politics was destroying the community of pleasures and pains there, and on another level with cities, and another level with the country.
–I didn't like that many people simply liked or disliked leaders for party politics and I took note only leaders could look between the aisles and arbitrate.
So an appeal to the familialism – a bond that cannot be broken by party beliefs, but stays resolute by bonds of blood – always appealed to me with royalism and that is why I strongly oppose the advocates of regicide (who want regicide because muh faction) – the whole appeal to royalism for me is having a blood bond like that beyond the factions and the country being like a large family, and that is why I value this, because I want people to be kindred and not mutual enemies.
On a personal level, that is why this appeals to me, and I always joke that with leftists… the reason you don't see the appeal is because leftists have the cow's milk already, they have their own state corporatism with a one-party state, much like a monarchy, we're not really very different in that respect, and they see the same problem with private property "mine" vs "thine" and class conflict–the only difference is our solution is different, and I appeal to a cult of personality / familialism to bring "mine" and "thine" into harmony.
uygha end your life
>>813259 y r u being mean to Grace poster
>>813244 That's a very interesting point. Liberal democracies probably aren't any better than monarchies on average… However, I don't think this is an argument in favor of monarchies, but against liberal democracies. I think that a socialist monarchy would be less likely to be a good system to live under than a democratic socialist government, by virtue of people theoretically being able to voot in their best interest.
And have you ever thought about becoming a youtuber or some kind of influencer? You seem to have the gift of yapping and you seem to be knowledgeable.
>>813258 Wait, u'r not a leftist? I thought you were the socialist kind of monarchist. Do you believe in market economies?
>>813263>Wait, u'r not a leftist? I thought you were the socialist kind of monarchist. Do you believe in market economies?I have always been a little bit sort of a le centrist meme / pragmatist of "just do what works" and that's partially why I favor monarchy – a monarch, like I said, can possibly do just that without inhibitions by a party, contrary to most other monarchists that value that kind of rigidity – I value an arbiter and unity of command for that exact reason.
>by virtue of people theoretically being able to voot in their best interest.You say voting in their best interest – but all this leads to is factionalism and many leftists agree with Leninism – democratic centralism is just their solution to that, mine is like Hobbes – appeal to an arbiter / unity of command / monarch.
All voting does is bring back "mine" and "thine" as a quarrel and prompts people to fight each other – this is why I want to nullify this with a monarch / cult of personality. I see that voting brings more problems in this respect, and it's the same with private property and socialists – private property brings disputes of "mine" and "thine" – I just think the same with persons, I want to abolish the disputations of persons by consolidating them all into the unity of one person (a monarch).
This is why I personally don't vote – I think voting is the pandora's box.
>>813263>And have you ever thought about becoming a youtuber or some kind of influencer?TBH, my views are not popular – I actual do take stances when it comes to monarchy, and sadly the rest of the monarchist community doesn't like my stances.
I always whine about the inconvenience that integralists or the right libertarian to monarchist pipeline has brought me.
Also, I just don't have the personality and appeal, because I'm kind of an autist. I said this before, but I sound like a retarded Canadian.
I'd never have the popularity like Lavader does as a youtuber or influencer, lol, because I feel like his positions appeal directly to a lot of normalfag monarchists (*cough* constitutional monarchists) – perfect blend of being sort of right libertarian adjacent there and appeasing to conservatives in a way.
>However, I don't think this is an argument in favor of monarchies, but against liberal democracies.
That's because like I said, socialists already have the cow's milk – they don't think they see the need for monarchy because they have their democratic centralism, which is just corporatism, which is just the monarchy of the party to "act like one man" – & tbh, like I said, what appeal is there to the withered Christian royalty apart from that for the youth today? nobody likes Christian fundamentalism and hardly anyone does, not even conservatives really, not even a few traditionalists who think they do but don't, except a few fringe traditionalists.
…
Monarchy… in spite of that… is an acquired taste, like I said, but people voting in their best interest doesn't appeal to me for that reason – now that doesn't mean I'm opposed to any consensus to look into the general feeling people have… but I think the people are much stronger when they chant with a singer, because like I say a mass of people is like an amorphous blob and always conflicting with each other – a singer brings a mass of people into harmony, and chants back them and allows them to chant back – this is what truly allows for communication and for people as a whole to cohere together and have any general affection.
This shit has nkthing to do with drugs or alchohol
>>813264>I have always been a little bit sort of a le centrist meme / pragmatist of "just do what works"Here's the thing, though: market economies very rarely work for the most critical things – such as housing, healthcare, and education – anything for which the demand is inelastic. Example: virtually every country in the world where housing is mostly considered a commodity is facing a housing crisis at the moment. Houses end up being used for speculation, not for living. And when healthcare is treated as a commodity everything is dramatically more expensive, due to the fact that people are willing to pay everything they have in order to stay alive (inelastic demand).
In other words, market economies (especially unregulated ones) are overwhelmingly inadvisable.
>>813277>TBH, my views are not popularWell, you don't need to talk exclusively about monarchies. You can talk abt anything u'r interested in, like philosophy and such.
>I just don't have the personality and appeal, because I'm kind of an autistTons of ppl are autistic and want another autistic person info dumping autistic things in their ears while they play cities skylines or whatever on their second monitor. These autistic infodumping channels do crazy numbers
>>813408>In other words, market economies (especially unregulated ones) are overwhelmingly inadvisable.I'm not a muh free market sperg, if that's what you think.
–When I said I was conservative, I mean more of a "I like patriotism" ordeal or very moderately in a social way.
If a monarchy has a market economy or isn't socialist, I'm not inclined to destroy said monarchy – that is not my priority. –Monarchy is my priority, simply said.
>Well, you don't need to talk exclusively about monarchies. You can talk abt anything u'r interested in, like philosophy and such.When I am not talking about politics, I am talking about OCs or vidya or just everyday stuff, tbh.
What did you get for >>815195 ?
Stop feeding us your monarcho-fascist propaganda because hierarchy is reactionary
holy shit this kino thread still exists, I'm glad.
monarchism can exist in a republic, simply let the one in power stay forever lol
>>818732So every aes country was a monarchy then, they all had head of state for life
>>777462darn, I missed it.. happy late late late birthday
>>819156tbh, it has been years and I am pretty demoralized and resentful towards the e-monarchist community for a long time (if you haven't picked that up).
So I post here at a much slower rate.
>>819192Why don't you just stop being monarchist? Just have good politics, you can have an arc where grace converts it's fine.
Rightwing politics in general is pretty shallow to me
>race>christianity>right libertarianismthat is rightwing politics in a nutshell.
I think 2/3 of rightwing politics I don't care for, while I'm not as heavily invested in race/nationalism, so it isn't my main focus.
rightwingers also have a tendency to clutter around like hens and gossip about e-celebs and follow actual celebrities.
I have severe fatigue. I am pretty much retired and bitter.
>>819196I never said I stopped.
>>819197I mean that's my point, I'm saying you should stop
>>813412>Leftists come off to me as painfully naive in believing in universal brotherhood / friendship. It's not naive we just send everyone who refuses to get along with everyone else to a labor camp until they stop being retarded and can rejoin society.
>>819660>implying you can "rehabilitate" everyone, even sociopaths and hyperaggresive retards and other millions of unfixable examples and etclol
>forcing normal people to share the same country as these retards instead of killing themlol
>inb4 I replied to bait also having grace pony pics for reference would be nice because i don't have any
Yea, fuck them all
93 brcause of forest
>>819954well, i just need the cutie mark transparent png though, if ya have it
Delete this shit thread.
>>819954what;s with the mane style? are they called side bangs or something?
>>819197like this hairstyle for example, are these called side bangs?
leftypol pls help idk the name of the hairstyle lol
Anime is genetically fascist which in turn
is also genetically liberal. Also, ponies are idealist and industrial progress will reign for the eons.
>>820313Long bob
>>820312It's an "hime cut"
>>820340looks like it! gonna ask popens if they know of any hime cuts for open pony… lol i'm gonna need a lot of help on this or it might not be possible to make an open pony grace pony
>>820385The Gremlin one is closest, but I did consult them.
https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/HMART-KIKYO-Mane-Tail/28323004i think this one is even closer to the mane grace uses… maybe if I learn how kitbashing manes works
>>821030>that the 1st world countries are developed because it exploited resources and pillaged other countries thanks to colonial ventures and military hegemony, on one hand, and that Western people don't have any benefit from this.Even if the colonial powers as a whole developped massively from imperialism, the average westerner only get scraps from it that are getting more and more scrapped by Western Porky who already more than his fair share of loot from colonial ventures. Maybe that's where the apparent contradiction comes from.
>>821039>the average westerner only get scraps from itThat is up for debate. Yes, that is what the Left wants to say, that only Porky is benefiting and nobody else, but if you shut the flow of goods mitigated by hegemonic power, then the average westoiid would be probably out in the streets with a torch and pitchfork going to the politicians–so in reality they are much like fledgling birds being fed with their mouths open.
I said that average joe might be morally repulsed by the idea of industrial farming, but the influx of food is also supplied by animal massacres. A vegan would want to stop that and if vegans got their way and stopped total animal death… then it would be torches and pitchforks.
>>821043>but the influx of food is also supplied by animal massacres.I only give a shit about the environmental impact of industral farming and if the animal was abused during it's life. I do not care about pigs and cows dying to feed humans as a concept. But for decent treatmemt of animals (kind of like how they treat cows grown for wagyu) and significant reduction of environmental harm you would have to reduce production and therefore consumption greatly.
>>822860People are flippant and just don't overall care. They'd be immensely focused on fidget spinners or something before they'd care about this.
& TBH I don't blame them. Life is callous that way. As the gigachad says, cold, dark world.
(I actually agree with that sentiment: cold, dark world where nobody cares or gives a shit).
>>822845I'm the TES IV: Oblivion of the monarchist world and Lavader is Skyrim.
IDK, e-monarchists tend to gravitate around their NRx stuff, Hoppe, De Jouvenel, von Haller, but I always felt these were insufficient and even worse somewhat subversive with some–as some of these aren't pro-monarchy at all, IMHO, that is the painful thing. This is because e-monarchist politics, like I stated before, is a messy soup of interests that compromise on monarchy.
Whereas Lavader is a bit mid and overrated, but is halfway agreeable in some opinions.
I just can't stand whoever has clout on this part of the rightwing.
>>822998NRx through Hoppe and Yarvin say kings are entrepeneurs.
James and Filmer say kings are fathers of the nation.
I am currently reading Plato and he is astute to mention that kings have traditionally held offices as priests; which is the perspective of the anthropologist James Frazer. Plato, along with Lao Tzu, also saw that kings are really servants more than masters, since they do what is in the best interest of others, rather than themselves. For this reason, Plato obviously devises the office of Guardian; of philosopher-kings. In other places (e.g. Statesman), Plato says that a king is a type of man who other men willingly obey (with the unwilling command being tyrannical). Xenophon makes the same judgement; that the divinity of a king is in his self-command, from whence voluntary servitude proceeds. So, royalty is natural supremacy; voluntary obedience. It is not the absolutist assertion of some narcissist, but the rule of a wise man who in being master, is really a servant to all of his subjects.
>>823012Hoppe is not a monarchist.
>Plato says that a king is a type of man who other men willingly obeyThat is his distinction of a physician for freemen or a physician for slaves; nevertheless, even Plato thought the kind of monarchy that is subject to assemblies where the captain has no rein is less than ideal.
>It is not the absolutist assertion of some narcissistYou take it for narcissism when that is a misunderstanding. It is not for flattery, as Bodin says, that we esteem monarchy–the quality we stress is inherent to monarchy itself, it isn't that we esteem one person to flatter him because he is one -person- but because he is -one- person.
Again, you're reading too much of the clericalist objections to absolutism when those are fundamentally skewed.
Yes, it is true that Bodin nevertheless concedes that a monarch can devise such things fundamentally without their consent, nevertheless that is an appeal to arbiters, which Plato also acknowledges that a state cannot be built as Aristotle puts it as a "concord of hosts" where the assumption is this agreement is natural and easy.
>>823016>Hoppe is not a monarchistI know, but his theory of monarchy is entrepeneurial.
The king owns property, rather than renting it, like politicians.
>Plato thought the kind of monarchy that is subject to assemblies where the captain has no rein is less than ideal.Yes of course, but there is a paradox in kingship, where as Plato writes, the king must write laws to preserve order for the time when he cannot rule - and so the law becomes a disputed political object. It is by no means ideal to have a long parliament of constant revision, for this is manifest disorder, but as we read from King James in his "Trew Law of Free Monarchies", the king is appointed as protector of law. The law thus becomes determinative of the king, as a constitution. Plato uses the example of the rotating pillars in Athens, which wrote the laws out for all to see (like in Orwell's Animal Farm). Further, Plato sees that law is determinative of kingship by his very lawfulness. Thus, the lawful ruler is a king, while an unlawful ruler is a tyrant. I did not intend to get into this discussion, but if I expand, we see that if an absolutist thus takes the law as his own willful invention, he becomes unlawful as a result. This is why I would see "natural law" as the fuller meaning of Plato's discourse; the same way the spirit of Justice is given from the Form of the Good; as a prototypical "invisible hand"; again, the "spontaneous order" of market correction in Yarvin's work.
>narcissismI was speaking colloquially upon received opinion of monarchists.
Many monarchists think of a "strongman" as self-evidently great.
I was intervening upon this by situating the king as something more.
>>823019Yes… I do agree that Aristotle curiously distinguishes between the political and economic in the first book of his Politics, but at once claiming that the oikos is always a monarchy, while the state may take different forms. Of course, Aristotle's "polity" is a bond of friendship, and so esteems a supreme middle class, to conform each to the "golden mean" of provisional mediocrity. Nonetheless, I find sympathy, especially as it continues into the writings of Cicero (e.g. On Duties), wherein he explicates the role of law as the protection of property. As we might say, Plato reserves the right to property of the layman, and denies it for the Guardian (for as he writes in Book I of Republic, the man who does good cannot do it for his own benefit; e.g. his wages). On separation, we can read Aristotle's "Constitution of Athens" for an account of the Democracy. We see that voting was distributed between ten tribes who thus held equitable powers of representation, so warring factions (like today's racial division) played a part. Do you think that it was Democracy which disunified people, or a disunity of people which constituted a Democracy? I suppose we can see how larger scale unifications like Æthalstan's kingdom of the Saxons led to what we know as England today, centralising power in "shires" (e.g. for more on this, read the Anglo-Norman history of England, given here):
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/30184 >>823019And yes, neatness is next to Godliness.
The best thing Jordan Peterson ever said was "clean your room!"
Anyways, Plato himself thought the kind of constitutional monarchy we have today would be appalling – Bodin would think it goes against the natural law of monarchy itself as Louis XIV says,
>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.
Now Plato:
>STRANGER: Now suppose that we, bearing all this in mind, were to determine, after consideration, that neither of these arts shall any longer be allowed to ercise absolute control either over freemen or over slaves, but that we will summon an assembly either of all the people, or of the rich only, that anybody who lives, whatever may be his calling, or even if he have no calling, may offer an opinion either about seamanship or about diseases–whether as to the manner in which physic or surgical instruments are to be applied to the patient, or again about the vessels and the nautical implements which are required in navigation, and how to meet the dangers of winds and waves which are incidental to the voyage, how to behave when encountering pirates, and what is to be done with the old-fashioned galleys, if they had to fight with others of a similar build–and that, whatever shall be decreed by the multitude on these points, upon the advice of persons skilled or unskilled, shall be written down on trianglular tablets and columns, or enacted although unwritten to be national customs; and that in all future time vessels shall be navigated and remedies administratered to the patient after this fashion.
<Young Socrates: What a strange notion!
>STRANGER: Suppose further, that the pilots and physicians are appointed annually, either out of the rich, or out of the whole people, and that they are elected by lot; and that after their election they navigate vessels and heal the sick according to the written rules.
<Young Socrates: Worse and worse.
>STRANGER: But hear what follows: –When the year of office has expired, the pilot or physician has to come before a court of review, in which the judges are either selected from the wealthy classes or chosen by lot out of the whole people; and anybody who pleases may be their accuser, and may lay to their charge, that during the past year they have not navigated their vessels or healed their patients according to the letter of the law and the ancient customs of their ancestors; and if either of them is condemned, some of the judges must fix what he is to suffer or pay.
<Young Socrates: He who is willing to take a command under such conditions, deserves to suffer any penalty.
>Stranger: Yet once more, we shall have to enact that if any one is detected enquiring into piloting and navigation, or into health and the true nature of medicine, or about the winds, or other conditions of the atmosphere, contrary to the written rules, and has any ingenious notions about such matters, he is not to be called a pilot or physician, but a cloudy prating sophist;–further, on the ground that he is a corrupter of the young, who would persuade them to follow the art of medicine or piloting in an unlawful manner, and to exercise an arbitrary rule over their patients or ships, any one who is qualified by law may inform against him, and indict him in some court, and then if he is found to be persuading any, whether young or old, to act contrary to the written law, he is to be punished with the utmost rigour; for no one should presume to be wiser than the laws; and as touching healing and health and piloting and navigation, the nature of them is known to all, for anybody may learn the branch of hunting, or about painting or imitation in general, or carpentry, or any sort of handicraft, or husbandry, or planting, or if we were to see an art of rearing horses, or tending herds, or divination, or any ministerial service, or draught-playing, or any science conversant with number, whether simple or square or cube, or comprising motion–I say, if all these things were done in this way according to written regulations, and not according to art, what would be the result?
<Young Socrates: All the arts would utterly perish, and could never be recovered, because enquiry would be unlawful. And human life, which is bad enough already, would then become utterly unendurable.
Anyways, Plato makes it clear that the constitutional monarchist outlook is pardoy, it is insanity, it is its own slippery slope that would perish the arts and that anyone who takes office under such conditions deserves to suffer because it is utterly retarded to just arbitrarily follow any written law by men as if it were natural law, which absolutists don't do.
Now back to you:
>I did not intend to get into this discussion, but if I expand, we see that if an absolutist thus takes the law as his own willful invention
There is a distinction between the natural law and human laws–the absolutist position is indeed that human or civil laws are authored by men, but are nonetheless subject to natural law. The law of sovereignty and monarchy – we need the to the nature of this form of government, that one person does rule. Not that there is not any science or knowledge.
>the same way the spirit of Justice is given from the Form of the Good; as a prototypical "invisible hand"; again, the "spontaneous order" of market correction in Yarvin's work.
We see the rule of monarchs as part of that and not alien to it–the bread is not stacked upon shelves because no body put it there–management is something we deem to be alien to these things and that when management crosses into civil governance that it suddenly breaks the law of nature, no, that is an obscene view. Even right libertarians acknowledge that they need natural elites or governors to manage private property–the "spontaneous order" of the market correction is just Aristotle's food argument that the economy is like a potluck dinner and doesn't need the arbitration or rule of a wise man but democratic input, which Hitler decried against parliamentarianism as against the rule of aristocracy–which I think is accurate.
>Many monarchists think of a "strongman" as self-evidently great.
It is, yes, if your idea of monarchy is just completely non-existent or a total figurehead, you are not a monarchist–yes, the rule of a strongman is indeed monarchist, the rule by one person is a monarchy. That is exactly the case. That is monarchism. We believe in ther persausion of Darius in the Herodotus debate–that is where Absolutism is anchored mostly, like Bodin says, to what Herodotus testifies here, moreso than any other.
What kind of monarchist isn't for monarchic rule? –Whether that strongman rules rightly or wrongly is all that Plato is stripulating, with heavy doubts that it can be done rightly. But regardless, yes, the qualtiy of monarchic rule itself is that one person is sovereign, administers, reigns and rules, and that his government is -his- governance nonetheless.
>Yes… I do agree that Aristotle curiously distinguishes between the political and economic in the first book of his Politics
This is critical, please take note of that, Rousseau understood it even.
Even Hobbes acknowledges that there are fundamental laws–among those the law of sovereignty–if a monarch said that everyone or a huge chunk of people need to get their throat slit, that monarchy would be ruined, because Hobbes deems protection and peace the basis of civil government, albeit yes, not summum bonum in the classical sense.
I don't think any absolutist says that an absolute monarchy cannot fall into ruin that way. Bodin actually even courts the mandate of heaven outlook and says it with the tartars that if such a ruler flunks that way then he is gone. We just don't read into "mandate of heaven" as liberally as some people do as a license to overthrow at any scruple, as Bodin says that patricide is impious nonetheless even if it was deserved, even if said father was a murder or an atheist or whatever.
I'd say that the absolutist reluctance to accept regicide and an easy-going attitude is on par with Plato's hatred towards the poets for the Uranus castration myth. Plato sincerely thought that regardless of the moral, that it was giving children wrong ideas, that they could use private judgment to castrate their fathers. The absolutist view is pretty much the same really.
>>823035>Plato himself thought the kind of constitutional monarchy we have today would be appalling Absolutely. I only see contradiction in the object of law itself, for in each case, whether Monarchy or Democracy, the Rule of Law is given. This accounts for the case of God and the Moral Law all the same. It is by a standard of lawfulness that each thing is measured, and so the law itself becomes idolised as the agent of rule in a state (the same way Logos comes to dominate Physis in the nature of God. For more, read Plato's Euthyphro). Objectively, this has rhetorical currency, but subjectively, the rule of law quickly assumes a "rule of lawyers"; parliamentarians with constant revision. To continue on this emphatic point, I will quote Thomas Aquinas:
<in human affairs justice is determined by civil laws […] Human laws leave certain things unpunished, on account of the condition of those who are imperfect, and who would be deprived of many advantages, if all sins were strictly forbidden and punishments appointed for them.https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htmHere, the very certainty of temporal justice requires an admission of sin, whilst the Divine Law is unfit for men, but nonetheless submits them to final Judgement, if one is without Grace. Augustine in his City of God also sees that by mortal judgement, men esteem objects higher than what is valued by nature. What is curious is that where civil law is equal to moral/natural law, we have tyranny, and so what is best may become worst. Lysander Spooner, following Bentham thus wrote "Vices are not Crimes"; the same as Aquinas' judgement. The law itself is an elaborate topic, so I will leave it there.
>the absolutist position is indeed that human or civil laws are authored by men, but are nonetheless subject to natural law.Right, but the question concerns the authorship of law as it is best. Plato writes that the original laws become customs of people. We also get this idea in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain"; that the customs of the Isles were instituted as Molmutine Laws in a distant past. We see this sort of Hobbesian idea in the prelude to the Laws of Hammurabi (1750 BCE), who writes that the laws established order, rather than order being inherent to the local organisation of society:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.aspNow, natural law has of course always contended against the precise "nature" any man may assume, and instead posits what is best for him, by his discipline and moderation, yet as we see, this natural law cannot at once be the moral standard encoded into civil law, for else, all men would be guilty and put to death, as in Hell.
>We see the rule of monarchs as part of that and not alien to itYes, certainly "part" of it, but it is not top-down, either. It is admittedly necessary in all large-scale operations that entrepeneurial types are demanded, while in smaller scale ventures, markets operate autonomously. We see for example that in de-colonised Africa, villages still have rudimentary autonomy, but fail to develop cities in the same way that other places have. The kingly act, as Plato exposits, is the herding of men, like a Shepherd, and so the settling of a territory must further emplore the arts of economic development and political states. The Austrian Economic school from the time of Menger sees all investment as entrepeneurial work, and so all economies are planned, just by many planners. It is true in the case of the Classical School that the "market" manages itself, by a spontaneous order of individuals; a Democratic fantasy entirely akin to Plato's Republic, or in later imaginings, Fourier's Phalanx. Do you see that monarchy is a "theory of everything" or that it is limited?
>the rule by one person is a monarchyI never disputed this. My point is that a "true" king is not simply a monarch, for an unlawful king is a tyrant, and so the simple view of absolutism (e.g. on the internet) is the glorification of tyranny, which betrays proper royalty.
>RousseauIn Rousseau's Social Contract, he actually makes subtle argumentation that a Monarchy can also be a Republic, so long as the General Will accords to it. It was common of the French Enlightenment to promote Despotism.
>>823043The right of kings is legitimacy, which as I have said, concerns the service of a king to his subjects. Now, I wonder what you would think of the Whig tract of "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" (1709) which asserts that whereby the king is understood as serviceable, his power thus stems from the people, making his constitution an agreement of the public (e.g. social contract), and so where the king becomes a tyrant, the people have a right to revolt:
https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_vox-populi-vox-dei-bei_1709Plato in "Crito" sees the complete opposite; that where a citizen has agreed to live in a state, he must obey the judgements put against him, making revolution immoral, even if he be a subject of tyranny, such as with Socrates. We know that with the Glorious Revolution, along with the Jacobite rebellions, it was not a new Cromwell to act as temporal Lord Protector, but the import of a new king, which is a type of revolution, or perhaps "restoration"?
>>823045You could read John Milton as the anti-Plato. A poet who openly advocated for regicide and free speech. Milton also attempted to secularise marriage and legalise divorce. Truly, Satan was his epic hero.
>>823053>but subjectively, the rule of law quickly assumes a "rule of lawyers"Yes, that is what James I is hinting at with his maxim, "The king is a living law and the law is a dumb king".–He is appealing directly to that sentiment I pointed out with Plato's Statesman.
>Right, but the question concerns the authorship of law as it is best. Plato writes that the original laws become customs of people. We also get this idea in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain"; that the customs of the Isles were instituted as Molmutine Laws in a distant pastThe absolutist position asserts the preeminence of the monarch–that means, in other words, as Aristotle notes, to be a true aristocrat or living law.
Albeit yes, this is fixed–regardless of character, the monarch remains sovereign, even combined with fallible human attributes… in much the same manner that Plowden expouses a corporate system that the king attached to the state ascends this.
The king is the life of the country, much as Hobbes says, "the soul of commonwealth"–the father of the country is able to amend the customs of his children or introduce the basis of the state… Machiavelli also talks about this in Aristotle about the preeminent founder of a state, but takes it to another degree where strongmen are needed either for the institution of great states or sometimes to remedy them.–This is the same with Christianity: there is no pretense that there is a eucharist custom without Christ himself.
>In Rousseau's Social Contract, he actually makes subtle argumentation that a Monarchy can also be a Republic, so long as the General Will accords to it. It was common of the French Enlightenment to promote Despotism.So does Bodin–Bodin calls monarchy a form of republic or state. We do not differientate political & economical, again, that is what Aristotle is accused of doing.
Well, again, you make the same fancy as Aristotle that for a monarch to govern a republic is despotism. That is what "political and economical are no different" is all about–yes, that a king can govern the state in the same way he does for his estate amply. It is Aristotle who says this cannot be and that the nature of a state is either that or a cosntitution of freemen or equals.
>My point is that a "true" king is not simply a monarch, for an unlawful king is a tyrant, and so the simple view of absolutism (e.g. on the internet) is the glorification of tyranny, which betrays proper royalty.well, yes, that is what separates traditionalists generally from absolutists. Traditionalists place more emphasis on "aristocracy" in general as Plato does; absolutists stress Herodotus 3 forms of state simply, that a tyrant or king are nevertheless sovereign monarchs, and that a bad father is still yet a father. I stress the autonomy of monarchy way more than any pretense of aristocracy or good government–I'm not just for any kind of "good fovernment" in general–it's one thing to say, "Well, I'm just for good government"–I am not about just any kind of good government, but yes, my particular outlook is that monarchy is a kind of government encompassing all civil communication, or at least is the most straightforward and ample means of communication.
Anyone really calls his form of government that he proposes to be the "good government" or makes a pretense of that anyways. "I want dah good government".
>The right of kings is legitimacy, which as I have said, concerns the service of a king to his subjects.I don't deem that a king where he has no sovereignty and is simply a public magistrate. TO me this is against the law of monarchy, an anti-monarchy monarchy where the word "duty" is a word of malice against kings and the institution of kings–at this point, why have a king if you consider him more of an obstacle to civil government? Why not just forward staright to democracy where the pretense i that the people rule themselves? That is the fundamental problem I see here. At this point they are not subjects but the king is -their- subject and has no majesty. If the only point is that the king is an obstacle to civil government and that a king is only good if he serves democratically and that the institution of monarchy is only to be a beacon for democracy, then I'd say it would be ample to just have democracy and no pretense of monarchy whatsoever to begin with.
Of course, republicans or constitutional monarchists would say this with an appeal to the people.
Whereas integralists or any Christian fundamentalist would say ultimately legitimacy is being the footstool of their denomination.
Personally, I don't take this view too dogmatically even if Plato ascribes to it–I would even agree with Nietzsche's lament that people have come to think of kings no better than PEZ dispensers and miss the whole idea of being attached to a king to begin with.
The whole notion of absolutism relies upon what Aristotle says about monarchical preeminence almost, I would say, that is the notion being advanced almost, although Bodin doesn't fasten exactly that way that such a preeminent person is so great that he needs no law to govern his subjects but only as a commissioned agent.
Another thing is you make a distinction of "absolutists one the internet" but what I'm saying is what Bodin said. I'm fairly well read on this and haven't been "on the Internet" larping without actually consulting what they believed.
I will point out and even show you where Bodin denies a mixed form of state and sticks to Herodotus as his basis for this belief.
I can even show you where Bodin denies the position you're holding against "internet absolutists".
Jean Bodin Rejection of a mixed State or mixed Constitution
>All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point.
Jean Bodin on Herodotus:
>It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms
>Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities.
>Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written.
So Bodin ties his view to Herodotus to give it some dignity of antiquity and also denies that Plato had such a view as Aristotle has, also configuring the state on unity moreso than plurality of mixed government that way.
Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors
>But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected.
Bodin: But three Commonwealths or forms of State
>Forasmuch as we have before sufficiently spoken of Sovereignty, and of the rights and marks thereof; now it behooves us to consider who they be which in every Commonweal hold that Sovereignty; thereby to judge what the estate is: as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy: but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [Or, in more proper wording, Oligarchy]. Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governours good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths; we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite. Now it is certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and exctricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion infinite numbers of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths: a thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say that there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths.
Bodin: Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy
>There can be no forth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular, (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice).
Now, Bodin doesn't deny that there is such a thing as tyrannical monarchy, as Hobbes does–but the stress is simply different, the stress is more on -monarchy- than whether the monarch himself is good (king) or bad (tyrant). Bad monarch is just a bad monarch–yet there is still the quality of monarchical government that Bodin is considering.
Bodin even goes so far as to say that a tyrannical ruler in some cases is to be preferred to a well governed optimacy or democracy.
Jean Bodin:
>There is no reason to balance the cruelties and extorsions of a tyrant, with the actions of good princes: we know well that a peaceable Optimacy and wisely governed, if it may be, is better than a cruel tyranny. But the question is, whether it be better to have a just and upright king, or many good lords: and whether a tyranny of fifty tyrants be not more dangerous, than of one tyrant alone: And if there be not much more danger in a Popular or Aristocratical estates. than in a Monarchy. Yea it is most certain that a tyrannical Monarchy is sometimes more to be desired than a Democracy or Optimacy, how good soever: For if many wise and skillful pilots hinder one another in striving to govern the helm; even so will many lords do, every one seeking to govern the Commonweal, be they never so wise and virtuous. Although it be not needful to insist much upon this proof, that a Monarchy is the most sure, seeing that a family which is the true image of the Commonwealth can but have one head."
On the same grounds, Bodin thinks that no matter how bad a father is, the fatherhood nevertheless remains in much the same way:
Jean Bodin: Even if your father is a thief, a murderer, a traitor to his country, an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, an theist, or whaat so you will else
>whereas No cause (as saith Cicero) can be thought just or sufficient for vs to take up arms against our country. And yet it is most certain, that the sovereignty of the empire rests not in the person of the emperour, (as we will in due place declare) but being chief of the state, they could not lawfully take up arms against him, but by a general consent of the state, or of the greater part of them, which was not done: then much less is it lawful to take up arms against a Sovereign Prince. I cannot use a better example, than of the duty of a son towards his father: the law of God says, That he which speaks evil of his father or mother, shall be put to death. Now if the father shall be a thief, a murderer, a traitor to his country, as an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, an atheist, or what so you will else; I confess that all the punishments that can bee devised are not sufficient to punish him: yet I say, it is not for the son to put his hand thereunto, Quia nulla tanta impiet as, nullum tantum scelus est, quod sit parricidio vindicandum. For that (as saith an ancient Orator) no impiety can be so great, no offense so heinous, as to be revenged with the killing of ones father.
Of course, Christian integralists / fundamentalists will contest this and want to publish all sorts of things under the principle as Christ says to hate one's father and hate one's family or to divide your househould, your kingdom, and your nation–I deem this is social poison even if the pretense is for the truth or righteousness, to the extent that I think it deserves wary censorship in the way Plato is wary of the Uranus castration myth, because he fears telling children to castrate their fathers. –I would also maintain that sticking to this kind of social poison even undermines Christianity itself and the Pope's pretense, since no king, let alone the Pope, can with ease be 1:1 with Christ himself… which always leaves these loyalties subject to doubt even in the best case scenario they imagine when you default to "me and Jesus against the world" or against your society in general.
Personally, I hate that in Christianity, but so it is a malady for Christian royalty.
I'd also say that if you aren't reading into monarchy on the context of the Herodotus Debate (you HAVE to choose between strictly 3 forms of state, monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy), then you won't understand where absolute monarchists are coming from. If you think the "rule of a strongman" in general isn't appealing because he is a monarch, then you're throwing away all the appeal to how absolute monarchists think to begin with.
An absolute monarchist is 100% totally fixed in seeing the choice of state as a choice between simply monarchy (rule of one), oligarchy (rule of few), or democracy (rule of many)–absolute monarchists see appeal to "mixed constitution" as as fundamentally Aristotelian and a slippery slope to political pluralism which is at odds with monarchy… whereas Plato's stress on aristocracy versus tyranny isn't wholly written off, as Bodin acknowledges aristocracy and tyranny, but the stress nonetheless coincides with Herodotus and the Herodotus Debate–this is the absolutist position.
So if you aren't with the rule of a monarch (or, as you put it, a "strongman"), then the absolutist assumption is you're against monarchy.
Especially if you haven't even bothered to say whether you think this strongman is good or bad, but simply you think the principle of one person ruling is bad–that's not monarchist. –Everything regarding monarchy as a form of state is interpreted explicitly in this context as if we were in the Herodotus Debate and had to choose between 3 forms strictly.
Whereas the mixed constitutionalist stipulation that a monarch is simply an associate in a mixed constitution… denies monarchical preeminence, which is at the foundation of what absolute monarchists are looking to assert…
The Herodotus Debate
Between Otanes (Democracy), Megabyzus (Oligarchy), & Darius (Monarchy)
Otanes (Democracy)
Otanes was for giving the government to the whole body of the Persian people. "I hold," he said, "that we must make an end of monarchy; there is no pleasure or advantage in it. You have seen to what lengths went the insolence of Cambyses, and you have borne your share of the insolence of the Magian. What right order is there to be found in monarchy, when the ruler can do what he will, nor be held to account for it? Give this power to the best man on earth, and his wonted mind must leave him. The advantage which he holds breeds insolence, and nature makes all men jealous. This double cause is the root of all evil in him; he will do many wicked deeds, some from the insolence which is born of satiety, some from jealousy. For whereas an absolute ruler, as having all that heart can desire, should rightly be jealous of no man, yet it is contrariwise with him in his dealing with his countrymen; he is jealous of the safety of the good, and glad of the safety of the evil; and no man is so ready to believe calumny. Nor is any so hard to please; accord him but just honour, and he is displeased that you make him not your first care; make him such, and he damns for a flatterer. But I have yet worse to say of him than that; he turns the laws of the land upside down, he rapes women, he puts high and low to death. But the virtue of a multitude's rule lies first in its excellent name, which signifies equality before the law; and secondly, in that its acts are not the acts of the monarch. All offices are assigned by lot, and the holders are accountable for what they do therein; and the general assembly arbitrates on all counsels. Therefore I declare my opinion, that we make an end of monarchy and increase the power of the multitude, seeing that all good lies in the many."
Megabyzus (Oligarchy)
Megabyzus' counsel was to make a ruling oligarchy. "I agree," said he, "to all that Otanes says against the rule of one; but when he bids you give the power to the multitude, his judgment falls short of the best. Nothing is more foolish and violent than a useless mob; to save ourselves from the insolence of a despot by changing it for the insolence of the unbridled commonalty — that were unbearable indeed. Whatever the despot does, he does with knowledge; but the people have not even that; how can they have knowledge, who have neither learnt nor for themselves seen what is best, but ever rush headlong and drive blindly onward, like a river in spate? Let those stand for democracy who wish ill to Persia; but let us choose a company of the best men and invest these with the power. For we ourselves shall be of that company; and where we have the best men, there 'tis like that we shall the best counsels.
Darius (Monarchy)
Darius was the third to declare his opinion. "Methinks," said he, "Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies. But in an oligarchy, the desire of many to do the state good service sometimes engenders bitter enmity among them; for each one wishing to be chief of all and to make his counsels prevail, violent enmity is the outcome, enmity brings faction and faction bloodshed; and the end of bloodshed is monarchy; whereby it is shown that this fashion of government is the best. Again, the rule of the commonalty must of necessity engender evil-mindedness; and when evil-mindedness in public matters is engendered, bad men are not divided by enmity but united by close friendship; for they that would do evil to the commonwealth conspire together to do it. This continues till someone rises to champion the people's cause and makes an end of such evil-doing. He therefore becomes the people's idol, and being their idol is made their monarch; so his case also proves that monarchy is the best government. But (to conclude the whole matter in one word) tell me, whence and by whose gift came our freedom — from the commonalty or an oligarchy or a single ruler? I hold therefore, that as the rule of one man gave us freedom, so that rule we should preserve; and, moreover, that we should not repeal the good laws of our fathers; that were ill done."
Bodin sees mixing a constitution up not as equally having monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy, but as taking paste and mixing it until it is all brown or as Bodin calls it, "Plain democracy". –And is Bodin wrong? Under the color of every mixed constitutionlaist pretense, the outcome for "constitutional monarchy" has effectively become a democracy in all but name with a king only in name. Now you might say in moral outcry, "kingship isn't only just a pretense of power or mightiness!" but honestly a king who can't rule his kingdom and is only reduced to royal dignity and his title and doing ceremonies is no royal monarch in our view. In fact, this is seen as beneath royal dignity–morally, a mixed constitutionalist might say that it is great because then there is no pretense of ambition… ambition is cut off just like castration, you have castrated the king… but absolutists view this mixed constitutionalist attitude of king doesn't rule and leave it all to the prime minister as just laziness/idleness and therefore a vice anyways.
Jean Bodin: The Analogy of Three Cities with Different Forms of Commonwealth (or State) Mixing together: The Three Forms of State are of Contrary Natures:
>"So as if the mixture of things of diverse and contrary natures, arises a third all together differing form the things so together mixed. But that State which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales differs in deed nothing from a mean popular State (democracy); For if three cites, whereof one of them is governed by a King, and so a Monarchy (One); the second by an Optimacy, and so an Oligarchy (Few); the third by the People, and so a Democracy (Many); should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale (State), and so the chief power and Sovereignty communicated unto all; who is there that can doubt but that that State shall be altogether a State popular (Democracy)? except the Sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the King, then to the Nobility, and afterwards to the People; As in the vacancy of the Roman Kingdom, the King being dead, the Senators ruled by turns: yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonwealth, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all."
<Jean Bodin: Mixed Constitutonalism. An Opinion Not Only Absurd… but Treasonable
>"There are those who say, and have published in writing, that the constituton of France is a mixture of the three pure types, the Parlement representing Oligarchy (few), the Estates-General representing Democracy (many), and the King representing Monarchy (one). But this is an opinion not only absurd but treasonable. It is treasonable to exalt the subjects to be the equals and colleagues of their Sovereign Monarch."
As for what I said early about a public magistrate, Bodin makes it that this cannot be called a monarchy.
>What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king.
I bring this up because I have had someone come up to me and just say, "You worship power!" and that is all I see in monarchy… which honestly prompts me to sympathize hard with Nietzsche with how ridiculous mixed constitutionalists can be and the lengths they will go to make any pretense against monarchy.
Now if you wanted to ask me… does monarchy have political sapience?
Yes, I think there is much sapience in our appeal.
I personally view an absolute & hereditary preeminent monarchy as a kind of civil religion.
"Religion" in the sense that it is the unity of the state, in the same sense that the unity of all forms depends on the good.
Fascists also assert this outlook.
Giovanni Gentile:
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
>The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.
As the "soul of the commonwealth", as Hobbes puts it, monarchical sovereignty also refenders all other functions valuable–from the preeminent royal estate, all other estates have a lifeforce, from the royal estate, the pretense is that he is the original father of the nation perhaps even literally, that is, retains the right of pater familias over all the other fathers and the power of life and death, and on similar lines that what a son gathers he does for his father, in the same way ants deliver communal benefit back to the queen and the hive–we do not juxapose "king" and "people" in such a way that we think it is one or the other, but really in the spirit as Hobbes says there can truly be no people without being centered on a monarch.
Personally, I think there is some fair assessment that the idea of a monarch as a servant has sometimes been stressed to the extent that they literally mean a publicc slave, whereas the original context simply meant an appeal to real by expertise… I sympathize with the State Shintoists who also feel that this makes monarchy too transactional and entitles people to think "what am I getting out of it?" rather frugally rather than seeing thos blood bond as more fulfilling than that… in that sense, I view it as degrading and I hate that interpretation in particular and the fruits of it. Because to me a monarch is not just a noble PEZ dispenser but really is aspiring to be greater than life and "father" is more than just that a father only exists to provide to his children, but rather the children are to look up to their father and derive from this a sense of being and identity. –In that context, I totally sympathize where either Nietzsche or State Shintoists find this principle being stressed to be a bit tedious–this just becomes the partiality and frugality of the people themselves, which nevertheless like a hungry, ungrateful gremlin snarls, "Where is my food?" and "What does this benefit my faction for?" which in my view just leads to factionalism–the appeal to monarchy is that with monarchical preeminence there is a "big tent" mentality that is only realized through consolidation behind one person. That through a moanrch people become a family and the factionalism is supposed to subside, whereas under the pretext of republicanism and self-government that the people are always in line with their interests because the public can't go against its own interests because it -is- the public, well, that traps itself into a community of strangers, when the public looks upon itself, all it sees are factions of different people… the monarchist mentality where a state is realized in being a family "through their king and his offspring" to the same extent that a Christian sees his Church as a family through Christ as his lifesource… but anyways, I don't think anyone sees the appeal or "sapience of monarchy" if they only see their appeal in just shilling their political party or denomination or even as Nietzsche coldly says that they in a vulgar tone only care that it is "merely as an instrument for their benefit" as opposed to being their sense of being and identity collectively as a cult of personality–this is where I fundamentally reject you.
Hesiod: The Wisdom of Kingship
>All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. he addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeases the parties with soft words.
>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies,>Who have no King, by their confusion dies.>Others live long, as th' Ant and Royal Bee.>A Guard who keeps, lives, dyes in Majesty.>Their Hives, Walls, Combs, Cities, Holes, Houses are,>Stings are their Arms, one rules in peace and war.-Monarchical Triumphans
>"The age of the kings is past, because their subjects are no longer worthy of them: they do not want to see their king embodiment of their ideal, but rather as an instrument for their benefit."In that view of "civic religion", yes, kings in origin are the gods of their nations in a way, where the people collectively invest in having a cult of personality to strengthen their identity.
This is not narcissism to me.
When I call kings and their royal family to be the pantheon of their nation, I don't think I am speaking in vain.I see the persona of a monarch as the genuine lifeforce behind their respective state and what allows all people to have a sense of being one people, a community of pleasures and pains attained by the manifestation of one person. That is not narcissism–that is the ultimate form of communication.
People without a singer on the stage are completely muddled to me, an amorphous blob–there is no basis of communication.
Whereas a singer allows people to communicate–they cannot say "YES" or "NO!" unless the singer signals to them collectively.
I stress this political outlook here:
Corgism:>Politics as a colony of an absolute monarchy and people form a great family; a cult of personality for a community of pleasures & pains.Monarchia Natio Coloniae / Dynastic Patriotism.
Meaning, the cultivation of a people with Monarchy (in a domestic context).
(I might have butchered the Latin, but it is the thought that counts).
That is my political ideology.
When I say colony in Monarchia Natio Coloniae my intent is a cultivation of politics, to make a people & politics a colony of monarchy. Not colony in the context of foreign lands, but the establishment of politics from Monarchy.
This way, there is a dynastic patriotism.
My political ideology is Monarchia Natio Coloniae
(Or, as Hitler calls it in Mein Kampf, dynasty patriotism).
Meaning, the cultivation of a people with Monarchy (or a work of Monarchy upon the people).
When I say colony in Monarchia Natio Coloniae my intent is a cultivation of politics, to make a people & politics a colony of monarchy.
Now my personal outlook is that Jesus spoke often in hyperbolic ways and that commenting that a monarch is a literal "slave of all" as opposed to the Alexandrian model of monarchy or "kings who lord it over"… that this hyperbolic take as twisted the original context even. I think that this view as Aristotle puts it between a "Persian father" and a "Greek father" where children are slaves to the Persian father but the Greek father gives to Greek children… –I think that has debased monarchy in some way, I think children anchoring themselves to their father in the same respect to a father god is for the purpose of having their sense of being and so that is why they are like "slaves to their fathers" from Aristotle's outlook… I personally think this sentiment in Western civilization is extremely crude and that from the Uranus castration myth Western people have become entittled to castrating their father gods and revolution to "take their sense of being" and have their Promethean fire, as Jesus himself has become a Promethean figure leading a revolution against the Greek pantheon of paganism as even Christian memes show Zeus "Sacrifice to me or you suffer!" and Jesus "I sacrifice myself for you" to showcase this example of Greek father versus Persian father has even undermined Greek religion itself, whereas the Orient always wattach themselves to a father and view that as a piece of dignity rather than as slavery that Westerners crudely see it as–to the Oriental view, to attach to one's father means to confirm and have a soul, but the Westerner views attachment in this way to be soul-depriving… so they have that famous picture of Cronus eating his sons–this is not how we view it, the attachment to a father god or king we don't see as debasing or soulless that way, but rather the opposite. That is just a sad and rather ironic Western bias, I think.
–I think the picture with Kim Jong Il showcases that, Kim jong Il extends his hand out to the soldier, the soldier brings his hand to his heart–signifying that the Leader is his lifeforce and attachment to the Leader is not soul debasing but central to his identity. Only Westerners see that as "glorfication of tyranny" and that is why I think with Westerners in particular you have to be a Machiavellian because with Westerners what Tiberius says that ruling is like holding a wolf by the ears is especially so, as Westerners as not as collectivist and are even more prone to seeing this as tyrannical like wolves being held by the ears.
Let me also add, for instance, that 2 kings, no matter how good they are, is no monarchy but a diarchy *& Bodin considers diarchy a form of oligarchy.
For us, monarchy is monarchy. A bad single king is just an imperfect monarch.
It is not unlawful for a king to rule–to the law of sovereignty, this is fundamental that a monarch rules. That is the law for absolute monarchists.
So I deem it an anti-monarchy monarchy to reduce monarchy and deny its status–to us, that is tyrannical.
So for an absolutist, yes, a true monarch is simply a monarch. We're not concerned with any number of good kings. IF there is a collective of kings, we don't even consider that a monarchy but an oligarchy.
When you add that "a true king is not simply a monarch", that is just utterly at odds with how absolutists see it as I said before with the Herodotous Debate. Look, a king who is going against the law of monarchy is denying his own pretense, –the law of sovereignty is that one monarch is sovereign, to break with this denies his own integrity and rule and the mold itself by which his form of state is conforming.. For absolute monarchists, the form of state itself is a fundamental law and denying that -is- unlawful and endangering everything.
So even Louis XIV says,
>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.
When you deny the rights of the crown, you are persuading the king to commit treason against himself. –It is absolutely integral that there be one ruler, one king in the absolutist view because we live by the spirit of Homer's maxim that there is to be one ruler… one king…
And again, the quality of being -one- person is what makes monarchy divine to us.
You overlook this and squander it as "simply being a monarch", but to us absolutists that is everything.
That is exactly what makes a king to be a kind of god, that he alone has this preeminence.
Exactly as I said it isn't stress on one -person- but -one- person.
>Pythagoras ascribes to one what's due to God,-Monarchica Triumphans
So a sovereign monarch is a kind of civic religion. All absolutists acknowledge this.
Even Bossuet ardently professed this. As well as King James I.
I wouldn't even think the pretense of Gaius Caligula is in vain (considering that he was following Alexander the Great in that pretense).
>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.
<For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend
>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavensJean Bodin / Confusion of laws divine, natural, & human>And countrarywise, when as they shall limit and restrain the sovereign power of a Monarch, to subject him to the general estates, or to the council, the sovereignty has no firm foundation, but they frame a popular confusion, or a miserable Anarchy, which is the plague of all States; the which must be duly considered, not giving credit too their goodly discourses, which persuade subjects, that it is necessary to subject Monarchs, and to prescribe their prince a law; for that it is not only the ruin of the Monarch, but also of the subjects. It is yet more strange, that many hold an opinion that the prince is subject to his laws, that is to say, subject to his will, whereon the civil laws (which he has made) depend; a thing impossible by nature.
<And under this color and ill digested opinion, they make a mixture and confusion of civil laws with the lawes of nature, and of both jointly with the laws of God: so as they suppose, when the prince forbids to kill, to steal, or to commit adultery, that it is the prince's law. When it comes to Hoppe, the fundamental problem with him and why he isn't a "monarchist" along with all the people right libertarians like is simply this: they constantly make this appeal to "decentralization" which is another way of saying that they prefer Aristotle's outlook of a "concord of hosts" or "a partnership of clans", so you bring up many planners.
–This is the same outlook that Aristotle says against the rule of a wise man, that a potluck dinner is preferable, so the rule of an assembly or many noble estates is preferable to that of a monarch.
So these right libertarian types stress the nobility over monarchy, because they see the political constitution in terms of the estates as a partnership of clans rather than the preeminence of one royal estate over them. The same basis Aristotle uses against state corporatist outlook is used against monarchy in this context.
From this basis, right libertarians deem it "tyranny" to defy this assembly or the customs, that is to say, their concordant view of politics where the nature of a state is a plurality and where the political constitution or economy or the city (which is the estates-general) is prioritized by the convention of -their- laws, -their- concord, -their- friendship as measured by the confluence of potlucks, to them their meeting and concord is the basis of law.
From the absolutist view, the unity of the monarch comes first: there is no convention or concord or confluence of the estates… without a monarch who summons the estates–that the monarch summons parliament or the estates-general is the fundamental proof that monarchy has preeminence over them and that the royal law is the law of the land. That the bassi for communication stems upon their unity and monarchy is that unity. So monarchy is the law, and the king is the state: as Aristotle says, in such a preeminent monarchy, the monarch is in relation to the whole to a part, not the part to a whole: the whole being the state. So a king is said to a thousand men.
To me it is as clear as day why Hoppeanism is incompatible with monarchy.
Right libertarians in general subscribe to that Aristotelian view, they lament "despotism" for a monarchy to govern a republic or state or poltiical constitution. They lament "centralization" at absolute monarchy, because they scribe to that ARistotelian view, as Aristotle lays down, that political constitutions are to be a plurality "decentralized" by a partnership of clans… this is where their fundamental stress on the nobility comes in and their rights as opposed to absolute monarchy… Hoppeanism is also keen on limiting monarchy to a private estate because it also subscribes to that Aristotelian view that monarchs are only understood in terms of a private economical relationship and in regard toa republic is "one among equals".
–This is no different what the advocates of decentralization do – than say when the Orthodox bishops deny papal primacy, except they do it on the pretense not of Orthodox bishops but on the nobles… at the basis is ultimately antithetical to monarchy–Hoppe is not a monarchist for this.
Neither is De Jouvenel who is the most furious in asserting this.
You are all defying monarchy by advocating these people: the most frustrating part of this is as a monarchist you don't even care about the notion of monarchy but the pretense of "good government" you see no crime here and that is why it is important to acknowledge monarchy and not just any number of good kings. This problem is compeltely sidelined because right libertarians are only looking out for their preeminence of the free market and utterly refuse to see the appeal to monarchy here.
I think it is absurd though when these people come to us and try to assert that bizarre outlook of state where no laws can be taken down or reformed.
You say that a non-stop long parliament is bad, but a state where they just keep adding laws upon laws and refuse to simplify or redress problems is just as bad to me.
I don't think any state operates that way: where a law is instituted and just kept there forever as if it were the law of God even if it has proven to be a foul institute they will keep with a stubborn resistence to not leave those laws.
Absolutists think that to treat every law instituted as fundamental is absurd that way. Not every law is a fundamental law. No society can function where every law is treated as a fundamental law. The authors of laws are bound to run into mistakes as well. To institute a such an ordiance and not consider the circumstance or impracticality is suicide.
I don't think even conservatives or right libertarians themselves would be this stubborn about their institutions.
"Many planners" is as odious to the basic monarchist idea as "many kings". The whole point of Homer is that there should be one king.
Again, you will call this "glorification of tyranny" if we actually realize this. That is what is the most insufferable thing about traditionalists when it comes to monarchy.
They have wholly aligned themselves against monarchy. They make every pretense they can make against it.
That traditionalists have married themselves to any pretense… makes me extremely sympathetic to Hobbes and his frustration with moral philosophy.
It seems clear as day that these people aren't being practical but are just obfuscating everything for other agendas.
That they hamper not because of any commitment but because of vain-glory.
They will make the pretense of a "good king" if it means at the end of the day there is effectively no king.
It's completely asinine to me.
Right libertarians are needlessly difficult that way and so are traditionalists with how needessly complex they have to make this.
Hobbes writes…
Thomas Hobbes
>Look now, how great a prejudice these are, such, and so great is the benefit arising from this doctrine of morality, truly declared. How many Kings (and those good men too) have this one error, That a Tyrant King might lawfully be put to death, been the slaughter of?
>How many throats has this false position cut, That a prince for some causes may by some certain men be deposed? And what bloodshed hath not this erroneous doctrine caused, That Kings are not superiors to, but administrators for the multitude? Lastly, how many rebellions has this opinion been the cause of which taught that the knowledge whether the commands of Kings be just or unjust, belongs to private men, and that before they yield obedience, they not only may, but ought to dispute them?
>Besides, in the moral philosophy now commonly received, there are many things no less dangerous than those, which it matters not now to recite. I suppose those ancients foresaw this, who rather chose to have the Science of justice wrapt up in fables, than openly exposed to disputations: for before such questions began to be moved, princes did not sue for, but already exercised the supreme power.
>They kept their Empire entire, not by arguments, but by punishing the wicked and protecting the good; likewise Subjects did not measure what was just by the sayings and judgements of private men, but by the Laws of the Realm; nor were they kept in peace by disputations, but by power and authority:
<Yea they reverenced the supreme power, whether residing in one man or in a council, as a certain visible divinity;
>Therefore they little used as in our days, to join themselves with ambitious, and hellish spirits, to the utter ruin of their State; for they could not entertain so strange a fancy as not to desire the preservation of that by which they were preserved;
>in truth, the simplicity of those times was not yet capable of so learned a piece of folly.
The end of a Golden Age–RUINED by Uranus/Cronus/Zeus castration & usurpation myth
<Wherefore it was peace, and a golden age, which ended not before that Saturn being expelled, it was taught lawful to take up arms against Kings.
Ixion, Zeus & Juno banquet
>The Ancients not only themselves saw, but in one of their fables, they aptly have signified it to us; for they say, that when Ixion was invited by Jupiter to a banquet, he fell in love, & began to court Juno her self; offering to embrace her, he clasp't a cloud…
>From whence the Centaurs proceeded, by nature half men, half horses, a fierce, a fighting, and unquiet generation;
>Which changing the names only, is as if they should have said, that private men being called to Counsels of State desired to prostitute justice, the only sister & wife of the supreme, to their judgements, & apprehensions, but embracing a false & empty shadow instead of it, they have begotten those hermaphrodite opinions of moral philosophers, partly right and comely, partly brutal and wild, the causes of all contentions, and bloodsheds.
King James I in this scene reminds me of that predicament.
Now King James I in this scene shouts, You shall not sit before your king!
Because in the absolutist view it the unity of the king comes prior to the estates: the king summons parliament.
The Right Libertarians are also like that in they say a "few points" but with endless contrivances and if you are against this endless contrivance… you're a "tyrant".
Honestly, constitutional "monarchists" never fail to not be that asinine picture Plato paints of them.
WHere they make a pretense of "lawful king" to essentially be a eunuch king that is subject to their assemblies and the laws prescribed by what is effectively rule by democracy.–This is not a sovereign monarchy and it will never be a monarchy no matter how "good" the king is.
In this instance, I have to agree with Bodin's sentiment that a "bad man makes a good king" to not tolerate this kind of bullshit.
Thomas Hobbes:
>From Aristotle's Civil Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner of Commonwealths but the Popular, (such as was at the time the state of Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants… A Tyrant originally signified no more simply, but a Monarch: But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that kind of government was abolished, the name began to signify, not only the thing it did before, but with it, the hatred which the Popular States bear towards it: As also the name of King became odious after the deposing of the Kings in Rome, as being a thing natural to all men, to conceive some great Fault to be signified in any Attribute, that is given in despight, and to a great Enemy. And when the same men shall be displeased with those that have the administration of the Democracy, or Aristocracy, they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their anger in; but call readily the one Anarchy, and the other Oligarchy.
Hobbes is completely vindicated because that really is the case: anything that isn't a democracy… is tyranny… an unlawful king to them is a king who isn't ruled by what is effectively a democracy or their conceit and liking.
The end result is often just that too, but they still blame absolute monarchists for the stew they've prepared for us. These people are untenable. They say they're for monarchy but make every move against it under the pretense that doing this is righteous. Right Libertarians especially are just doing it because they actually don't want society to be monarchically governed. That goes against Right Libertarian ideas contrary to Hoppe. Every group that wails against absolute monarchy is just totally warped and ultimately against monarchy, but have become the representatives of monarchist interests to my disappointment.
>>823061>Living LawLest we be so blasphemous as to idolise men as God, in likewise manner that Christ is the Law incarnate (in the style that James II compared kings to gods on earth), we must once more assess the nature of lawfulness. We may excuse the pious Pharisees who do not have comprehension of Christ's proclamation that exception to the Law is granted by his embodiment of it. When the Disciples pluck grain and eat on the Sabbath, the law is said to have temporary suspension in presence of God, in likewise manner that exceptions prove the rule, where Spirit combats the Letter. The Lost Sheep is sought to be rescued against the edicts of Shabbat, but where it is rescued, it is prized more highly than the herded sheep. In this spectacular Parable, we find that lawfulness is not adherence to men, but conscience (e.g. the law is written upon our hearts; like our inward circumcision). In this I perceive the difference between the natural and civil, that unnatural laws command unnatural things, and so the law may become unlawful by increase of statute. Where the heart is hardened, there is unlawfulness (for legal precedence, I may cite the "Nuremberg Defense"). We read from the Roman jurists that an increase of the written law was always combined with injustice, and so like Lao Tzu's claim, that ritual is a vain degeneration of virtue, we see how more is often less, and less is more. The pretension of lawfulness thus causes its opposite, as in the case of long parliaments. Nonetheless, there may be meddling tyrants who subvert the polis by self-interest. As I have written therefore, the stature of a king is measured by his lawfulness, which is social contract. James I writes that it is by mutual obligation that royalty ascents to its right of rule; by reciprocity. Where a king is not beset by protection of the true law, he is not a king. So, the constitution is still present, even if it is unwritten. Plato introduces this conundrum in Euthyphro, where the law of God and the Will of God are put at odds. If a god were to command evil, would it not be good in the light of divinity? If murder is evil, yet God commands it, is it justified? We see in the case of Abraham and Isaac that God spares Isaac, nullifying the validity of the order, and so the law is preserved, by regulation of God's Will. What is important is that it is self-regulation, such that Xenophon attributes self-rule as the first virtue of kings. We do not dispute that the wisest man ought to have the most power, but as Plato writes, the law sets a measure for the king themself. We thus say that where we have a living tyrant, the dumb king still offers a proper defense. Finally, upon exception, it is the opinion of Kant that the Sovereign must maintain exception to the law, for if he were subject to it, he would not be sovereign. This has a certain contradiction in Kant's ethics, for he sees that it is the Moral Law which rules reasonable men, yet he does not see that it is law which rules a state. We see that there is a certain distinction between moral and civil law, as in the case of Aquinas, but the priest must yield to the moral law nonetheless. The king is a priest.
>the monarch remains sovereign, even combined with fallible human attributesBut is not the exception of Christ from the law a means of demonstrating his flawlessness? This itself is not an easy question; for Christ has right by being Son of God, and is coincidentally perfect. Nonetheless, we read that the fallen angels were sons of God who were disgraced. If a king becomes a tyrant, does he lose his legitimacy?
>there is no pretense that there is a eucharist custom without Christ himself.Well, in Christology we can see Melchisidek supply wine and bread to Abraham, and Jesus is the high priest of the order of Melchisidek. Still, the spirit moves in this. On the question of custom, we can see covenant from God to man; but this a contract, which is promised to.
>despotismPerhaps you misunderstand; the idea in French thought was "Enlightened Despotism" with much allusion to the Chinese system of government.
>It is Aristotle who says this cannot be and that the nature of a state is either that or a cosntitution of freemen or equals.Well, Aristotle also sees marriage as constitutional, or contractual, and in Plato's Crito, he sees an "agreement" on part of citizens to a state. James I sees that the king establishes a partnership with his subjects, the same as God to man. There is an equality of men to Christ in the fellowship, for he counts each as friends, rather than as children. In fact, he situates the Father as a Father of all, making each person a sibling of one another. This is complicated by Paul, who writes that Christians are the slaves of God. Do masters make pacts with servants? I see thus the clause of Xenophon and Plato, that a king must have voluntary followers, not enslaved captives.
>a bad father is still yet a fatherYes, but a bad father must establish rebellion against himself, like Zeus against Cronus. I take the position of Socrates in Euthyphro that a son ought not penalise his father before a court for unserious infractions, but even so, Socrates adds the condition that an offense against a servant is not the same as against a family member. It thus betrays piety to treat humanity so legalistically. As I have attempted to communicate, legalism is unlawful. What do you think about monarchical substitution? Was the Glorious Revolution justified? Were the Jacobites?
>why have a king if you consider him more of an obstacle to civil government? That's a great question. Curtis Yarvin has stumbled on this point, by saying that deposition of a king would be allowed through oligarchic usurpation, essentially. A CEO is appointed by shareholders, and so a majority of votes could retire the leader, which is simply a type of democracy; the democracy of a market, where business appeals to customers on the ground level. On the point of preeminence, I see that a king must command people by voluntary means, lest he be a tyrant, and so perhaps in a democratic fashion, men choose their leaders, but it is still a mark of sovereign distinction which is granted. I think that once you allow for possible illegitimacy, you make power subject to scrutiny, and measure royalty by the standards of lawfulness, which requires lawyers. The only protection is divinity, which belongs to God. In Statesman, Plato writes that there are seven types of govermment, with the seventh being a sort of theocracy; the rule of God on earth (by parable). For the rest, even the greatest mortal kingship degenerates with its heirs, and so the Polybian anacyclosis commences; politics is a cyclical phenomenon, and so defies the City of God. It is in the mythic cycle of rebirth that there is a rising out of the ashes, but there are still ashes. I am a political pessimist, but an economic optimist; I think that each person is best served in serving themselves, in an oikos. To bring it back to Peterson, how can one claim to have answers to global problems while not solving their own? I do feel that nobility is beneficial by de-politicising civil society, and so liberating the economic from politics in the same way. If people were not obliged to participate in power, they would probably be better off (we see the manifest frustration of today's patricians versus the plebeians, leading to condescension and deception. We witness in today's so-called politics how everything has orientation around gossip - millions feast their eyes and ears on spindled noble lies, without nobility). Democracy falsely imagines each man as a king, not a householder. So, I do accept the Aristotelian point, but in a subtle way; like the adage of Edward Coke, "an Englishman's home is his castle". This is Aristotle's sensible bourgeoisdom.
>>823065>>823070>>823071>>823073What you appear to be asserting is that tyranny does not exist. Plato writes that a virtuous monarchy is the best, but he adds that a tyranny is the worst government. Are you saying that the best is a virtuous monarchy and the second best is a tyranny? That is your absolutism, no?
>>823083I never presumed you to be unserious.
You are internalising my flippancy.
>Bodin doesn't deny that there is such a thing as tyrannical monarchyYet you appear to be.
>Bodin even goes so far as to say that a tyrannical ruler in some cases is to be preferred to a well governed optimacy or democracy.Right, and you would also hold to that view, contra Plato?
>>823086Here, a king and country are made synonymous. I would disagree to this since I am not a Catholic, but more protestant in my outlook. The Pope is not the Church.
>>823092There aren't 3 forms of government, but 6; each rule (either of one, a few, or many) having virtue and vice. I see that tyranny is worse than a virtuous democracy because I lead with proper lawfulness, not the lawgiver. Now, since in the West, we live in vicious democracies, a tyrant may in fact be preferable since at least "the trains run on time".
>you think the principle of one person ruling is badVirtuous monarchy is best. Vicious monarchy is worst.
>>823099A king only rules by loyalty.
If his subjects follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit, they are traitors, themselves. A king cannot be appointed by another, but must have willing followers. As it is said for Pahlavi; "a king who begs for his crown". At least Cromwell summoned an army. Give haste!
>>823101Well, it is nonetheless true that a king who does not provide benefits to his subjects is rather unworthy.
>>823108It is not false that the body politic requires a head, and a mouth from which to speak, but there is dispute in the specifics. How can the Plantagenets be parents of the nation of England when they are French? Many kings rule over foreign bodies, so cannot simply be chieftans.
>>823125This seems rather paradoxical.
Revolting against a tyrant is itself tyranny?
>>823152>nobility over monarchyWell, libertarians would hold that the economic is itself sufficient over the political.
>>823153>You say that a non-stop long parliament is bad, but a state where they just keep adding laws upon laws and refuse to simplify or redress problems is just as bad to me.Yes I agree. I think the supremacy of the House of Commons to its current state is abysmal. It is still the Lords who often simplify codes which are then passed through parliament.
>Not every law is a fundamental lawWell, it depends. We still have the Magna Carta in law, but with all of its statutes repealed besides three. It was of course Coke's Petition of Right (1628) which brought attention to Habeas Corpus, which at that time was being trespassed upon by Charles I's tenure. I think that if a law is good enough, it ought to be preserved, and the less laws, the better, since nature can sort out the rest.
>>823157Well, it's curious in Homer. We see in the beginning of the Iliad that Agamemnon is demoralised and wishes to go home. Just before this, Odysseus takes his staff and thenceforth declares the need for more battle. Achilles is of course incapacitated by Agamemnon's treachery. The king is unfit. We otherwise see that Priam is given permission to take Hektor by Achilles for his nobility. There is a battle of king in the place of virtue. In his Odyssey, there is of course the piracy of Odysseus' estate by Penelope's suitors, requiring Odysseus to kill the unwelcome guests and pretenders to the throne. We could see this as monarchy banishing oligarchy, but it is all according to virtue, in maintaining the family union.
>>823158A dumb king is better than a tyrant. That's my view.
>>823161And would we not say then that monarchy is liberal, and Democracy is illiberal? Freedom is wrongfully assumed to be a million-man parliament, rather than wise counsel.
>>823168Lawfulness pertains to the essence of the matter.
Where Theos is Logos, wherefore Thelema?
>>823176As you write, a king cannot be traitorous against himself for he is the nation itself. Are you then a Catholic, who in the same way as Papal infallibility, views no error? It should be seen that there have been many schisms in the church, which all rest on the failures of the Pope. If a king is weak, his nation will be weak. This is a betrayal.
>>823197>Lest we be so blasphemous as to idolise men as God, in likewise manner that Christ is the Law incarnate (in the style that James II compared kings to gods on earth), we must once more assess the nature of lawfulness.Hobbes adequately sums this up.
>Non est potestas super terram quae comparetur ei>There is no power on earth to be compared to him.I'm not even invoking James I here. I am bringing it up as Aristotle said.
All these absolutists are meeting Aristotle's standard when they assert monarchical preeminence with a concept like sovereignty.
Aristotle>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).Nietzsche also takes note of this line:
>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.The law I'm describing, along with sovereignty, covers monarchical preeminence. I think Aristotle here adequately sums it up.
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 menWhen we seem that one person is in par with the whole body of people, then yes, that one person is equal or greater to the people themselves, then that is on paper being like a god. A sovereign monarch is genuinely considered that kind of superior.
Monarhy is not justified any other way. Either the monarch is a kind of god or he is an inferior to the people.
It's not me who sets the bar this high, but it is Aristotle who does it.
Aristotle is -demanding- that kings be demigods or they have no right to govern the political constitution! if they are not this kind of demigod, then Aristotle is clear that they will just take their turn in being governed like any other statesman.
Monarchy means being a superior or at the very least on par with or equal to the people.
This is the law of monarchy.
>We may excuse the pious Pharisees who do not have comprehension of Christ's proclamation that exception to the Law is granted by his embodiment of it. When the Disciples pluck grain and eat on the Sabbath, the law is said to have temporary suspension in presence of God, in likewise manner that exceptions prove the rule, where Spirit combats the Letter. The Lost Sheep is sought to be rescued against the edicts of Shabbat, but where it is rescued, it is prized more highly than the herded sheep. In this spectacular Parable, we find that lawfulness is not adherence to men, but conscience (e.g. the law is written upon our hearts; like our inward circumcision).King James I is clear that "Kings are justly called gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth… And to the king is due both the affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects…"
The nature of this is simply as the Roman Twelve Tablets suggest, "The family father shall have the right of life and death over his children," & "Whatever a son acquires, he acquires for his father".
Now that is the milk of the gentiles and their kings. Aristotle says,
>And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk']To explain this, think of ants: every ant is "of the same blood", that is, born of their ant queen, every ant in that colony is offspring of that queen by blood. They acquire for the benefit of their queen and hive; like Hobbes suggests, they are fortunate in that they don't make any pretense of conscience to destory their own hive, since they naturally join together this way and are united by birth.
The king, even a bad king or tyrant insofar as he is sovereign, is the lifeforce of his colony. He is the heart that moves their body, they are the blood being circulated.
Jesus is regarded the same way: without Jesus, you are dead, no matter what you think of Jesus personally, you're with him or against him. There is no in between.
Even if a king commands something unnatural, Aquinas says that one should weigh whether the risks of rebellion outweigh the damage you are doing to the commonwealth: the absolutist answer is that almost always the risks of rebellion are a damage to the commonwealth, because the sovereign is the life of the country; sure, a sovereign might command you to do an immoral thing, but killing him in the absolutist view throws the city into jeopardy even if he were bad, the sheer power vacuum alone induces the circumstance to civil wars which as Hobbes plainly states leads to far more bloodshed than the excess of a tyrant who seems to be filled with vice.
>What is important is that it is self-regulation, such that Xenophon attributes self-rule as the first virtue of kings.Jean Bodin don't deny that king can become tyrants, but nevertheless thinks even a tyrant nonetheless as a sovereign is yet the lifeforce of the country and says that even such a tyrant is preferable to anarchy; now, some will say, that tyranny itself is a kind of anarchy, but nonetheless the attributes of sovereignty still apply which means that even then this person is still the life of the country.
Bodin says that there's no such thing as a king who isn't also somewhat of a tyrant. There is no ruler you cannot say has some slight of tyranny–should we overthrow all kings for any slight of tyranny? If there is one vice, overthrow the kingdom?
>IF a king becomes a tyrant, does he lose his legitimacy?No, Bodin is again clear that even if a father is such a bad father, the blood bond remains.
You don't see the appeal of that, why stay together with such a bad person? Why not just rebel and stir shit up?
Hobbes is vindicated in acknowledging that unfortunately there are countless excuses people will find on account of pretense to sufficiently say that there is a tyrant.
We are looking for a loyalty that is not easily broken: the best loyalty is a blood bond, where people stick to together no matter what and don't easily betray.
THe problem isn't with tyrants, but the pretenses of people that are looking to destroy everything –with the fragrance of pretense or conscience – for what is in actuality just for the sake of faction. As there is not some ruler, no mattetr how good you think they are, who doesn't have his own share of enemies.–That just doesn't happen in politics: I have never seen a political commercial where two opponents actually compliments their enemy in the Christian way and takes the time to elaborate why you should choose the other opponent over him or go so far as to say he is a friend and they both are working towards the common good.
The absolutists are clear that like Confucius, the only surefire bond is a blood bond with one's father–only under this pretext do people put aside their differencees and stay together. A lot of people -hate- their families, but nevertheless there is a strong incentive to stay together.
This is the virtue that is being strived for most of all.
>Well, Aristotle also sees marriage as cosntitutional or contractualYou keep bringing us back to social contract, but look – there is a glaring issue with Aristotle here.
By default, Aristotle says a monarchy is not proper for political rule. Even if he is a good man.
>Yes, but a bad father must establish rebellion against himselfA bad father is said to betray himself, but a son who kills his father displays a strong degree of ingratitude. I think the only exception is in self-defense as Hobbes would grant, but even then James I is against it and says the children should just flee.
You wouldn't exist without this parent. You owe your life and being to this person.
>What do you think about monarchical substitution? Was the Glorious Revolution justified? Were the Jacobites?It's like replacing the soul of commonwealth or the advance of a new god.
If you understand the monarch as simply someone who is swapped in and out, you fail to understand what absolutite monarchists are saying. To remove a monarch means the death of the state. You kill an ant queen and the life of the colony decays and subsides.
We lowkey see this as turning a monarchy into another kind of state even if the king is replaced with another king. It has the effect of instituting rule by turns if you keep doing it. Rule by turns is not the quality of monarchic rule. As Bodin says, it strives to be perpetual or at least life-long.
This is brought up:
>the distinction between a statesman and king is as follows: when the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, accordingly to the rules of political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesmen.And Aristotle clear that it is not a mark of preeminence that a ruler is ruled in turn.
That is why with hereditary monarchy, we take the offspring of the ruler: that is seen as a direct continuation of that same person by other means. The king may die, but the son of the king keeps him alive.
If you look at kings as frogs that hop between lily pads or a succession of knives, then you are looking at a king just as any other statesman. That denies monarchical preeminence. To be such a monarch means to be unique and one of kind. As the whole in relation to the part, not the part in relation to the whole; that is, not flippantly interchangeable as parts are, but constittues the well being of the whole–in other words, King James I would say it is like having a defective brain. If you remove the brain, no matter how bad your brain is, you are dead. Hobbes goes even further to say that a sovereign is the soul of commonwealth and is encompassing all the movement of the body and pertains to everything, so there could be no doubt in your conscience.
>>823205>Are you saying that the best is a virtuous monarchy and the second best is a tyranny?Absolutists are deying the convention–the stance is that good or bad there are certain qualities of monarchy itself that are desirable.
Only with monarchy, good or bad, is there such a unity of command; that is not seen in democracy or oligarchy, no matter how good or bad they are. That is what Bodin is saying when he says that even a tyrant is preferable in instance of unity of command: one general is generally preferable and able to lead his armies–people say that Robert E. Less was a far better general than Ulysses S. Grant, but Grant nevertheless had a firm hand on command and could keep a sustained attack. Bodin is saying something along those lines.
Personally, no, king vs tyranny is not where my outlook begins. That is the conveiton of the classic mirror of princes, but what I like in absolutism is beyond the motif of KING or TYRANT! –In fac,t I find it the most obnoxious thing in the world to keep slingshotting between "is this a king?" or "is this a tyrant?" constantly because constantly jumping to this convention easily destroys monarchies more than the slight of a tyrant. THe word tyrant has been abused in such a way that there is almost no point–you will be called a tyrant no matter what you do.
Yes, the convention of absolutism seeks to be more nuanced than the old conventional way of this style of thinking about kingship–it doesn't view a king anymore spectular than as being simply a good steward and nothing else. To us, that is normalfaggotry.
I'm personally drawn to the Hobbesian or Machiavellian theme that it is preferable to suffer a dictator in places like Syria or North Korea because the alternative is to suffer civil war or the ambition of foreign powers.
I also look at the calls for foreign crusades, whether on the pretext of democracy OR religion, to always be a coverup for ambition–and I generally view it the same way with rebellion.
I don't look at third worldism in the Duginite way of moral crusades between the West and the East, but yes, I do fancy the other view that apologists of third worldism has that tends to look more practically at these things.
I'd say that I find Platonism obnoxious in how sharp it can be in rotating monarchy on this axis of strictly king or strictly tyrant, so I never saw myself as fully committed to Plato's outlook in that sense. Albeit I have never been so confident to ignore it.
>Right, and you would also hold to that view, contra Plato?Bodin is saying that, yes, a tyrannical monarchical ruler has certain qualities because of monarchy itself. It's not that for some vice, that monarchy itself suddenly disappears. One ruler is still one ruler. Still has certain benefits due to this. This is what is being concentrated on.
>Here, a king and country are made synonymous. I would disagree to this since I am not a Catholic, but more protestant in my outlook. The Pope is not the Church.–I think this says a lot.
TO understand the context of absolutists and the Glorious Revolution, they are speaking from the circumstance of the Wars of Religion: it doesn't matter how good or bad a ruler might personally be, to Protestant subjects a Catholic king is unacceptable and a kind of tyranny. To Catholic subjects, a Protestant king is unacceptable and a kind of tyranny.
This is exactly what we're trying to bypass by appealing to loyalty to one's father, some natural and can't easily be thwarted by some stint of doctrine. A kind of secular allegiance that is steadfast and cannot be thwarted at the flip of a coin.
>The Pope is not the Church.Is the Church not the body of Christ?
Protestants might bypass the Pope, but they don't bypass Jesus.
>There aren't 3 forms of government, but 6; each rule (either of one, a few, or many) having virtue and vice.The absolutist stance is that there are 3 forms and only imperfections, but the imperfection itself doesn't constitute its own form.
>Well, it is nonetheless true that a king who does not provide benefits to his subjects is rather unworthy.Well, you say this, but nevertheless "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is seen as a great patriotic statement.
IN this mantra, the King is on par with the country. The weal of the commonwealth is the weal of the king. To serve one's king is to serve one's country.
>How can the Plantagenets be parents of the nation of England when they are French? Many kings rule over foreign bodies, so cannot simply be chieftans.I personally think this is assisted with Christianity.
Christianity overlooks nationalism.
A Christian makes a pretense that his true home isn't the nation, but the church.
So Christian kings aren't seen as foreign rulers…
>Revolting against a tyrant is itself tyranny?Yes, that is what James I is saying. You only fight fire with fire.
To kill one's father, no matter how bad that father is, is still a sin in his view.
>A dumb king is better than a tyrant. That's my view.A dumb king is a kind of tyrant on that pretense.
>Are you then a Catholic, who in the same way as Papal infallibility, views no error?–I think the Catholics are hypocrites: I have never seen a people assert monarchical preemiennce so thoroughly yet hurl insults at it when absolute monarchists do it.
I think the assertment of Papal Infallibility is Catholics grasping for their own case of monarchical preeminence. It is a royalist maxim that the king can do no wrong, again, with Plowden, that when the king unites with the body politic his status is changed. He is not simply just another private person or another bystander.
>If a king is weak, his nation will be weak.I don't see that as betrayal.
That is just what will happen.
Like Bodin says, if you kept choosing a king on account of aristocracy, you could always find someone better in some capacity. There would be an unceeasingly circulation of kings on account of virtue. It is not as simple as "we found the best man and this is without dispute" on account of personal virtue.
That is obnoxious to us.
We don't go with the assumption that you find one king on account of virtue and are content. We see a neverending dispute on who the best person is and that in itself despite the pretense of virtue is a kind of tyranny to us.
When I take account of Aristotle and what he says there, also keep in mind that I don't hold this pretense verbatim.
Think of it more as a point of reference that absolutists keep in the back of their head.
When Hobbes makes his civil sovereign synonymous with the people and makes him "a mortal god" under the "immortal god" – he is responding tit for tat to the kind of dilemmas brought up–by this he makes it impossible for a monarch to "betray" the people because he is the people. He meets that pretense of Aristotle that no monarch can govern a political constitution unless they were a demigod except by doing just that, making his civil sovereign a mortal god and automatically being in relation to a whole to a part by constituting the people in his person.
I look at the concept of sovereignty itself as an answer to this pretense Aristotle brings up: how does a monarch become on par with the political constitution and meet this? by being such a superior? The answer is with this appeal to sovereignty, sovereignty being a fixed answer to monarchical preeminence, that is reeled out by the quality of being a unified ruler and the original of fathers in their state.
>protestant outlook
I think the question of monarchical preemiennce is very similar to how Protestants discuss faith vs works.
For instance, absolute monarchists obviously see monarchical preeminence as more than just personal virtue. It is a different kind of virtue. This is not just a question of works: as in, how many pushups a monarch does, if it exceeds 100 pushups then binjo you are qualified to be the king.
No, monarchical pereminence cannot be attained that way. As Aristotle suggests, it is being a Hercules among men in another capacity that doesn't have a moral showdown in that way on account of whichever virtue that is a work or demonstrated.
–TO be a preeminent monarch isn't just on account of how many pushups–in Hobbes own words, it is without comparison.
A monarch has the force of an ocean – that is something that nobody can come up with no matter how many pushups they do.
So I think that is a common mistake when considering this question that people think of this as merely an account of some demonstration and capacity of personal virtue in that way: this does not compare with what the absolute monarchists are talking about.
It is an account that sets the bar so high that it is almost unattainable: I think nietzsche grasps this well when he takes account of Aristotle and his own concept of an overman, because he hyperfocuses that one individual must either be a beast or a god to be so sufficient and set apart from the rest.
It is a certain mode of thinking when any authority grasps for its case of monarchical preeminence.
I think for Catholics then that Matthew 16:19 is their case for monarchical preeminence: a virtue so great that it compels men–the papal infallibility is just another example of this, again, meeting Aristotle.
Now Aristotle when he says this isn't without precedent in Plato as that is discussed in Statesmen with divine shepherd and Cronus.
Yet I think Aristotle is the more succinct and ample reference in this regard because Aristotle specifically contrasts this with republican government which makes absolute monarchists more prompt to respond. I also think Aristotle summarizes it more simply and the dilemma with which absolute monarchists seek to answer with sovereignty and other claims.
I have a question for you for the sake of discussion:
Have you ever considered whether Jesus is a tyrant?
Barring the claims to preeminence and that Jesus is the son of God and king of Israel.
For sake of consideration, ignore this and suspend belief.
I'll concede that Jesus has that maxim of being a servant: Peter was really appalled when Jesus started washing his feet.
Even Peter thought that was radical and Jesus had to demand that Peter do accept washing his feet–Peter did not want to consent to that.
Jesus in that instance was being a slave's physician for that moment because Peter resisted it until Jesus gave the ultimatum that Peter let him wash his feet or Jesus will part company with him.
If we're talking on the terms that a king is a servant, which you are strictly trying to press on me, then yes, this by that measure your conscience is likely safe. Jesus himself re-affirms this strongly and you are right in a general way that Plato does appeal to rule by experts with superior knowledge in service like an expert physician who is a master of his class, maybe not as hyperbolic as Jesus says as literal slave, but nonetheless yes.
So that I'll grant to you, that the pretense you are after is with Jesus.
…
Yet if one looks at the pretense of this with Aristotle, while Aristotle also stresses this kind of servitude–I think in many ways there is room for doubt.
…
Example #1:
Aristotle says that a tyrant prefers the company of foreigners.
This might not be immediately a problem when looking at Jesus. He went to the Jews primarily.
Still, the glaring contrast I'd say in Romans 11:11:
>But rather, through their fall salvation has come unto the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy.
–Isn't that tyrannical? So foreigners are taken in… to provoke the Jews to jealousy.
I think Aristotle would call that tyrannical like a petty game. A tyrant is making the native population jealous by courting foreigners.
…
So here you have the King of the Jews who is mostly rejected by his own people. And what is the mantra that a Christian goes by?
That they're not really Jews because they rejected Jesus and that gentiles who accept Jesus are more proper Jews spiritually
Anyone could conclude that since the people are perfect judges and the legitimacy of a king is whether a people reject him or keep him, that Jesus was then rejected like a tyrant by his people. You could say that Jesus strove to serve the jews, but they rejected his service and deemed him a false teacher. By that account, there wouldn't be much else to say: the jewish people have spoken and deemed him corrupt and going against their tribal customs.
Most Christians aren't Jews. Most Jews aren't Christian.
So you have a king who is mostly being supported by foreigners.
Aristotle would probably conclude that is the hallmark of a tyrant.
…
Example #2:
Nero is condemned as the worst tyrant because he wanted to burn the city of Rome to make room for his palace.
Luke 12:49:
>I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!
Jesus has started a fire… to reform the world… Christians call this Kingdom theology.
Christians come pouring fire and building palaces (or Cathedrals) to Jesus.
They isolate and destroy native customs and native cultures and probe into every nation to build the body of Christ and ruthlessly expand.
It is Jesus above everything else.
Aristotle would call that partiality if this is done without any claim to preeminence: for such a divide a household as well as a nation and positively say that you must pick Jesus over your entire city and your entire nation is making a very tough call: if jesus can destroy Rome to build his own palace (that is, his vision) and utterly suggest that cities must be abanandoned and entire nations must be abandoned if it means commitment to Jesus, then to a republican that is like a global Nero not only setting Rome on fire but the entire world on fire, all so Jesus can come out on top which they would probably snub as tyranny because they think tyrants also would do anything to come out on top at the expense of civic life, at the expense of families, at the expense of nations–but Jesus insists upon this no matter how badly it divides a people and how severe.
Example #3:
Another common trope is they considered a tyrant to be the friend of slaves/vulgar masses and women.
Let's consider this on account fo Jesus.
The plight of the poor is stridently appealed to, the poor are predominately appealed to, and it even reverses the whole order.
Now, the avarice and riches were also hated in Plato, but this kind of thing as always associated with a demagogue.
ARisttole writes,
>For slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time.
& again,
>such, for instance, as the license permitted to slaves (which may be to a certain extent advantageous) and also that of womena nd children, and allowing everybody to live as he likes. Such a government will have many supporters, for most persons would rather live in a disorderly rather than in a sober manner.
…
Both Pagans and Jews would make that case against Christianity.
Pagans thought Christianity was too lax with its ease of forgiveness.
That Jesus intervenes to save an adulterous woman from being stoned to death might also be suspect as a tyrant courting women.
Julian the Apostate also parodies Jesus in his book of Roman Emperors:
>Too he found Jesus, who had taken up his abode with her and cried aloud to all comers: "He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer, he that is sacrilegious and infamous, let him approach without fear! For with this water will I wash him and will straightway make him clean. And though he should be guilty of those same sins a second time, let him but smite his breast and beat his head and I will make him clean again." To him Constantinus came gladly, when he had conducted his sons forth from the assembly of the gods. But the avenging deities none the less punished both him and them for their impiety, and extracted the penalty for the shedding of the blood of their kindred, until Zeus granted them a respite for the sake of Claudius and Constantius.
Jews would probably also think Christianity is too lax.
That Christians don't feel the weight of their tribal customs, such as 613 mitzvah.
The Pagan outsiders thought Christians were ridiculous shedding so many Jewish customs. It looked very liberal and outrageous.
Example #5:
Jesus is looked upon with reverence for what many would have seen as a despotic tendency.
That he is called Lord, that he is seen feeding his followers with bread and fish.
In Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Cyrus has a scene where he's feeding his slaves and they're crowding around him and calling him father.
In a hidden connotation, that is seen as despotic and tyrannical.
Jesus doesn't shy away with associating himself with that kind of dependence and bread-giving.
They could scoff at the Eucharist as tyrannical propaganda of bread and circuses with slaves gathering around their lordly monarch for sustenance.
…
There is no aristocratic pretense against Jesus
You don't see nobles scoffing and saying that they want to assert their independence and spirit as FREE-MEN independent from Jesus.
Jesus goes as far as to say that his subjects must be like children for him and not look at him with a boorish and rude adult's temperance and sense of independence.
Whereas Aristotle praises a bold and aristocratic spirit against their kings and resents what is too servile.
Hence, Rousseau and Nietzsche lambast it as "slave morality", but Christians don't do this.
Honestly, nobody does with a ruler they regard that way–North Koreans would also be repulsed if you looked at their familial bond with Kim Jong Un that way.
…
Yet there is no exception with kings.
With scorn I would say they post King John and his nobles getting uppity, rowdy, proud, and contempt of their king.
Whereas Jesus and his twelve disciples never countenance that.
WHen a noble betrays a king to "put the king in his place" – this is praised.
WHen a disciple betrays Jesus – this is scorned.
The twelve disciples are as the twelve tribes of israel with their king–they are seen as dependent upon king jesus. That is seen as a glorious thing.
Whereas haughty nobles seem to make it a stamp of their pride to show their independence from their king, especially in league with Aristotle.
>>823260>Either the monarch is a kind of god or he is an inferior to the people.Yes, such as I write, that Christ is the law incarnate, and so his exceptionality proves the rule of his sovereignty. Too, Xenophon concurs that the king is a divine figure. But, and I must emphasise this point; a king is proven to be a king by people voluntarily seeking his leadership. It is also Plato's judgement [276b-277a, 489b-c] that a king cannot enslave subjects, but commands natural loyalty. A king is not appointed ex fiat, but is organically chosen, like the example of a hive. There is the instinct to serve.
>The king, even a bad king or tyrant insofar as he is sovereign, is the lifeforce of his colony.Right, but as I say, a tyrant may destroy the health of the body, and so the body has a need to defend itself. This is why Plato compares kings and tyrants to the same standard as philosophers and sophists; a tyrant cannot be a "true" king, so deserves no such pretension. Indeed, we call the illegitimate "pretenders to the throne". There must be a minimal standard of legitimacy in a monarch.
>Jesus is regarded the same wayBut Jesus is entirely just by his nature.
>civil warsWould you be willing to see that in civil war, there can be a plurality of tyrants, rather than one, and this is the source of the trouble? There is a BBC interview with an Iraqi who bemoans the death of Sadam Hussein, for he says that there are many Sadams rather than just one. As we have discussed, Democracy is disunity, in the capture of power by petty leaders; in Athens, you had the ten tribes, who can be compared to the sectarian splits between the citizenry today. This is also why I say that a king need not be illiberal, for it liberates the citizen from politics, towards the economic. Where power is unified thus, legal disputes become civil disagreements.
>We are looking for a loyalty that is not easily broken: the best loyalty is a blood bond, where people stick to together no matter what and don't easily betray.I am not suggesting flippancy in rebellion, but I still see that there are limits to kinship based in the destruction of trust. I am not Euthyphro, imprisoning my father for a crime (for even murder is excusable between a family member and a stranger, but not between family). Read:
<I suppose that the man whom your father murdered was one of your relatives—clearly he was; for if he had been a stranger you would never have thought of prosecuting him.https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1642/1642-h/1642-h.htmIf a father kills family, this is grounds for persecution. It is all the same between friends. Here, exception to the written law once more obeys the spiritual law; honour. Thus I say that legalism (e.g. Euthyphro) is unlawful. It must be seen that there is nothing worse than dishonour.
>It's like replacing the soul of commonwealth or the advance of a new god.So when royalty intermarries, does this corrupt the prior stability of the state? I have said that a foreigner can hardly be the father of a nation. When the Normans conquered the English, they enslaved and genocided them; the royalty did not adopt the English language until the 15th century, and so on. So, is a French king really legitimate to a captive England? William was a tyrant, and the English of that time petitioned invasion from the North to sponsor the English royal line. This is also what occured with the Glorious Revolution, but it also had the added Whig factor of protestant politics. We see today how in Iran, the Iranian people beckon Pahlavi to succeed the throne; so kings may rightfully overthrow tyrants. You fail to qualify the situation.
>>823262>you will be called a tyrant no matter what you do.But that does not mistake the reality of tyranny.
>the alternative is to suffer civil war or the ambition of foreign powers.We could then say that one tyrant is better than many.
>This is exactly what we're trying to bypassWe see that even in Plato's Republic, a common race and religion is understood to bind people. You cannot dismiss the homogenous character of familial loyalties. The Roman Empire attempted to syncretise various religions into a unified doctrine, but this shows how one religion is necessary, elsewise you have civil war - like we are seeing between Christians and Muslims today. You posit a "civil religion", but like Locke writes, you can't trust a Catholic to be patriotic, since his king is in Rome. Would a Muslim really die for Britain? For America? No. This is also why at the coronation of Charles II, it was only White Britons who celebrated. So, this is an issue.
>Protestants might bypass the Pope, but they don't bypass Jesus.Yes, but Jesus is divine. The Pope is a pretender.
>King and countryI have a contrary view of the body politic. We can say that the "head of state" is the brain, but not the whole.
>Christianity overlooks nationalism.Which is why our post-Christian politics is unintelligible.
>A dumb king is a kind of tyrantI wouldn't say so, necessarily.
>>823267>As Aristotle suggests, it is being a Hercules among men in another capacity that doesn't have a moral showdown in that way on account of whichever virtue that is a work or demonstrated.Yes, but the daemonic strain is only self-evident. What I am seeking to combat is propositional kingship. Beauty for example, is not dialectical, but apparent as a thing in itself; the same as strength. When a person thus asserts their own right to rule, they make it a facet of rhetoric. It is the Democratic model to persuade people, such as a beggar. Excellence does not beg. Excellence is an axiom.
>Monarchy is monstrous.It's interesting, since it is an empirical fact that someone who is beautiful will more easily be forgiven than an ugly person; like how women defend handsome criminals. It is a monstrous thing perhaps, but it has its natural case.
>>823275>>823284>you just don't get it.I think I am just too rational a person in my politics.
Economically, I understand absolutism, but I also regard a man's home as his castle, so excuse its many liberties.
>>823288Yes, I understand. In a constitutional monarchy, there is not even a monarchy. Like how the President of the US is ultimately subordinate to the Senate, the same as the House of Representatives. It is a legislative oligarchy, but that's the raison d'etre of the US; the constitution. If you repealed the Constitution, you would repeal America.
>>823306>Have you ever considered whether Jesus is a tyrant?Well, it's written in the milennial kingdom that he will rule by an "iron rod", so he will be authoritarian, but I see the absolute distinction between authority and "totalitarian" models of government. Totalitarianism is ᴉuᴉlossnW's maxim, "all within the state, nothing outside the state". With Hannah Arendt, this was transposed from Fascism to Communism, but I also see it as Liberal-Democratic, in how political correctness is mind control, rather than just physical control. Foucault and Deleuze had the term "control society" for this, as opposed to the disciplinary. Any ethical person knows discipline is virtuous, so in the authoritarian regime, you have things working, even if by brute force, while in totalitarian regimes, nothing works. I think the greatest writing on this topic is Samuel L. Francis' article on Anarcho-Tyranny, U.S.A. (1994). So, is Jesus a tyrant? No, since even his punishments would be for the betterment of mankind. That's my opinion.
>foreignersI would say that the Church is understood as being a family. The new vine is etched into the tree, while the old vine is cut off. Paul says that Christians are children of the Promise, and so by adoption, All is One in Christ.
>It is Jesus above everything else.I agree that Jesus is totalitarian where he seeks to divide families based on disagreements, and he has no respect for traditions or boundaries. Christians have in turn particularised their own faith according to tribe, so the universal kingdom is out of reach. This is part of the essence of totalitarianism; compulsory universality. Still, Jesus says that the path is narrow for the truly saved. We see an identical account in Plato's Republic [496a-e].
>>823362Well, I read that Jesus is saying that it is unjust for men to judge other men, since all are subject and guilty by the law of God. God is the judge who allots the verdicts. In this case, Jesus is combatting false pretenders, not saying that Heaven is a Democracy. How could it be?
>>823383My complete opinion on this matter is that people have no issue with taxation, it's only with representation. The libertarians would be happy to give more if it would be in the cause of liberty. When taxation is a malinvestment, this is where injustice and tyranny exists. More for less. Also, Jesus asks for the charity of the rich young ruler, not the compulsory extortion of his funds to waste it.
>>823394We can see Judas in a mercantile light; he sells out his king for money. We can see the Pharisees as oligarchic; keepers of the letter of the law, disregarding the spirit.
>>823421Indeed, many Communists are right-wing monarchists, and many libertarians are left-wing democrats. This is why ancient political science is much more useful than today's. The only contention I still hold is that not all monarchs are kings, but may be tyrants. This is crucial.
>>823470>that a king cannot enslave subjects, but commands natural loyalty.No such thing natural loyalty comes with ease.
–This I disagree with.
I place my confidence that loyalty can somewhat persist in a family, but even then in the best example it is difficult.
I do not view friendship to be on par with that kind of loyalty–all other loyalties are very weak and frail.
My stance is that the loyalty within a family might be the only loyalty that isn't as weak and somewhat reliable.
Everything else is subject to intense caprice: otherwise people are always looking for an excuse to attack one another.
I am bringing out familial loyalty with a king to make the subjects better.
My motive is to fix that intense caprice, because the people lack a familial bond.
It's not that I only stress loyalty with a king, but I also hope there would be loyalty among people as a family.
In my view, it isn't only the king who benefits from this stress of strident loyalty even if he has some fault of character, but that people themselves could feel glued together as a family and not readily split over political opinions and political parties and political factionalism: to leftypol, /pol/ is a tyrant, to a republican, the democrat is a tyrant, to a tory the labour is a tyrant–the aim is to destroy this division with such a tyrant to free us from all these tyrants, you might say, but I don't countenance to call my father a tyrant because he is a leftist or because he has any bad habits–that loyalty is so close that that I don't even counteance to call him a tyrant or imagine it. Now, extend that familial bond to people: no longer should people deem each other tyrants but should see themselves as kindred people, not a community of strangers: because in my view that is what you have by default, a community of strangers with extreme caprice and can easily be coaxed into hating each other – which I want to cap and limit with the kind of loyalty that a family has, that even if brothers hate each other, they are still kindred and can look aside these differences… that doesn't exist in a community of strangers: each thinks rightfully that the other deserves fully to die.
My fear is that people will kill each other over petty facitonalism and only a familial bond will convince people not to kill people over difference of mere opinion.
I stress loyalty to a king because I think with intense lust they will kill a king as well as other people just as easily as they hurl the name tyrant and look to demonize and kill others.
It is only in a familial bond that difference of opinion doesn't as often break the family.
Whereas
If you left everything to the natural volition of subjects, they would sooner forget kings.
The same could be said for Christianity.
If it was not for the institution of Christianity by now, what woudl be left?
If not that institutions raise children and teach them from birth:
This is what they scold us for wanting to do.
I think this is over-the-top a king cannot "enslave" his subjects and try to rear them up with loyalty.
>There is the instinct to serveHere I have to really disagree. While this is common among ants, Westerners ridicule that idea.
THey look at collectivism in countries like China or North Korea and with scorn mutter that they are like ants.
I have to agree with Hobbes that with people you cannot expect this kind of natural loyalty.
It might seem that way with Christianity, but that is only after centuries of being recycled and taught by powerful institutions.
Christianity didn't only expect natural loyalty. It had to conquer its way. Where missionaries went, empires followed with arms.
>Right, but as I say, a tyrant may destroy the health of the body, and so the body has a need to defend itself.The pretense is that the monarch is much more fundamental regardless.
Some faction or group of people might say that this is a tyrant, but there will always be another faction that says this is a king: they will fight over it. The only time this isn't the case is if there is simply an elite coup, but I don't trust elites and peers as much as Aristotle does.
My mission is not concerned with the fault of one ruler which I see as minor, but the fault of people and their factionalism: that is why I introduce one ruler and demand obedience even if he is a bad person. –I think that is way worse than the inconvenience of a flippant ruler who might have some excess or personal vice.
>Indeed, we call the illegitimate "pretenders to the throne". There must be a minimal standard of legitimacy in a monarch.Oh you'll say that, but all it takes is a change in denomination to completely undermine legitimatism and any divine right. THat is not so reliable. You can be a lawful king and still people will conspire against you. It is not only the case that people are only angry and bite against tyrants but leave any king alone. That line in the sand you draw is not so black and white. Where everyone seems to know good and evil, who is the king, who is the tyrant.
Even Charlemagne's line basically came by permission of the Pope when he acknowledged it and that was on the basis that the king lacked sovereignty.
All it takes is a king being overthrown and a few centuries for any legitimatism to be undone: the course of history isn't so righteous in the sense that good things only happent o good people and bad things happen to bad people. Many legitimatists want the restoration of ancient dynasties because the law says so, but after a few centuries that is invalid and anyone else seems to take the spot.
An appeal to law won't restore your throne even if your intentions are bright.
>Would you be willing to see that in civil war, there can be a plurality of tyrants, rather than one, and this is the source of the trouble? There is a BBC interview with an Iraqi who bemoans the death of Sadam Hussein, for he says that there are many Sadams rather than just one. That is the question Bodin poses as well. But regardless, I think the onus is on you here: Saddam by many measures could be called a tyrant. –The advocates are saying to overthrow Saddam or overthrow Gaddafi irrelgardless of any civic peril because muh tyrant meme. So technically, because Saddam or Gaddafi have had some qualities of a tyrant, sic semper tyrannis.
Again, that is exactly what Hobbes is saying–it is better to suffer a Saddam or a Gaddafi than risk the peril of the State, even if they be tyrants–but the pretense of virtue signalers is NO, we MUST take action because it is a duty to overthrow a tyrant whever you see muh tyrant regardless of the geopoltiical complexity. They assume as well that everyone can see it as clear as day that the person they are looking to overthrow is a tyrant, but in politics that assumption is not so easy and this is where I feel sympathetic to Hobbes' nominalist critique over strict realists, especially in geopolitics where it seems the Machiavellians are hitting home because even Frederick the Great was forced to confess that a prince with no ambition is doomed and is even bound to be ambitious and therefore somewhat of a tyrant to succeed.
>"But Plato had another argument for an Aristocratical estate, saying, That it was very hard to find any one man so wise and virtuous, as was requisite for the government of an an estate, and by that means a Monarchy were not sure. But this argument is captious, and may be used against himself: for if it be hard to find any one prince so wise as he desires, how shall they find out so great a number as is needful in a Seigneurie. And Peter Soderin Gongalonier of Florence, speaking unto the people against an Aristocratical estate, he used the same argument which Maecenas did before Augustus against Marcus Agrippa, saying, That the government of few lords, is the government of few tyrants: and that it was better at all events to have but one tyrant. For if any one will say, that among many there will haply be some number of good men, we must then rather choose a Popular estate, for that in a great number there will be found more virtuous than in a less. But both the one and the other is unprofitable: for as well in all Aristocratical and Popular estates, as in all corporations and colleges, the greatest part does still over-rule the sounder and the better: and the more men there be, the less effects are there of virtue and wisdom (even as a little salt cast into a great lake, loses his force:) so as the good men shall be always vanquished in number by the vicious and ambitious: and for one tyrant there shall be a hundred which will cross the resolution of the lesser but of the sounder part: as it is always seen as well in diets or assemblies of the princes of Germany, whereas the spiritual princes of the empire, being the greatest number, have always crost the princes temporal; so as by their means the emperor Charles the Fifth, caused the empire to declare itself an enemy of the house of France, the which had not been in so many ages: to the end the temporal princes should have no hope of any succours from France in their necessities, whereinto they soon after fell. And to make short, it has been always seen, that the more heads there be in a Seigneurie, the more controversies arise, and less resolution."
>"There is no reason to balance the cruelties and extorsions of a tyrant, with the actions of good princes: we know well that a peaceable Optimacy and wisely governed, if it may be, is better than a cruel tyranny. But the question is, whether it be better to ahve a just and upright king, or many good lords: and whether a tyranny of fifty tyrants be not more dangerous, than of one tyrant alone: And if there be not much more danger in a Popular or Aristocratical estates. than in a Monarchy. Yea it is most certain that a tyrannical Monarchy is sometimes more to be desired than a Democracy or Optimacy, how good soever: For if many wise and skillful pilots hinder one another in striving to govern the helm; even so will many lords do, every one seeking to govern the Commonweal, be they never so wise and virtuous. Although it be not needful to insist much upon this proof, that a Monarchy is the most sure, seeing that a family which is the true image of the Commonwealth can but have one head."–
Anyways, back to you:
>I am not suggesting flippancy in rebellion, but I still see that there are limits to kinship based in the destruction of trust. Well, that is often the result. Sure, there is a palace coup where a couple disgruntled elites overthrow an oppressor and that is easy.
Although it is very easy for even a man with good intentions to just be overthrown. I think if I wanted to hit close to home, just think of Chile. Salvador Allende is overthrown and dies with one last heroic speech and is taken over by the Augusto Pinochet regime.
Haiti was also met with coup after coup, but Papa Doc used fear and was able to keep it long until his death and even be succeded–of course Aristotle notes that tyrannies don't last long and usually don't last longer than the 2nd generation, but I think someone would say that with enough Papa Docs or Kim Il Sungs that maybe they would be able to fet their foot in the ground and make it past the 2nd generation as the Kims have managed to do. From a Hobbesian or Machiavellian view, this worked for the security of the state and it is security that is sought after. Now it could be debated – is security even under a tyrannical regime worth it and is security ample enough to lay the foundation for prosperity?
>If a father kills family, this is grounds for persecution. It is all the same between friendsIt is not the same. Family & friendship are a world difference to me.
If you're of the opinion that family is on par with friendship, then we won't see eye-to-eye at all.
A father is not on par with a child as a friend is with a friend.
At this point, it begs the question do you think the Biblical God is liable for persecution for deciding to almost drown almost all mankind with a flood?
For telling his people to massacre entire populations, suckling and even the cattle?
Bodin holds that a tyrant might be liable to persecution by other rulers and kings and a father by other fathers where there is a superior council such as a democracy, but with a family isolated then the assumption is that the father is the natural judge with the power of life and death. There is no persecution without a sovereign or arbiter. If there were a family, then it is assumed that the father is the one who is overlooking who lives or who dies, who is rewarded and who is punished–this is not just naturally assumed as if everyone was liable to persecute anyone with near perfect conscience–that is denied. We don't leave it to the conscience of a brother to decide if the other brother in a family is worthy of scorn as two young siblings, but the deference goes to a father in this scenario: now public institutions might arbitrate and persecute -that- father, but the absolutist contention is this is the same scenario: who is going to persecute that state if that state seems to do it wrongly on human rights initiative? Do you trust foreign powers like the USA to cleanly intervene and uphold human rights and be the world police and save people from tyrants like Saddam or Gaddafi? –Bodin granted that, I suppose, but the inclination is again to kind of weather it out with the tyrant you know rather than the tyrant you don't know. –Personally, there again, I feel more inclined to Hobbes pessimism there than what Bodin suggests. Arbiters exist because people don't know what is good or evil readily by their private assumption. They sincerely struggle to say who gets this piece of the pie. They can't even agree on what god to worship, let alone even an arbiter at times unless they must consult an arbiter. –Consider monarchists, you have various factions of monarchists… the legitimatists want the lawful king to be restored, but that doesn't happen exactly for the predicament we have here, they hinder themselves from a restoration because they are prone to factionalism–the arbiter then isn't the one that as the legitimatists think has the paper, but the arbiter who appears. I don't think any of the royal houses that royalists gravitate around will ever be restored. I think they are looking at it just because a sheet of paper or the history and precedent say so, but the world isn't as just as these legitimatists think–it will continue on regardless of whatever right they think is said in whatever constitution. Now any arbiter comes usually because of the fear of an enemy, that they rally behind some person, so Romans accepted a dictator when they were in jeopardy. Any regime tries to live as long as possible and that is the basis for presumed loyalty to any regime–to preserve and keep the continuation of their original founder… but as you know, as Filmer suggests, this original father is either continued or inevitably usurped and almost always it is inevitably usurpedand the next regime needs to stress loyalty to keep its life going and codify it and stress loyalty–that is inconvenient but the only option is to at least try to keep moving on as if nothing had happened, but every usurpation is a stint: monarchy is to rule for life, to keep the life and bloodline flowing–replacing it with another person – good or bad – abruptly ends this life, it is the assumption of another father who must mas himself now to keep the subject's loyalty–this process is not as you think, some hero who kills muh wicked pure evil tyrant! who is 100% bad without a doubt and just resumes ruling without any contention–no, I would compare this to the wolf in little red riding hood – the wolf eats the grandma and puts on her clothes and pretends to talk to the subjects – in the original ending, that is just it, the wolf eats them. That is how I see virtusos such as yourself, who ride in on the coat tails of virtue to slay the tyrant. What inevitably hapepns is you kill the tyrant and become the next tyrant, you put on grandma's clothes to gain the subject's obedience and natural affection, and all government inevitably has to be this way. They work off the nostaglia and natural affection of children, they put on grandma's clothes, that is why every tyrant adopts the name of Caesar and that has happened for so, so, so long.
BEcause the question is as Plato laments, that if only he could trust such a tyrant then he'd be too happy to have a despot, so the inevitable recourse is to put on grandma's clothes. Now Julius caesar is such a tyrant and dictator who gained preemiennce – his name was borrowed and passed from tyrant and tyrant for centuries because that was grandma's clothes. So new regimes tend to work off the nostglia of old regimes or they have to make their own legend.
Private revelation leads to many turmoils in that sense–the reason it is codified is to control this and staple the social order to avoid the danger of would-be prophets coming with no proof and shaking the foundation–that is why kings are regulated by blood, because that is their proof that they are the next incarnation of the origianl king and not some stranger, but ultimately this is about controlling the succession to avoid the dangers of random prophets – good or bad – tossing the ocean into havoc, many prophets coming and hurling the people is a state of chaos even if these were presumed to be good prophets, so better to have even a tyrant in grandma's clothes because the blood is reliable, the random prophets who come without blood are difficult to ascertain even if they had the best intentions–Jesus for instance says that to know Abraham is to know him – that is the right of kingship being ascertained, most people see it as only in strictly the sense of god, but this is also his pretense of being the king of israel and the son of god. As Hobbes says,a king is a kind of mortal god. In fact, my outlook is that it is no coincidence that the lives of the greek pantheons seemed to be like the lives of royal families-_I definitely subscribe to that outlook that men know the lives of gods through their kings as Aristotle puts it.
But anyways, The Jews did not trust Jesus no matter how much he claimed to be speaking on behalf of the truth and can you really balem them too much? do you just trust anyone simply ebcause they invoke they are speaking the truth? The jews hesistance is just their natural defense.
That is the absolutist stipulation: the father is a kind of natural authority, that if there is anyone who judges who lives or who dies in a family, it is the father.
Jean Bodin is rather strident in asserting as James I that the pater familias has the power of life and death.
If a father sees a dispute between his children and decides that one of the brothers is to die, then then so it is.
The whole pretense of absolutism is this exact case with Filmer.
The pater familias has the natural authority to judge his children: if there is anyone you trust, it is the father.
Bodin maintained that was held even into adulthood.
Now imagine you have one estate with a family, the original father keeps this authority over his children; this is preserved even after the children and their servants move out of their father's estate and into their own houses.
This isn't looked upon as if they actually moved into their own houses, but as if they were still in their father's estate and only had separate rooms–we look at the political landscape no differently, so just because they move into different buildings doesn't mean that relationship isn't entire. This is conserved. Now that is how a sovereign monarch holds the pretense that no matter whether the sons move into separate estates or make cities, the original father keeps his authority over these colonies of the family that have grown into cities and grown into colonies.
Robert Filmer writes,
>A father may die for the murder of his son, where there is a superior Father to them both, or the right of such a supreme Father; but where there are only Father and sons, no sons can question the Father for the death of their brother: the reason why a King cannot be punished is not because he is excepted from punishment, or does not deserve it, but because there is no superior to judge him, but God only to whom he is reserved.
But anyways, Filmer gets this idea from Bodin. Bodin is strident in asserting that the power of life and death is with the father of a family.
…
Bodin marks this out.
>But if it be so that the soldier which had only broken the vine truncheon of his Captain, beating him by right or wrong, was by the law of arms to be put to death: then what punishment deserves the son which lays hand upon his father?
I would say that it is similar to having a mark of cain, because Hobbes notes that even if the intentions were good in killing a tyrant… now everyone has just learned by your example to lead into a succession of knives in the back and there are plenty of capricious actors who will take license there.
THat is why even after Gaius Caligula was killed, Emperor Claudius made sure to kill the people who killed him, so that nobody would get any ideas now that he was succeeding.
–
Bodin writes concerning this,
>In brief (I say) that the natural love of fa∣thers and mothers toward their children, is impossible and incompatible with so great cruelty, as is the uniust killing of their children: and that the greatest torment that a father can endure, is, to have either by right or wrong killed his son. As in fact it chanced in our memory, in the country of Aniou, that a father desiring to chastice his sonne, who running from him he could not overtake, having by chance without any such purpose slaine him with a blow vpon the head, with an hard clod of earth which he threw after him, forthwith for grief hung himself, although no man knew any thing thereof. Which things the ancient Aegyptian law givers well understanding, appointed no other punishment against him that had wrongfully or without cause slain his son, but for the space of three days after to be shut vp together with the dead bodie of his son so by▪ him slain: For they thought it a thing detestable, for the death of the son to take away the life of the father, from whom he had received his.
It is impossible to attain the degree of unity you appeal to by concord or convention.
Not even monarchists can agree on the royalty they want.
All dictators – as Machaivelli suggests – must be armed prophets
In order to achieve this kind of unity that makes a monarchy complete cannot depend upon free and easy concord.
That is the whole point with the appeal to arbiters to begin with.
THe dictators ban the other political parties – there might be a physician's persuasion accompanied with it, but after that the parties are banned.
That is the only way to attain that degree of unity. It just doesn't happen by concord or a partnership of clans that Aristotle appeals to.
Now you can debate whether it is worth striving for that kind of corporatist unity is desirable and you prefer what Aristotle is saying – concord of hosts.
I think the only time this kind of unity comes with more ease is in North Korea's situation that they are fighting a foreign enemy.
War-time propaganda is the most prompt situation that invites collectivization. That is why Aristotle says the tyrant loves war. Or Hobbes that the fear of an enemy is the only reliable motive to institute an absolute monarchy.
The opportunities where you can institute this kind of regime stainless without any mark of tyranny… are very, very, very rare.
North Korea didn't have usurpation IMHO and one of the reasons I think North Korea is stable is due to that.
Otherwise, usurpation happens.
Hobbes kind of comments on this situation like it is a form of original sin. The original grandma in her own clothing being preserved to this day is rare.
<Hobbes' Warning to Rebels, On Their Sovereignty Attained: Be careful not to boast or plant the seeds of more pretences
<There is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified
>One reason whereof (which I have not there mentioned) is this, That they will all of them justify the War, by which their Power was at first gotten, and whereon (as they think) their Right dependeth, and not on the Possession. As if, for example, the Right of the Kings of England did depend on the goodnesse of the cause of William the Conquerour, and upon their lineall, and directest Descent from him; by which means, there would perhaps be no tie of the Subjects obedience to their Soveraign at this day in all the world: wherein whilest they needlessely think to justify themselves, they justify all the successefull Rebellions that Ambition shall at any time raise against them, and their Successors. Therefore I put down for one of the most effectuall seeds of the Death of any State, that the Conquerours require not only a Submission of mens actions to them for the future, but also an Approbation of all their actions past; when there is scarce a Common-wealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified.
<Dissolution Of Common-wealths Proceedeth From Imperfect Institution
>Though nothing can be immortall, which mortals make; yet, if men had the use of reason they pretend to, their Common-wealths might be secured, at least, from perishing by internall diseases. For by the nature of their Institution, they are designed to live, as long as Man-kind, or as the Lawes of Nature, or as Justice it selfe, which gives them life. Therefore when they come to be dissolved, not by externall violence, but intestine disorder, the fault is not in men, as they are the Matter; but as they are the Makers, and orderers of them.
>For men, as they become at last weary of irregular justling, and hewing one another, and desire with all their hearts, to conforme themselves into one firme and lasting edifice; so for want, both of the art of making fit Laws, to square their actions by, and also of humility, and patience, to suffer the rude and combersome points of their present greatnesse to be taken off, they cannot without the help of a very able Architect, be compiled, into any other than a crazy building, such as hardly lasting out their own time, must assuredly fall upon the heads of their posterity.
>Amongst the Infirmities therefore of a Common-wealth, I will reckon in the first place, those that arise from an Imperfect Institution, and resemble the diseases of a naturall body, which proceed from a Defectuous Procreation.
>>823470>It is a legislative oligarchy, but that's the raison d'etre of the US; the constitution. If you repealed the Constitution, you would repeal America.The Monarch is the State. He is fundamental. The monarch is the monarchy–there is no separating monarch from monarchy.
In other governments, where there are partners, you can swap them, but if you swap the moanrch with another monarch – you kill that monarchy.
In the same sense you say "you would repeal America".
You kill the tyrant, yes, but now the country is lost: it is no more. It dies with the tyranny.
Just as this interview says with the downfall of Bokassa:
>One realizes that after Bokassa, tribalism came back>>We don't recognize ourselves anymore. >>823470>We could then say that one tyrant is better than many.This is what Bodin is saying, and yes, even in some circumstances that a tyrant might even be preferable to a democracy at times.
Because that is really the pretense with Saddam–to remove him so there can be a democracy.
>>823470>We see today how in Iran, the Iranian people beckon Pahlavi to succeed the throne; so kings may rightfully overthrow tyrants. You fail to qualify the situation.No I don't–when the Pahlavi usurped the throne, that obviously came back to bite them in the ass.
When the constitutionalist faction overthrew the conservative faction, then the conservative faction overthrew his faction in the Iranian Revolution,.
>>823470>We see that even in Plato's Republic, a common race and religion is understood to bind people. You cannot dismiss the homogenous character of familial loyalties. The Roman Empire attempted to syncretise various religions into a unified doctrine, but this shows how one religion is necessary, elsewise you have civil war - like we are seeing between Christians and Muslims today. You posit a "civil religion", but like Locke writes, you can't trust a Catholic to be patriotic, since his king is in Rome. Would a Muslim really die for Britain? For America? No. This is also why at the coronation of Charles II, it was only White Britons who celebrated. So, this is an issue.Yes, a monarch or cult of personality is a kind of civic religion.
I view a monarch as the progenitor of their people and yes as a kind of god in that the people are his offspring.
The problem with Christianity is obvious… do I really need to go there?
Honestly, the Christian's only real king is the King of the Jews.
By drinking Christ's blood, they become spiritual Jews and adopted members of his race.
That has unrooted and destroyed the gentile kingdoms.
A Christian doesn't die for Britain, neither America, no more than a Catholic, but dies for New Jerusalem / the Church.
Christianity ultimately sucks the milk of gentiles and from the breast of kings.
Christianity completely displaces that loyalty. Christians are only monarchists for Jesus.
THe milk of gentiles and kings (that is, the loyalty and bond) is completely sucked away and transferred to LARPing as Jews and another kingdom.
>>823470>I have a contrary view of the body politic. We can say that the "head of state" is the brain, but not the whole.That is incompatible with monarchy.
In that situation, then the king is simply a magistrate and not a sovereign.
Then you're just a constitutional monarchist or no monarchist at all–maybe you're only a monarchist for Jesus at this point.
If that is the case, i.e. Jesus is my king – then fine, but at least admit that the Churchi s the body of christ and there is no church without jesus.
I prefer Hobbes' maxim that the Sovereign is the soul of commonwealth and encompasses all of it.
I think the front picture of Hobbes' Leviathan portrays that view.
So you have the City below, the corporate person of the Leviathan above – that is the King.
The King is the State.
Christ is the Church.
The Emperor is Japan.
The Leader is the motherland.
Thomas Hobbes:
>For the Sovereign, is the public Soul, giving Life and Motion to the Commonwealth [State].
>[The Sovereign] relation to the City is not that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill.
>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
Aristotle:
>He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part.
You can see Hobbes also tackling this –he makes his sovereign on par with the whole and makes his king the people, so you cannot possibly say that the king is merely another person or a part of the people–the whole identity of the people is tied to the sovereign. No sovereign, no people. THe people cease to be. Ig the king becomes a tyrant and his state declines, then the people die with the tyrant.
Thomas Hobbes: The Multitude vs the People
<In the last place, it's a great hindrance to Civill Government, especially Monarchicall, that men distinguish not enough between a People and a Multitude. The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are Citizens, that is to say, Subjects. In a Democraty, and Aristocraty, the Citizens are the Multitude, but the Court is the People. And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seeme a Paradox) the King is the People.
>The common sort of men, and others who little consider these truthes, do alwayes speak of a great number of men, as of the People, that is to say, the City; they say that the City hath rebelled against the King (which is impossible) and that the People will, and nill, what murmuring and discontented Subjects would have, or would not have, under pretence of the People, stirring up the Citizens against the City, that is to say, the Multitude against the People.
Thomas Hobbes
>This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the Sovereignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of Sovereign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of less power than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signify the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they understand them as one Person (which person the Sovereign appears,) then the power of all together, is the same with the Sovereign's power; and so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the Sovereignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it not; and yet the power of Sovereignty is the same in whomsoever it be placed.
>>823633>but like Locke writes, you can't trust a Catholic to be patriotic, since his king is in Rome. Would a Muslim really die for Britain? For America? No. This is also why at the coronation of Charles II, it was only White Britons who celebrated. I would add that while there is a state religion, these people are just adopted.
I don't expect adoptees to be as loyal as a native born.
Nevertheless, factionalism is still a problem.
My appeal is to a cult of personality as a civic religion, not just any stamp or doctrine.
So my opinion isn't only religious zealotry of that kind. If that is what you are stipulating, that you only want the preeminence of a system with no human connection/cult of personality.
I am not content with only religion and a set of code as the basis, but a cult of personality.
You call this glorification of tyranny.
WHereas I call merely a codification to be a lack of personality and charm and to be stale and lifeless.
The way in this life to find that is through fathers or kings, not codes and edifices.
People long for a persona–they project it into the heavens and into everything.
The lives of gods is known through the lives of kings.
Just as Jesus makes the pretense that to know Abraham is to know him.
>>823470>Economically, I understand absolutism, but I also regard a man's home as his castle, so excuse its many liberties.That is just the Hoppean pretense with monarchy.
Yes, economically, Hoppe "understands" monarchy, but the problem goes back to Aristotle there.
The moment you try to assert monarchy over the state they growl "centralization" if you try to monarchy outside of an estate.
This just leads to ceremonial monarchy where the monarch is just like King Charles III and heavily limited mostly to his private estate and not go beyond that.
This view is explicitly why "strongman" or a monarch who governs the state is a bad word. They don't think it is monarchy's proper place to govern a republic or political constitution–and if they do they hurl the word "despotism" even if as Bodin states that the true image of the commonwealth is the family or household.
Rousseau is admirable that he at least recognizes how royalists assert this.
And Rousseau has it–every absolute monarchist is asserting this, no matter their philosophy, whether it be Bodin or Filmer or even Hobbes.
You could trace the pattern.
<Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.
<Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.
>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.
<Hobbes / That a Family is a little City>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."Thomas Hobbes>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth [state] or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union&
>A great Family if it be not part of some Commonwealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign.&
>And as small Familyes did then; so now do Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families
<Rousseau / Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government>Royalist political writing likens civil government to domestic government… With the help of this supposition, it is easy to make out that royal government is preferable to all others, because it is unquestionably the strongest; and in addition to that, all it needs to be the best but doesn't have – is a corporate will that is more in conformity with the general will.
<Giuseppe Bottai>All modern history, that is, all contemporaneous life, leads to the corporative conception of the State with the inclusion of Economics within the State or the identification of Economics with Politics.
<Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Family & Nation>If a family is to manage its household affairs well only one member of the family should control its finances. Likewise, if a nation is to manage its economic life properly it must use its finances on the principle of a single management system. >>823680You know, the problem does get complex.
De Jouvenel complains about atomization and Aristotle invokved the same to Plato.
When Aristotle complained that Plato made the State one big individual – that this destroyed the state with "too much unity".
I can understand that. It is the third man argument at the basis of it when it criticizes Plato. I think that is what Nietzsche laments with "de-naturalization" and I can see the problem they are lamenting. It is honestly one of the biggest problems I have with realism is that life itself is "de-naturalized" or as the third man argument goes it keeps going up and up and up and away like a balloon. Even with god it just becomes a question of which god? Perennielaists try to say that all the religions have an esoteric tradition pointing at the same thing to bypass that problem. I think in poltiics, this problem is heavily accented by ultraclericalism and what Rousseau complaints about with Christianity–that it has separated religion from the state and made it devoid, whereas Rousseau notes that Hobbes tried to unify political and spiritual powers in a Leviathan–I'd even say that I don't think Plato intended this to happen to the extent that it has in Christianity, where Christians belong nowhere with no sense of home. Christianity becomes an anti-patriotism that way. The only patriotism is church patriotism and this grinds against the gears of nationalism because as you suggest everyone in this state of Christianity is just an adoptee and no native born.The Christian considers his homeland to be a kind of Egypt or a kind of Babylonian captivity without the Church. Kings are just pharaohs and like the verse in Genesis where Abram is with the Pharaoh and lies that Sarah is his sister, well, that is effectively what Christians do, they pretend a kind of "concubinage loyalty" to kings, but the real fidelity with with Jesus, with Abram. Seeing as how Sarah is the bride of Abraham and Christians consider themselves the bride to Christ as the Church.
Aristotle:
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.Aristotle has a point because this problem does plague monarchy.
Who is the arbiter? Which God? the Pope? the Emperor? the King? the noble? the Father? –You could perhaps keep dicing it up and all these would compete to be the unity of the land.
SO Aristotle says along the lines of the third man argument,
>from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual>for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family.THis I think is the origin of De Jouvenel's complaint of atomization, not just with Hobbes and liberalism, but right here back to Aristotle, I thinkk that is where that sentiment comes from.
De Jouvenel writes,
>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.De Jouvenel is complaining alone the lines of hating State Corporatism as Aristotle does against Plato.
<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:De Jouvenel also talks about that economic vs poltiical distinction as Aristotle and I suspect the motive is the same with Hoppe.
<De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial>According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considered to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense.<Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. >On the one hand is the head of the family, [ECONOMICAL] exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle.>On the other are the heads of families in council [POLITICAL], taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will. Mirror that to Aristotle:
Aristotle:
>The rule of a household (economical) is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: >whereas constitutional rule (political) is a government of freemen and equals.MY FRUSTRATIONNow Hoppe often romanticizes "A Europe of a thousand Liechensteins"
Now right libertarians of this kind romanticize the Holy Roman Empire because it was split between numerous petty kings.
If you only look at this in terms of aristocracy vs tyranny, you would be utterly blind to why absolute monarchists find that annoying, okay?
Certainly you could say there is an aristocracy of many petty kings… but "aristocracy" doesn't clarify where it is one king or many kings, so monarchists who like Homer's maxim, "ill fares the state with many lords; let there be one lord, one king" are left empty-handed, which prmopts us to stress the herodotus Debate and 3 forms.
–And this is the source of intense frustration for me,. Sure, you have "good government" but in effect no monarchy… and so Bodin dubs the Holy Roman Empire to actually be an oligarchical state (that is, of a few).
Do you see the problem here? We want monarchy… but we just get "aristocracy" which often places a stupid stress on the nobles, and tbh the problem with nobles is the problem with factionalism. Many petty noles is like many petty factions. That is not appealing to a monarchist.
The situation is even worse when right libertarians are so rowdy to stress the liberty and authority of the nobles over the king (which in our view means sovereignty over the king, meaning the state is an oligarchy and not a monarchy), because they're married to Aristotle's idea of the state being a partnership of clans – now you stress voluntarism and voluntary exchange which inevitably leaves the stress on the "concordant" view kind of like flames on a stove top meeting together concordantly. –There is no attaining such a degree of unity that way. I am not for Aristotle's partnership of clans. I don't like factionalism and those who like factionalism like that idea of a "partnership of clans".
Pahlavis started with usurpation tbh, but we try to look past that.
Hobbes' assessment is generally vindicated that hardly any monarchies start without a stain.
Even if a righteous man kills his kin or a righteous son kills his father, there is a stain.
Hobbes thinks that Pahlavis have definitely stained themselves with the institution of their monarchy by usurping it.
It's just like King of the Hill where you keep kicking peopel off the hill.
I'm sorry to say, there's no guarantee that won't happen even with seemingly most competent and best king. Even with the laws.
Obviously, if the law was that no regime was to ever die, that would be it, but at best you can only strive to keep on living–that is the proper mentality.
Constitutional monarchists seem to want to have both: they want to eat their cake and have it too.
They want the dynasty to last forever, but they want to swiftly and flippantly overthrow it on account of just any pretense.
Absolute monarchists are saying that it is best to just strive to be loyal so long as it is alive… keep the fire going… but we're not so dumb that we don't recognize a dead tree stump when it is dead.
At least, legitimatists and constitutional monarchists are feeign to see that: they think well so long as a monarchy ahs kept the monopoly of the clergy and seemed to have been good, then it can't die–I think constitutional monarchists are so easy-going about tyrannicide because like you seem to think "it can easily be replaced, simple as" or there is no need to stress one's loyalty in trying times because you think only the consent matters–and that will eaisly be tested–the more important thing to me is that people strive to stick together in good and bad times like a family. That doesn't happen where you simply replace the king without jeopardizing the whole dynasty, now it could be said that a tyrant is destroying himself, "it's not our fault, he's killing himself!" but that's kind of the point–only the monarch in monarchy can kill himself in -that- kind of way… in the sense that he has badly governed or seemed to have ruined himself… but I don't see that a ruler's overthrow is obviously the result of the ruler–there are circumstances that are frankly beyond the ruler's control. If the ruler is hit with a massive boulder that effectively blunders him and he is unfortunate enough that the people revolt due to this, well, so it happens–a ruler can't control whether a famine hits the populace or whether some nobles get a little too ambitious and decide to overthrow him or whether a demagogue leads the people to kill him or whether some prophet comes in and has a private revelation and overthrows his regime, sure, it could be said that some factors of his rule might aid this discontent, but there's generally other things that ruin him.
You can debate that tyranny is the cause of the overthrow, but I personally think even a king can be overthrown.
…
It also isn't a matter of that people found a aristocrat king and that is that. There is always a sense of doubt or wanting something better.
People can latch onto something, but they'll always want an upgrade. Even rich men think they want more.
Hobbes writes,
>but in a multitude of men there are many who supposing themselves wiser than others, endeavour to innovate, and diverse Innovators innovate diverse ways, which is a mere distraction, and civil war.
And that is the case I see with aristocracy: even if you think have a good king, well you can always say there might be someone better–to the extent that this king now is a tyrant by comparison. Every faction thinks they are doing what is best: /pol/ thinks they are doing the best and /leftypol/ is the tyrant and /leftypoil/ thinks it is doing what is best and /pol/ is the tyrant. Sure, you could say that objectively there is a king and a tyrant here, but this circumstance doesn't go away. I think it is more proper that good government not pay heed too much to factionalism or doctrine/ideology but deference to an arbiter who can look between the aisles. –Some people say that it is impossible to do that, that the only choice is to assert one doctrine or the other, and not arbitrate, but to me that is like a bull in a china shop and more tyrannical an an arbiter to work off that assumption – the appeal to arbiters is that they are able to arbitrate between two opposing parties, not that they stupidly impose something like that–the only way there is any hope of reconciling this si through an arbiter, not a doctrine, through a father. –And I think that is a big difference, you see a good constitution as playing this mode, not the father, but the way I see it is people can't even agree on the laws, again, poltiical factions. But for me the sovereign is the soul of the commonwealth–that is my law, as paradoxical as it might seem.
Constitutional monarchists might consider what is at stake and not flippantly stress overhtorw, but they try to achieve that by effectively making a king who is no king. You have law, but no king. The law is not the law of monarchy–the king is not the soul of commonwealth, that people can imagine the country without the king means the law of monarchy has been failed. So if a king doesn't rule, no monarchy, even if there is a pretense of lawful rule and concord of hosts and mutual consent–no matter how hard they consent and think this is a good king… no monarchy, he doesn't rule, rhe pretense of voluntarism transforms the monarchy into parliamentarianism then and Aristotle's partnership of clans, because "consent" quickly becomes "ask our permission at freaking every interval like a child to a parent" and that becomes their rule. And again, constitutional moanrchists will say anything other than this is "Tyranny" and we'll respond that this is "total eunuchery". So they call us tyrant lovers and we call them eunuch lovers–you're either a lover of tyrantzs or a lover of eunuchs at this point. I think i'd rather love tyrants than eunuchs, unless you said that a tyrant was a kind of eunuch–but it's these kinds of royalists who demand royalty castrate themselves, not the tyrannists honestly looking at it without any beer googles.
>>823470>The libertarians would be happy to give more if it would be in the cause of liberty. When taxation is a malinvestment, this is where injustice and tyranny exists. More for less. Also, Jesus asks for the charity of the rich young ruler, not the compulsory extortion of his funds to waste it. I beg to differ–
they are not happy to give more. Period.I seriously doubt right libertarians would be happy with heavy taxation if you told them even it was for a good cause.
Kings when they tax make plenty of pretenses and obviously they're not content with that.
Whether taxation is a malinvestment is extremely up for debate for them.
As far as they're concerned, taxation is theft.
They just don't want to be taxed at all–their discontent is not what the taxes are used for, because then they'd be happy with socialized healthcare and all those other things.
There are plenty of public services which claim to be an appropriate investment–they're just against state corporatism–they think that is tyranny and injustice, whereas the advocates of public services think it is just.
>Also, Jesus asks for the charity of the rich young ruler, not the compulsory extortion of his funds to waste it. Well, there is a big difference here.
Nobody really sees that Jesus will give them this ultimatum: give your all your wealth and follow me.
I would say most people in the Church can breathe easy knowing they don't have to make that decision right then and there and still participate in Church life with the exception of tithes.
With an actual king, well, the decision is fairly prompt and they feel the pressure.
They don't actually feel that Jesus is directly speaking to them right now to make that hard choice.
But that would be the expectation. That they would be willing to do this if it so chanced to happen.
>>823700IDK, if Reza Pahlavi is the noble king and Mojtaba Khamenei, is the evil tyrant, that's just another circumstance where excellence is not self-evident.
If you're using Pahlavi as the preeminent example and Mojtaba Khamenei as the wicked tyrant, IDK this isn't so straightforward.
That is not just self-evident. If you're an Iranian diaspora, I suppose I see where you're coming from…
Reza Pahlavi might have the democratic appeal campaigning for secular democracy in Iran, but Mojtaba Khamenei also has a religious appeal.
I suppose with either figure you could contrive that either is a son looking to avenge his father.
If you are on Pahlavi's side, there's a lot of things that could be ridiculed. I respect Pahlavi monarchists and admire them for their loyalty, but I don't think this is so clean cut–but what do I know? Maybe a Pahlavi restoration will happen and surprise me.
>>823470>Yes, but Jesus is divine. The Pope is a pretender.That is a problem I have with Christianity.
Nobody is 1:1 with Jesus.
Christians will never be satsified with any authority unless it is literally Jesus himself.
Not any King. Not any Pope.
At this point, all you have is the particular Christian and his Jesus.
That's why I have honestly come to think the whole idea of Christian monarchy is doomed.
Looking back at it, Christian monarchy is a foolish endeavor.
I don't think Christians can be royalists for anyone else but Jesus.
Integralists like to think that well the prospect of having kings is a byproduct of church decoration and their theology, but I'm resigned to admit that in either case whether it be low church protestants or high church catholics that the prospect of Christian monarchy is always at odds with Jesus.
Christians would never look at kings with warm feelings unless they are the stupidly most earnest Christian kings and honestly even there it is never quite 1:1 with Jesus.
It should be really obvious, but Christianity just doesn't care: at the end of the day, monarchs are disposable and can be hurled to the trash pit. At the end of the day, they are tossing their crowns at the feet of Jesus.
Christianity spurns both nationalism and absolutism: it hates both the nations and their rulers.
It only has room for the nation of the CHurch and the king jesus.
Otherwise it is a concubinage: the king or pope is just a pretender, as you say.
>>823731And TBH, this actually happened. (Sancho I of León)
I personally struggle to see the appeal… to liking your politics dominated by squabbling nobles…
Or the modern equivalent, squabbling party politics…
I know it appeals to chuds who like a broken political machine because the more stalled and obstructed and unable to act like a coherent corporate body, the better for them. They do want LIBERTY at the expense of this. The kind of liberty that makes you crave despotism.
>>823757If you're an anarcho-monarchist, at least you're consistent where Tolkien isn't.
Because Tolkien was a Catholic. That we agree on.
Papist anarcho-monarchist is makes me want to bawl my eyes out.
Political Testament of Frederick II (“the Great”) (1752)
Political Pipedreams [Rêveries Politiques]https://germanhistorydocs.org/en/the-holy-roman-empire-1648-1815/political-testament-of-frederick-ii-the-great-1752>So much for the substance and basis of the line that should be followed in this State. Let us pass to the world of fantasy. Politics has its own metaphysic, and just as there is no philosopher who does not amuse himself by constructing his system and explaining abstractions according to his own genius, so it is permissible for statesmen, also, to divert themselves in the spacious field of chimerical projects, which may sometimes become real if one does not lose sight of them, and if successive generations, marching toward the same goal, are sufficiently skilled to hide their designs deeply from the curious and penetrating eyes of the European Powers.
>Machiavelli says that any disinterested Power which might be found among the ambitious Powers would certainly end by perishing. I regret it, but I am forced to admit that Machiavelli is right. Princes are bound to have ambition, but it must be prudent, measured, and illuminated by reason. If the desire of self-aggrandizement does not procure acquisitions for the prince-statesman, at least it sustains his power, because the same means which he prepares for offensive action are always there to defend the State if defense proves necessary, and if he is forced so to use them.
>There are two ways by which aggrandizement is achieved: rich successions or conquests.Even Frederick II who wrote idealistically against Machiavelli as a young prince was later in his life as an experienced prince was regretting to say that Machiavelli is right and a prince is even bound to have ambition.
>>823735I have never quite settled on the question of realism / moral absolutism / moral objectivism versus moral relativism / moral subjectivism / or perspectivism and nominalism (there is wing from branch to branch here like Jordan Peterson and keep my idea of monarchy simple enough that it could be utilized in either fashion), but honestly when it comes to politics – two candidates like Reza Pahlavi or Mojtaba Khamenei…
well…
The moral objectivism is like the most asinine thing in the world here if we're going to say
Reza Pahlavi is noble king and
Mojtaba Khamenei is the wicked tyrant and especially if we account that this is easily known, easy peasy, no excuse, no need to take account – it is just self-evident and we presume to know this readily with the fullest conviction now that Mojtaba Khamenei and the Islamic Republic fo Iran must be destroyed at whatever cost so Reza Pahlavi can return because Reza Pahlavi is the noble king and Mojtaba Khamenei is the wicked tyrant.
–That context right there makes moral subjectivism or maybe perspectivism appealing or something.
Interventionism
In geopolitics, I almost generally side with the view of Thucydides and the Hobbesian outlook that this is a world of empires with no readily available international mediator that can stop this.
That empires can freely do whatever atrocities like slavery, genocide, nuclear war, total war – whatever is thinkable is on the table – and war criminal nations don't have to worry if they win, and the only limits to this is mutually assured destruction or something that will make them regret it – just like with the animal world with predatory animals and a porcupine – conscience itself is utilized to advance even more atrocious schemes, a soft moral pretext can be ample ammunition to kill thousands.
Ultimately mutual fear works both ways: the rulers of empires know they want fear of each other to keep their empires stable (3rd video related), so sometimes they do co-ordinate a spectacle and don't completely kill each other: since fear of an enemy is wanted for internal stability, it isn't actually the prerogative to wipe out all foreign enemies since there are such things as useful enemies.
I think this is what is happening with the USA and some of its enemies.
USA appeals to fear of China or Russia or North Korea to keep its vassals in tact and those nations respectively look across the water and use fear of USA to keep internal stability as well.
Religious crusade or spreading democracy moral prerogative to invade nations is assumed to be a cover for imperial ambitions generally speaking.
…
I kind of do sympathize with 3rd worldists or dictator "strongman" apologists for countries like Saddam/Iraq or North Korea or Assad/Syria– not from a Duginite position – but from a Machiavellian or Hobbesian outlook. It is laughable to invade a country because it is the right thing to do or that a nation has a moral prerogative and duty to invade countries. These pretenses are generally taken to be an excuse or cover for other exploits.
…
It is preferable for a Saddam or Assad or Papa Doc "strongman" to not only to consolidate smaller countries and defend against foreign enemies, but also from that Hobbesian perspective that sometimes a strong monarch is wanted and preferable to factionalism.
From a Machiavellian position, even if these rulers commit atrocities, it is kind of understood that this is to deal with other rivals or factions that would likely be would-be tyrants all the time and that sometimes it is preferable to be feared than loved.
That is on account of how fickle love is. Love is unreliable at times. Most romantic relationships are short-term and easily breakup with a girlfriend/boyfriend, so love is easily broken like that.
>>823574>I do not view friendship to be on par with that kind of loyalty>If you're of the opinion that family is on par with friendship, then we won't see eye-to-eye at all.I take the view of love from Plato and Aristotle. There is friendship (philia) as the highest ideal. Aristotle writes that there are friends of utility, but real friends must love one another for their own sake, and this is true loyalty. Of course, there are 3 major loves; philia, kin and eros, and each is supposed to be mutually exclusive. If I have sex with a friend, I lose the friendship. If my friend is kin, they are no longer my friend, but family, and so on. Men should possess all three; friends, family and lovers. I see that friendship is the greatest, since "true" friends are not able to betray each other; we thus say of traitors that they were "never friends", whilst families are able to be traitors to kin, yet they are still family. So, a friend is by definition perfect, while family permits imperfection. We could perhaps compare this to the Church. We see that Jesus both calls his followers siblings, and by parable, lovers (e.g. Christ as the bridesgroom), yet the greatest love in the fellowship is still friendship (John 15:12-13):
<My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015&version=NIVSo, I see friendship as the greatest love (φιλία).
>Westerners ridicule that idea.Only in theory, but not in practice. What are celebrities besides "idols" of public worship? If Taylor Swift ran for President, she would win, regardless of her politics. As I have already written, aesthetics often determine public persuasion, since beauty as a virtue is a good in itself. Clavicular is right that beauty makes you powerful, and this defies all supposed "Western" cynical rationalism. Politics is showbusiness for ugly people, as it is said.
>An appeal to law won't restore your throne even if your intentions are bright.I take the Taoist position that law is natural equilibrium. This is why all statute is in some sense unnatural - as we see in the Law of Hammurabi (1750 BCE); the strong are suppressed by the state for the safeguarding of the weak. So, if we view kingship as best, it is then the state of nature, socialised. Would you agree that kingship in some sense precedes the instrument of government?
>That the government of few lords, is the government of few tyrants: and that it was better at all events to have but one tyrantThis seems perfectly agreeable. A good monarchist film called "The Madness of King George" (1994) reminds me of this. The same year as The Lion King (1994)!
>>823616What I am saying is that America cannot be a Monarchy.
>>823622This I feel is the concord of our resolution.
A single tyrant is better than many. I do agree.
But this is also my liberalism; limit the state.
>>823633>>823636>Christians are only monarchists for Jesus.There is much truth in this. I will say that a coherent idea of nationalism thus only comes with the Reformation, where kings took control of their own national Churches and so separated themselves from the rest of Europe. The cult of kings is in some sense Pagan, since Heroes as demi-gods are regarded as demons in Christianity. It is then no coincidence that Christianity has established global democracies, as Nietzsche already knew well.
>>823640>>823644Well, there is a curious theology on this point and I wonder what you think of it. We may read (Matthew 18):
<Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018%3A18&version=KJVHere, legislation passes to the congregation. Church is co-constituted; if Christ is the mystical body, and vice versa, then both require each other. All is One in Christ.
>>823645Yet we see that the body politic is indeed a body, with its different parts. As Plato writes, the soul is divided from within these aspects, in the different stations of life. Is the Sovereign both the head and the feet? Is he all of it? I see Plato's point that where the appetitive has rule, it re-constitutes government according to its power; so, the very constitution of kingship implies primary separation.
>>823655>adopteesThe issue is a lack of formal distinction.
We may read Plato on this apparent tyranny [562e-563a]:
<this anarchical temper […] the resident alien feels himself equal to the citizen and the citizen to him, and the foreigner likewisehttps://topostext.org/work/768Ancient Rome had grades of citizen: (i) Cives Romani, (ii) Latini, (iii) Socii, (iv) Provinciales, (v) Peregrini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenshipReading Book VIII of Plato's Republic on Democracy becoming Tyranny is frighteningly reminiscent of today. It is best for all to stop deceiving each other on this point, and to routinely test factional loyalties as well. A lack of patriotism springs up by lack of standardisation.
>>823688>We want monarchy… but we just get "aristocracy"Well, Plato perhaps degenerates in his argumentation in the Republic as opposed to Statesmen in your opinion, since in Statesman, he says there are first 3 forms of government, then 6 (the good and bad), but in Republic, he claims that monarchy is an extension of aristocracy, desacralising the place of the monarch for the Guardian. Statesman is much more monarchical in its discourse.
>>823700>My assumption is you'd be with the Islamic Republic Khamenei faction and not the Pahlavi faction.I am not for either, since I am not Iranian.
My point is that Pahlavi is not a king, since he does not lead an invasion. A king does not argue his legitimacy. A king may be in exile, but in his return, makes no apology.
>>823738>the whole idea of Christian monarchy is doomed.Well, even within the feudal understanding, the three estates still placed the priestcraft above the nobility. Plato's idea of king as high priest (e.g. the Roman Pontif Maximus, which the Pope takes over) sees sufficiency of the Church in the hands of the monarch. You bemoan the insistence of religion in government, but even the Pagans still headed sacrifices by the role of the king. All men must answer to the gods, so all men serve divinity.
>>823751>Squabbling noblesAs a liberal, I enjoy the fruits of the Magna Carta, so I prefer the impression of the Barons over King John. On this point, the Pope actually repudiated the Magna Carta as coercive; so even kings had mediation in the Church.
>>823803Carl Schmitt already showed how "international law" is a self-evident absurdity. There are hegemonies, and that's it.
>>823805Rather than intervention, I would see "sponsorship" as an alternative; like refugees. If North Koreans wanted to leave, I think it would be legitimate to allow them to, without trespass. The fact that they aren't allowed to leave is currently their own problem, however.
>>823877>I see that friendship is the greatest, since "true" friends are not able to betray each other; we thus say of traitors that they were "never friends", whilst families are able to be traitors to kin, yet they are still family. So, a friend is by definition perfect, while family permits imperfection. We could perhaps compare this to the Church. We see that Jesus both calls his followers siblings, and by parable, lovers (e.g. Christ as the bridesgroom), yet the greatest love in the fellowship is still friendship (John 15:12-13):Aristotle also notes that friendship implies equality.
Bodin is strident that the monarch is a superior.
I will paraphrase but I read Plato not in looking for another self, but in looking for what we lack: so his view stresses specialization.
As Hobbes also suggests, it is not that the parts of the body depend on each other, but depend on the soul.
SO people lack a common identity and strive for a public soul or national father, since the son attains that from his father.
>I see that friendship is the greatest, since "true" friends are not able to betray each other; we thus say of traitors that they were "never friends", whilst families are able to be traitors to kin, yet they are still family.This I deny. This must be in accord with Aristotle's civic philosophy that prioritizes the city over the family–again, another reason why monarchy is considered inferior, because the monarchy is paternal by Aristotle and that makes monarchy inferior to the city–our aim is to match Aristotle that the monarchy is at least superior or on par.
So we have from Aristotle this outlook: that political & economical are different, that monarchy is proper to economical, that the family/economical body is inferior to political community.
–And Aristotle says that only if the monarch basically is the state or laid down its foundation he is considered able to govern it.
I'll concede I don't have a counter to your stance readily available philosophically, but again it prompts me to show you that this is inconveient as far as monarchists are concerned.
>Would you agree that kingship in some sense precedes the instrument of government?No, that stance is not mirrored. I am partial to what Bodin and Hobbes say.
Bodin:>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses…Hobbes:>"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City.I wouldn't say that government is alien to the economic bodies: there is the idea that you have the state on one hand and private economic bodies on the other, but the economic bodies generally look for the standardization of the state: so one body can communicate to the other, it isn't that they're able to communicate without depending on an arbiter, as I stress with a singer and his audience. The economic bodies themselves are a mode a state uses to govern the populace–it is not the case that there is the government over there and in the workplace you aren't being governed as if a state didn't intend for this or lay this out.
>What I am saying is that America cannot be a Monarchy.Yes, I don't deny that. I am not stressing that all states must become monarchies.
I'm just stating it more as a matter of taste.
>But this is also my liberalism; limit the state.State Corporatism or any unitary mode of politics stresses autonomy; that includes absolute monarchy.
If you limit a monarchy to a private estate, then the state is no monarchy–I could be called a mixed constitution with monarchy in concord with it, but then as Aristotle suggests the monarchy is inferior and must take its turn in being governed: this leads to elective monarchy where the heads of estates are rotated in and out and utterly is at odds with my preference for hereditary monarchy where I want the preeminence of one monarchical royal estate.
Jean Bodin:
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.>I have said "limited", since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State.>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority.>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.The father is limited in context of the state which is just a greater family, but if that family is independent then it is sovereign.
Hobbes:
>A great Family if it be not part of some Commonwealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign.–Back to you
>I am not for either, since I am not Iranian.No, you took stance. You said Pahlavi is the king and Khamenei is the tyrant.
So then it is my moral imperative to support Pahlavi in spite of the inconvenience that Pahlavi is bolstered by malicious foreign powers (like USA and Israel which recently invaded Venzuela)–sure, Khamenei could be called tyrannical for killing this protesters, but that could be called a color revolution.
>My point is that Pahlavi is not a king, since he does not lead an invasion.That could also be said of a tyrant.
>A king does not argue his legitimacy.THat could also be said of a tyrant.
>A king may be in exile, but in his return, makes no apology.THat could also be said of a tyrant.
I think I partially agree with you–that a king doesn't come by concord or argument, but that's my exact point for why the kind of voluntary kingship is impossible. You do not attain that degree of unity by convention–the presence of an arbiter comes in dire need when people aren't consciously thinking "well is this a king or a tyrant?" but in a matter of dire need.
I agree that it is impossible for a king to come by the convention of monarchists and arguing with them–but that is the case against what you say about friendship… and why concord of hosts is inconvenient compared to an arbiter.
For what is supposed to be a model for attaining that proper friendship, I find disappointment–that politics of this kind divides families and pits father against son and not only families but people in general are radically in disharmony: blue states and red states.
So here I see the opposite–kinship is the only bond that isn't betrayed too frivolously, but friendship is.
I have had friends and in the long run only felt betrayal and parting–not so with families.
If friendship is the relationship that is most worthy, then why did God the Father not sacrifice his only friend instead of his only son? –That lessens the sacrifice and means an even greater sacrifice could have been made.
>Here, legislation passes to the congregation. Church is co-constituted; if Christ is the mystical body, and vice versa, then both require each other. All is One in Christ.
That is the appeal for a cult of personality; one person for all persons, all persons for one person.
The notion of a community of pleasures and pains is achieved by this cult of personality: "mine" and "thine" find harmony with a king–this is appealing due to the lack of friendship readily available, so like a fandom gravitates around charaters they gravitate around a king – one king provides that communication and makes that friendship possible. –Anyways–
Or the North Korean maxim, one for all, all for one.
I don't think this contradicts when James I says that the weal of the kingdom is the weal of the king.
But let me bring you back to Aristotle. This is corporatism of a kind. This is "many in one", which Aristotle condemned.
Aristotle:
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one;
>but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain.
>seeks to exercise monarchical sway
–See, Aristotle is condemning that kind of corporatism. Not only that he condemns corporatism, but he compares corporatism to a monarch! This is why I as an absolute monarchist find common cause with state corporatist ideologies like Fascism or even leftypol. Aristotle is cleanly stating that monarchy like this is a bad thing–so why should I as a monarchist gravitate towards this when just looking at the forest for the trees there are many red flags here…
Personally, I don't find Plato that much of a comfy bedfellow either as a monarchist! I feel like I am constantly wary of them and their influence and that is why I am wary of esotericists, especially because I worry they'll undermine monarchies in the way Hobbes fears. In that sense, I totally see where Hobbes is coming from. I have personally met the fiercest resistance from esotercists who want to undermine my monarchy with another monarchy.In that sense, I do kind of relate with Aristotle and the third man argument–my monarchy is being undermined by other moanrchies, I can see that tension with the nobles even, and where Aristotle says that such unity could be dangerous to the state because monarchy on monarchy on monarchy leads to that kind of extension.–I am wary of the clergy as much as Hobbes is and especially for what I said earlier that tension with Christianity has proved terribly inconvenient and not easily resolved.
>As Plato writes, the soul is divided from within these aspects, in the different stations of life. Is the Sovereign both the head and the feet? Is he all of it?
You won't understand me if you look at this issue through Plato that way. I'm not looking for division/factionalism, but the stress is oneness/unity alone. I prefer to look at the soul as being whole and unique, one.
This might be more rhetorical and arbitrary, but that is how I stress it and feel committed to stress it.
That might be totalitarian, but I sympathize with Hobbes that there must be no sense of "The People" apart from the King. I'm sure the motives why are pretty naked to you.
My utter stress is that a king is -not- seen as a part. Not at all. Specifically because of Aristotle.
My focus is intensely on meeting Aristotle: the monarch -must- be the Whole (the city or state).
Like Hobbes, my focus is on making it clear that the King is the People. The King is the City.
>so, the very constitution of kingship implies primary separation.
I'm aware that the knig is the highest part of the soul in this outlook.
This is exactly the conundrum we are trying to avoid–this is as Plato might lament.
"Mine" and "thine" becomes an enemy to the King.
The only way to stop this is to make the people see themselves as not apart from the king but one with the monarch and synonymous.
It is this reason why you chastise kings but can't muster it against Christ.
People constantly pivot on "What about me?" or "This is your selfishness, King" – there is no peace with this dichtomy no matter how much selfless the king tries to be, because even then the people could still want democracy.
I think De Jouvenel does hit hard with this statement: the extremes of individualism and socialism meet.
While De Jouvenel laments that in Hobbes, that the individualism of the king becomes one with socialism–I see this relationship as a godsend, a great thing, I don't see the harrowing tone of De Jouvenel, but I'm all too glad to hear it.
Rhetorically, that is the solution to this problem–cult of personality.
–This is a danger to obedience.
Xenophon writes,
>What city could be at rest, lawful, and orderly? What household could be safe? What ship sail home to her haven? And we, to what do we owe our triumph, if not to our obedience? We obeyed; we were ready to follow the call by night and day; we marched behind our leader, ranks that nothing could resist; we left nothing half-done of all we were told to do. If obedience is the one path to win the highest good, remember it is also the one way to preserve it.
Then right after that follows this sentiment of Xenophon:
>Let us listen to the words of Cyrus. Let us gather round the public buildings and train ourselves, so that we may keep our hold on all we care for, and offer ourselves to Cyrus for his noble ends. Of one thing we may be sure: Cyrus will never put us to any service which can make for his own good and not for ours. Our needs are the same as his [Cyrus], and our foes the same.
That is really hard to achieve, a king cannot gain that confidence easily–this doctrine that the weal of the king is the weal of the kingdom is seen that way.
So it's not a case of "These are Cyrus' enemies" and "these are our enemies" – because these people aren't one body by default but divided, the only way this can be achieved is if -they- unite themselves with Cyrus in the manner that Hobbes is speaking. Just as a crowd must unite with a singer if they want to have any oneness.
Thomas Hobbes: The Multitude vs the People
<In the last place, it's a great hindrance to Civill Government, especially Monarchicall, that men distinguish not enough between a People and a Multitude. The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are Citizens, that is to say, Subjects. In a Democraty, and Aristocraty, the Citizens are the Multitude, but the Court is the People. And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seeme a Paradox) the King is the People.
>The common sort of men, and others who little consider these truthes, do alwayes speak of a great number of men, as of the People, that is to say, the City; they say that the City has rebelled against the King (which is impossible) and that the People will, and nill, what murmuring and discontented Subjects would have, or would not have, under pretence of the People, stirring up the Citizens against the City, that is to say, the Multitude against the People.
John Cook (regicide of Charles I):
>Greater than any one, but less than all
Francis Theobald
>That the King is greater than any particular single man, but less than the whole body of men in a nation.
Aristotle:
>>He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part
Thomas Hobbes
>This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the Sovereignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of Sovereign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of less power than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signify the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they understand them as one Person (which person the Sovereign appears,) then the power of all together, is the same with the Sovereign's power; and so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the Sovereignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it not; and yet the power of Sovereignty is the same in whomsoever it be placed.
–I think Hobbes, at least rhetorically, manages to bypass this issue with Aristotle: "Preeminent monarch is the Whole to a part" – so we're keen on saying that the King is the People and the monarch is the State for that reason. Specifically because of Aristotle (moreso than Plato) . I think it's that criteria that is trying to be met by declaring the Monarch to be the State. You could write that off as just propaganda or rhetorical, but that is why I'm so defensive about defending that maxim. I think Hobbes tries to remedy this mroe than any other person and I appreciate that in him, because I don't feel King James VI & I's rhetoric is enough and Hobbes seems to go the extra mile. Maybe that is the difference between authoritarian and totlaitarian to you. Is that I move to make a sovereign all encompassing and synonymous with them. Although I think that is just a byproduct of absolutism and corproatism–I think both have a kind of totalitairan agency in some way.
Hobbes is pretty clear that a premeinent monarch is not just another noble.
>King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to
Back to you.
>the three estates still placed the priestcraft above the nobility>Plato's idea of king as high priestThis is going to be largely rhetorical and not sound doctrine.This is where I might even diverge with Plato.
I don't only view a king as a priest.
I never liked that "priest caste" versus "wariror caste" dilemma that Evola and other traditionalists get into surrounding kings. I prefer the term "father" rather than "priest", albeit priest is said to be another name for father. I think I even sympathize with leftypol's dislike of class because I think it obstructs nationalism in the sense of a "community of pleasrues and pains" as I fear even class itself might build that kind of resentment of "mine" and "thine" – so I refuse to look at the king as just a member of another class or just another noble.
This might be an innovation or paganism, but just as Fascism asserts that the State has absolute moral value, so I prefer to look at the monarch with his cult of personality that way – as Hobbes calls his Leviathan, a "mortal god".
Yes, all men serve divinity and I think -one- king is divine that way, as as the forms proceed from the one in a way similar to neoplatonism. The king is a kind of god thanks to being -one- king in my view. His cult of personality is literally a civic religion where all the forms and estates of the city are manifest and emanating from the monarch.
>Pythagoras ascribes to one what's due to God,-Monarchia Triumphans
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person. The State, for us, has an absolute moral value – as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.That is how I see a cult of personality or monarchy as a kind of civic religion.
So all sciences and estates are realized by the royal estate: a royal palace is holy to the nation in the way that a cathedral is to the clergy.
Just as in a house you have a kitchen, a library, a laundry room – and in the city you have public kitchen (restaurants), public libaries, and laundromats. The royal palace is ground zero for all of that.
That is why the king summons and dismisses the estates. He is not just a member of the estates or one of them. The King is their progenitor altogether and kings are the progenitors of their race.
The nature of a royal absolute monarchy is not really different from a one-party state in that way. A party is just an estate. A royal absolutism stressing absolute monarchy of one royal family overall the rest is really the same as a one-party state.
That is why state corporatist ideologies like fascism or communism inevitably have "strongmen" and IMHO these rulers sometimes become the new monarchies–in fac,t I think that is how new monarchies will sprout in a post-Christian world, through such regimes as these, now I don't see it as strictly tyrannical or king that corporatist regimes are all tyrannical that way, but that is where I leave my hope with monarchy in a post-Christian era. With regimes like North Korea. Maybe North Korea will relax down the road. Jean Bodin anticipates that most monarchies start out as Lordly Monarchies and later soften.
I don't see the king as merely a high priest who offers rituals to the gods – the king is how the gods themselves are discovered and realized by men within the natural world.
-That- is why I say a cult of personality is the epitome of natural religion and civic religion.
It is the same for the estates–the king isn't just a member of the three estates, the three estates emanate fromm the king–perhaps the mixed constitutionalist view or traditionalist view might see the king as a member of one of the three estates, but as you put it I see that the three estates serve the king as their god. The royal family as a pantheon is like a guardian spirit of the people. MOnarchs are the gods of their nations, not that there isn't a pantheon of a gods which that nation might interpret nature like Zeus wih the sky or Poseidon with water, but the King is literally the god of that nation that way in the way that Zeus is associated with the sky or Poseidon with water. This is how I see my ideology of "Corgism". If there is one Aristotelian maxim I kind of feel partial to is that the gods are known through their kings or maybe in that other sense that gods came about as a natural phenonemon because of kings–that might be at odds with the transcendentalism that the unitary view I am trying to maintain tends to depend on, but I have found myself in want of immanentism for the conflicts that bother me.
>You bemoan the insistence of religion in governmentI don't bemoan religion in government. I bemoan as Hobbes does that the separation of religion and government or sword and crosier bothers me. This cult of personality or civic religion is religion in government. That is what I am insisting upon.
>so I prefer the impression of the Barons over King John.That is extremely annoying to an absolutist like myself. I'm sure you know it is.
I don't see this as a "check" to "balance"–in that case, I want the King to check their balance, lmao.
To me this is not the triumph of a mixed constitution, but the preference for oligarchy over monarchy.
Again, I rather explicitly see this in the tone of the Herodotus Debate as a monarchist.
So when neofeudalists or constitutional monarchists praise nobles for "checking" the king or wanting to be more like the Holy Roman Empire… an elective monarchy with many numerous petty nobles… I cannot help but want to pull my hair out. And it is more painful that this is the majority opinion. To me it feels like being surrounded by oligarchists who hate monarchy. –In haugty wrods, they mutter "despot" and "tyrant" when I feel their oligarchism is choking out any genuine monarchist sentiment, especially the more and more they single otu absolute monarchy (which for me is monarchy plainly speaking) as their grand enemy. This aches me more that Catholics join in when I see them as being just as absolutist with the Pope against the Orthdox bishops–to me that is the same exact scenario but instead of nobles it is the bishopss, O I fume at medievalists the worst of all because they call them "monarchists" while doing all this–when in absolutist eyes they're just stressing the preeminence of the nobles or estates over the monarch adn that makes them extremely loathesome from a monarchist pov in accordance with the herodotus debate which absolutists are keen on upholding.
The appeal to a cult of personality is exactly trying to remedy what Plato brings up for me.
>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’
Which is why I don't want any division of the king–I don't stress him as a part or any class, but simply as "one".
You can say there is an obscene stress on MONarchy and taht it is one./ I stress the indivisibility of sovereignty just as much as a point in geometry.
JUst as a point is where you begin to draw the lines and boundaries of the estates, so when Romulus plowed the boundaries of Rome–that is how sovereignty functions with monarchy and why it is absolute. This is tied to its indivisibility.
The cult of personality surrounding the king is my appeal to remedy these problems and bring harmony to people: except I am much more strident than say the ceremonial monarchists that they want a king as a "symbol of unity" – I want that unity to be actualized by a king.
Jean Bodin sees this as the harmony of kingship and what makes a monarchy appealing. Different people and factors of "mine" and "thine" even for their differences might feel one person cllose by–the harmony of a monarch brigns democracy and the elites together in harmony.
That is explicitly why I want to stress that a monarch is set apart from the elites so that people aren't jealous to him as one of them–I want people to see a neutral arbiter that way.
The harmony of a moanrch becomes the glue of class collaborationist thinking I think in the way Jean Bodin stresses it–I think that is how an ideology like Fascism sees the State as an ulitimate mediator for the classes and tbh this is how absolute monarchists see a sovereign monarchy.
But as Romulus plows the boundaries of Rome, this is where the absolutist view that the king is lord of all goods comes form.
<Bodin / The unity of sovereignty
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.
>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.
<For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend
>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens
King James VI & I
>It is evident by the rolles of our Chancellery (which contain our eldest and fundamental Laws) that the King is Dominus omnium bonorum [Lord of all goods], and Dominus directus totius Dominii [Direct lord of the whole dominion (that is, property)], the whole subjects being but his vassals, and from him holding all their lands as their overlord.
From Robert Filmer citing Edward Coke:
<The first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands
>That the first Kings of this Realm had all the Lands of England in Demean [or Domain / Dominion].
Jean Bodin
>As for the right of coining money, it is of the same nature as law, and only he who has the power to make law can regulate the coinage. That is readily evident from the Greek, Latin, and French terms, for the word nummus [in Latin] is from the Greek word nomos, and [the French] loi (law) is at the root of aloi (alloy), the first letter of which is dropped by those who speak precisely. Indeed, after law itself, there is nothing of greater consequence than the title, value, and measure of coins, as we have shown in a separate treatise, and in every well-ordered state, it is the sovereign prince alone who has this power.
Thomas Hobbes
>And the Right of Distribution of Them – The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongs in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign power…. And this they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own.
>All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness, but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General: Who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land… And though a People coming into possession of a land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as of the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour.
Alexander Hamilton
>"Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper."
I think absolute monarchists see that problem– specifically Hobbes – but doesn't abolish all private property, there still is the division of the land, but it is completely mediated by a cult of personality to deal with "mine" and "thine". and that is how Fascists also basically do it.
I think Hobbes is still trying to tackle that problem and establish a community of pleasures and pains, that is why he is so strident in asserting a unanimous voice through one person– "mine" and "thine" are being distributed, wiith private property, but in Hobbes' rhetoric all people are doing it, tehcnically resolving that problem of Plato's without abolishing private property – since everyone is thought to accept the divisions by the sovereign – Who IS the People, so all the people consent to "mine" and "thine" being portioned out by an arbiter.
Plato:
>That the man who receives the portion should still regard it as common property of the whole State
Hobbes writes,
>Propriety of a subject excludes not the dominion of the Sovereign, but only of another subject.
His Soveriegn is the whole body of the people – the king is the people. So when he distributes property, it is as if this is uttered.
>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’
But personally I think Hobbes is the most relatable to me and why I like in monarchy compared to other writers.
>>823877>Carl Schmitt already showed how "international law" is a self-evident absurdity. There are hegemonies, and that's it.I have a question here.
–Why can't there be world peace or a world government or an institution like the UN? –What is your stance?
–I think Hobbes does an interesting move, where Aristotle uses the third man argument to break down the idea of a unitary state from "atomization" –Hobbes flips that around and says how could a wholistic and pluralistic view of Aristotle prevent the world from becoming one commonwealth?
Thomas Hobbes"When there's no common enemy they make war on each other for their particular interests."
…
>"When there's no common enemy they make war on each other for their particular interests. For if we could suppose a great multitude of men to agree in the observation of justice and other laws of nature, without a common power to keep them all in awe, we might as well suppose all mankind to do the same; and then there would not be–and would not need to be–any civil government or commonwealth at all, because there would be peace without subjection."…
>"For if by nature one Man should Love another (that is) as Man, there could be no reason be return'd why every Man should not equally Love every Man, as being equally Man, or why he should rather frequent those whose Society affords him Honour or Profit. We do not therefore by nature seek Society for its own sake, but that we may receive some Honour or Profit from it; these we desire Primarily, that Secondarily."-Thomas Hobbes on why there cannot be a world government
This is what Bodin says,
>"Moreover, all kingdoms of all peoples, empires, tyrannies, and states are held together by nothing but the rule of reason and the common law of nations. From this it follows that this world is just like a city-state and that all men are associated, as it were, under the same law. But since this dominion of reason constrains no one, one state cannot actually be forged out of all peoples. So princes, by using either their armies, or treaties, or mutual good will, seek to obtain lawful conduct and adjudication of affairs outside the borders of the kingdom."-Jean Bodin on why there cannot be a world government
I think Bodin, being more moral, but I am guessing reason itself but also why they cannot unite. Is each has some independent degree of reason, I'd presume. Although he says that the world is like a city-state.
…
I am curious, because one of the stances I also take stridently is there can be no world regime or world peace.
Hobbes radically denies that men are born ready and sociable like ants are–in his opinion, they have to be reared and edcuated and compeled and ti is a lot of effort actually to keep the peace–I like this view in the sense that it does stress not to take for granted sociability which again is why I think some are too eager to attack a sovvereign, because they don't see the need, men are already well off by nature.
I think a negative view is usually linked to authoritarianism because like I said in the beginning a lack of something appeals to a need for an arbiter. It definitely is much more convenient. At least as far as asserting the need for a monarch. Otherwise you don't see why.
Jean Bodin makes this clear in distinguishing Lordly Monarchy.
>And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice… that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just.
This is seen as the Holy Roman Empire dissolved and Prussia unified the 2nd German Empire–Bismarck's blood and iron speech.
Bodin's position is most monarchies start out as Lordly Monarchies. So Bodin concdes that–yes–at first there had to be a use of force to attain that kind of unity and superiority, but adds "their force is reputed just".
>As for the first sort of Kings, we find, that they indeed executed the offices of Judges, Captains, and Priests, yet none of them are found to have ruled at the will and pleasure of the people, neither to have received their authority from the people, before Pitacus King of Corinth, and Timondas King of Nigropont: but to the contrary, Plutarch writes, That the first princes had no other honor before their eyes, then to force men, and to keep them in subjection as slaves; whereof the Holy Scripture also certifies us of the first Lordly Monarchy Nimrod; leaving the sovereignty to their children, in right of succession; as says Thucydides. Which has also been well confirmed by the succession of a great number of Kings of the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Indians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Lacedemonians, Macedonians, Sicyonians, Epirots, Athenians: and their lines failing, the people in part proceeded to make choice of their Kings by way of election, some others invaded the State by force, other some maintained themselves in Aristocratic and popular seigneury; as witnesses Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Berosus, Plutarch, Xenophon, and other most ancient historiographers of the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, sufficient to convince the opinion of Aristotle of untruth in those things that he has writ concerning Kings.
First Monarchies by Conquest / Jean Bodin
>For before there was either City or citizen, or any form of a Commonwealth amongst men, every master of a family was a master in his own house, having power of life and death over his wife and children: but after that force, violence, ambition, covetousness, and desire of revenge had armed one against another, the issues of wars and combats giving victory unto the one side, made the other to become unto them slaves: and amongst them that overcame, he that was chosen chief and captain, under whose conduct and leading they had obtained the victory, kept them also in his power and command as his faithful and obedient subjects, and the other as his slaves. Then that full and entire liberty by nature given to every man, to live as himself best pleased, was altogether taken from the vanquished, and in the vanquishers themselves in some measure also diminished, in regard of the conquerour; for that now it concerned every man in private to yield his obedience unto his chief sovereign; and he that would not abate any thing of his liberty, to live under the laws and commandment of another, lost all. So the word of Lord and Servant, of Prince and Subject, before unknown unto the world, were first brought into use.
>Yea Reason, and the very light of Nature, leads us to believe very force and violence to have given course and beginning unto Commonwealths. And albeit that there were no reason therefore, it shall be hereafter declared by the undoubted testimonies of the most credible historiographers, that is to say, of Thucydides, Plutarch, Caesar, & also by the laws of Solon, That the first men that bare rule, had no greater honour and virtue, than to kill, massacre and rob men, or to bring them in slavery. These be the words of Plutarch. Yet have we more also the witness of the sacred history, where it is said, that Nimroth the nephew of Cham, was the first that by force and violence brought men into his subjection, establishing his kingdom in the country of Assyria: and for this cause they called him the Mighty Hunter, which the Hebrews interpret to be a thief and robber…. Which thing also Philo the Jew, and Josephus by their testimonies confirm, viz. by his wealth and power to have first exercised tyranny.
<And it is not yet past seventy years that the people of Gaoga in Africa had never felt or heard of any king or lord whatsoever, until that one amongst them a travel or had in his travel seen and noted the majesty of the king of Tombut: and thereupon conceiving a desire to make himself a king also in his own country, he at first to begin withal, killed a rich merchant; and so possessed of his horses arms and merchandise, divided them amongst his nigh kinsfolks and friends, acquainted with his purpose; by whose aid he by force and violence subdued now some, and after others, killing the richest, and ceasing upon their goods: in such sort that his son became rich with the robberies of his father, made himself king, whose successor hath so continued after him in great power, as we read in Leo of Africa. This was the beginning of the kings of Gaoga, which in short time greatly increased.
Bodin on Lordly Monarchy
>Wherefore a lawful or royal Monarchy is that where the subjects obey the laws of a Monarch, and the Monarch the laws of Nature, the subjects enjoying their natural liberty, and propriety of their goods. The lordly Monarchy is that where the prince is become lord of the goods and persons of his subjects, by law of arms and lawful war; governing them as the master of a family does his slaves. The tyrannical Monarchy, is where the prince condemning the laws of nature and nations, imperiously abuses the persons of his freeborn subjects, and their goods as his own. The same difference is also found in the Oligarchical and Democratic states: for both the one and the other may be lawful, lordly, and tyrannical, in such sort as I have said: for the greatest tyranny of all other is of Tully called the rage of the furious and turbulent people.
>Now as concerning the lordly Monarchy, it is convenient for us first to entreat thereof, as of that which was first amongst men: for they are deceived which following the opinion of Aristotle, suppose that golden kind of men (more famous for the poets fables, then for that there were any such in deed) to have made first choice of their heroical kings: seeing we find, and all men are persuaded that the first Monarchy was established in Assyria, under the power of Nimrod, whom the Holy Scripture calls the Great Hunter; which is a common phrase of speech amongst the Hebrews, by which word they signify a thief, or robber. For the ancient writers, viz. Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon, have put robbery among the kinds of hunting, as we have elsewhere noted. For before the time of Nimrod no man is found to have had power and rule one over an other, all men living in like liberty; he being the first that took upon him the sovereignty, and that caused free borne men to serve: whose name seems to have been given him according unto his quality, for asmuch as Nimrod signifies a terrible lord. Soon after the world was seen full of slaves, Some one of the sons of Noe yet living. And in the whole course of the Bible, the Scripture speaking of the subjects of the kings of Assyria and Egypt, calls them always slaves: and not the Holy Scripture only, but the Greeks also, who always in their writings term themselves free, and the Barbarians slaves; meaning by the Barbarians the people of Asia and Egypt.
>But yet here might some man doubt whether the Lordly Monarchy be not a Tyranny, considering that it seems to be directly against the law of nature, which reserves unto every man his liberty, and the sovereignty over his own goods. Whereunto I answer, that of ancient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaves, and to possess himself of other men's goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by just war should be the conquerours own, and that the vanquished should be slaves unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchy so established is tyrannical: seeing also wee read that Jacob the Patriarch, by his testament leaving unto his children certain lands that he had gotten, said that it was his own, for that he had got it by force of arms. And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice (which is put in practice against the greatest princes, and imperial cities of Germany, who be proscribed by the empire, for not making restitution of that which belonged to others) shows right well, that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just. For otherwise, if we will mingle and confound the Lordly Monarchy, with the tyrannical estate, we must confess that there is no difference in wars, betwixt the just enemy and the robber; betwixt a lawful prince and a thief; betwixt wars justly denounced, and uniust and violent force; which the ancient Romans called plain robbery and theft. We also see tyrannical states and governments, soon to fall, and many tyrants in short time slain: whereas the seigneurelike states, and namely the Lordly Monarchies have been both great and of long continuance, as the ancient Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Medes, Persians, & Egyptians; and at this present that of Ethiopia (the most ancient Monarch of all Asia and Africa) whereunto are subject fifty kings as slaves, if we may believe Pau. Iouius, who all are, and term themselves the slaves of the Grand Negus of Ethiopia. And the reason why the Lordly Monarchy is more durable than the royal, is for that it is more majestical, and that the subjects hold not their lives, goods, and liberty, but of the sovereign prince, who hath by just war conquered them
Now Bodin makes an important distinction:
>Whereunto I answer, that of ancient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaves, and to possess himself of other men's goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by just war should be the conquerours own, and that the vanquished should be slaves unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchy so established is tyrannical: seeing also wee read that Jacob the Patriarch, by his testament leaving unto his children certain lands that he had gotten, said that it was his own, for that he had got it by force of arms. And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice (which is put in practice against the greatest princes, and imperial cities of Germany, who be proscribed by the empire, for not making restitution of that which belonged to others) shows right well, that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just. For otherwise, if we will mingle and confound the Lordly Monarchy, with the tyrannical estate, we must confess that there is no difference in wars, betwixt the just enemy and the robber; betwixt a lawful prince and a thief; betwixt wars justly denounced, and uniust and violent force; which the ancient Romans called plain robbery and theft. We also see tyrannical states and governments, soon to fall, and many tyrants in short time slain: whereas the seigneurelike states, and namely the Lordly Monarchies have been both great and of long continuance, as the ancient Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Medes, Persians, & Egyptians;
Lordly Monarchy =/= Tyrannical monarchy.
I suppose why Bodin says their force is reputed just–at least because it established a profound growth and impact for the development of civilization.
I personally think North Korea is one example of this and that helps it stand firm–that early on it was established by military campaign, which is one of the incidents where a monarchy can develop more cleanly without a mark of usurpation like the Pahlavis had.
Nationalists find this verse atrocious, but it is true that I see a monarch as unifier in this way: the entire commonwealth is unified by the monarch–the stress is not on the division, but the unity.
Galatians 3:28
>There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
THat does sound pozzed in the context of race, btu I'm thinking more in a local position with a monarch – in a class collaborationist that appeals to people like fascist and others who don't want the bitterness betwene the rich or the poor to tear apart a state…
…It is a different way… than looking at this – sure you could say that Aristotle's solution of just building a bigger middl class is way more prompt than this kind of cult of personality to resolve society's problems, fine, but I feel you can't underestimate the stress on oneness – I would say that when I consider the monarch "whole" or "one" and "indfivisible" and that he is the state, it is on par with– and consider that Plato says that even if people receive property or division, it is considered still belonging to the state– I think it is a similar mentality here with "King is the People" – again, the stress just isn't on any division, but oneness. That might be totaltiarian or too all encompassing for you, but yes. You are the feet of christm you are the eyes of christ, you are imn this sense and you even asume his name as Christians. SO I personally see it as sound at least that way, and if not – then fine it could be a noble lie even.
But Christ is the body–he is reckoned to be the whole, and you the parts. Christ is that kind of preeminent monarch. He is the unity of the Church that way. He is in the relation of the whole to the parts and you are the parts. You drink his blood and take part of his body. There is no firmer show of preeminence than that I would suppose. At least I think this is prompt as an example.
Bossuet:
>One owes the prince the same service one owes his country… No one has any doubts about this, since we have seen that the whole State is in the person of the prince. In him is found the will of the whole people. It is for him alone to make everything converge in the public good. One must render concurrent the service which one owes to the prince and that which one owes to the State, viewed as inseparable things.
>It is only public enemies who separate the interest of the prince from the interest of the State… In the ordinary style of sacred Scripture, the enemies of the State are called the enemies of the King. We have already observed that Saul called his enemies, the Philistines, enemies of the people of God… Thus one should never think that he can attack a people without attacking its king, nor that one can attack a king without attacking a people…. To flatter a people in order to separate it from the interests of its King, is to make the cruellest of all wars upon it, and to add sedition to its other misfortunes… Let the nations then detest the Rabsaces and all those who pretend to love them, while they attack their king.
>The prince must be loved as a public good, and his life is the object of the people's good wishes… From this comes the cry, Long live the King! Which has been passed from the people of God to all the peoples of the world. At the election of Saul at the coronation of Solomon, at the rite of Joas, one heard this cry from the whole people: Long live the king, long live the king, long live King David, long live King Solomon!" …The prince is a public good whom each must preserve jealously… The life of the prince is viewed as the salvation of the whole people: this is why each is careful of the life of the prince as if it were his own, or rather more than his own… "The anointed of the Lord, whom we regard as the breath of our mouth": that is to say, who is dear to us as the air we breathe. It was thus Jeremiah spoke of the king. "Then David's men swore unto him, saying: Thou shalt go no more out to us to battle, lest thou put out the lamp of Israel." …See how the prince is loved: he is the light of the whole kingdom. What is loved as much as light? It is the joy and the greatness of the universe… Thus a good subject loves his prince as he loves the public good, as he loves the safety of the whole State, as he loves the air he breathes, the light of his eyes, his life and more than his life.
…
Bossuet continued:
>I do not call majesty that pomp which surrounds kings or that exterior magnificence which dazzles the vulgar. That is but the reflection of majesty and not majesty itself. Majesty is the image of the grandeur of God in the prince… God is infinite, God is all. The prince, as prince, is not regarded as a private person: he is a public personage, all the State is in him; the will of all the people is included in his. As all perfection and all strength are united in God, so all the power of individuals is united in the person of the prince. What grandeur that a single man should embody so much!
…
>It is by the sole authority of government that union is established among men. This effect of legitimate command is marked to us by these words, so often repeated in the Scriptures: at the command of Saul, and of the legitimate authority "all Israel went out as one man. All the multitudes as one man, were forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty. Behold, such is the unity of a people, when each one renouncing his own will, transfers and reunites it to that of the prince and the magistrate. Otherwise there is no union; the people become wanderers, like a flock dispersed. "May the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, provide a man that may be over this multitude, and may go out and in before them, or bring them in: lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd."
…
>Monarchical government is best. It is also the most opposed to division, which is the essential evil in states, and most certain cause of their ruin…. When states are formed, one seeks for unity, and one is never so unified as under a single leader. In addition one is never stronger, because everything happens in concert.
…
>God, moresoever, has put something divine into kings. "I have said: You are Gods, and all of you the sons of the most High." It is God himself whom avid makes speak in this way.
…
>Thus it is the spirit of Christianity to make kings respected in a kind of religious way–which Tertullian (again) calls very well "the religion of the second majesty."
>This second majesty simply flows out of the first, that is to say the divine, which, for the good of human affairs, has lent some of its brilliance to kings.
>Kings must tremble, then, in using the power that God gives them, and consider how horrible the sacrilege of using for evil a power that comes from God.
>Let them respect their power, then, because it is not their power, but the power of God, which must be used in a holy and religious way. St. Gregory of Nazianze spoke thus to the emperors: "Respect the purple: recognize the great mystery of God in your persons: He governs by himself the celestial things: He divides those of the earth with you. Be gods, then, to your subjects." That is to say, govern them as God governs, in a way that is noble, disinterested, beneficent–in a word, divine.
If anon said, "Well, actually, I'm more of a republican" then I probably wouldn't be this defensive.
I also have to clarify–I'm not stressing religious neutrality.
I'm happy that King jesus rules the clergy and pope and all christians, a king without comparison.
This is about having a monarch likewise. You can fuss that the monarch in question isn't Jesus, but so be it.
I don't want any number of clergymen or nobles–but one monarch.
I'd rank a monarch before all other classes/ranks, even the clergy.
Bodin says,
>The next unto the King himself, who out of the number of citizens, going far before the rest should follow the holy order of the clergy: next unto the sacred order of the clergy, the Senate: after the Senate should follow the martial men
As for "religion in government" – yes, I don't want rule by the clergy over the monarchy. Period.
I'd rank a monarch before all other classes/ranks, even the clergy.
I am stridently opposed to that.
Some see this as the purest form of rule by experts / technocracy, and certainly that is where I'm annoyed with being a bedfellow with esotericists.
I see it as the ultimate cockblock to just stress technocracy when I am here for something else, so I hate being pestered by advocates of technocracy when I have something else unique in mind and my own ideas. Please don't push technocracy on me in my thread–that rustles my jimmies hard. (along with teetering back on forth about oneness/unity and division/partiality, because I've been there, done that). I'm not interested in the callous rule by elites or elitism. I'm more interested in a kind of paternalistic cult of personality defined by a hereditary absolute monarchy alone.
otherwise, I'd say to just go make your own thread or bugger off, because I'm not interested in discussing technocracy
Personally, I value strict hereditary absolute monarchy as a cult of personality over technocracy & ultraclericalism.
TBH, neither do I really care to entertain Christianity at this point.
This is not about the rule of one class over another for me.
In fact, this is about opposing cliqueism altogether.
THis is not about hierarchy or stratocracy. Simply one. Simply unity.
I see all estates emanating from one ruler and this sense of majesty is unique.
I don't see the monarch as a member of the estates: the king is the unity of all estates, and the estates proceed from the unity of the monarch.
This is what is meant when Jean Bodin says,
>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…
And that is customarily seen as the monarch summons the estates.
I am wholly opposed to cliqiueism, whether it be a noble clique or an ultra-clericalist clique.
I strictly advocate one monarch as the preeminent ruler.
One ruler. That is all. One individual ruler to make the people individual.
No class or clique or partners. No division or associates. Not considering him inferior or a part.
One ruler.
One ruler is the unity of the land. The stress is on oneness. Sheer monarchy.
–I'm saying this to make my stance clear.
>>823913>Aristotle also notes that friendship implies equality.Right, and as it is understood, each class has equality with itself, which is why democracy declares all people to be equal with one another. A king as a singular man thus has no equal, but this must also mean he has no friends.
>it is not that the parts of the body depend on each other, but depend on the soul.This I think is a distinction between the ancient and the Christian conception of the soul, or psyche. To Plato and Aristotle, the soul is tripartite; containing three powers which thus manifest in the body; the vegetative, animal and rational aspect. Plato sees that the soul of a nation thus determines its constitution. If the soul is of a lower kind, it will have a lesser government - this is understood by Rousseau and Kant in a similar way; where reason is manifested as a democracy of equals, and irrationality is manifested as superiors leading inferiors. I would further associate this with a Lockean concept of "trust". Where the social contract is obeyed, there is a voluntary rule, but where the contract is broken, the state grows in its mediation of crime. Eventually, the state inverts its order by punishing the innocent and permitting the evil. This is a theme of understood by Orwell, Rothbard and Francis. We could also see how a mixture of metals (or races, as per the Platonic euphemism) manifests in the need for greater mediation, like in Signapore, or as we are seeing develop in multi-racial Western nations. The lack of social trust by the strain of apparent inequalities necessitates greater government powers. So, I would say that the soul of a nation, in its constitution, is thus determined by the precedence of the type of soul. We see in Plato's Dividing Line [535c-537d] how the minority aspect of noēsis still has the greatest ratio. So, the type of soul is dependent on the General Will of a population. The Will is the Spirit. I am a Republican in this sense.
>that stance is not mirroredI would say that since the economic prececes the political, monarchy thus precedes other configurations. Monarchy is the most natural type of rule, is it not?
>it is not the case that there is the government over there and in the workplace you aren't being governed as if a state didn't intend for this or lay this out. Sure, but in this case, the state is passive to economics. We intuit that it is wise policy to have no policy. Wu-wei.
>You said Pahlavi is the king and Khamenei is the tyrant.I say that the people wish for him to rule, so he is a voluntary ruler, but his own cowardice loses legitimacy.
>kinship is the only bond that isn't betrayed too frivolously, but friendship is.I suppose I take friendship retroactively. A friend is not a friend if he is unfriendly. So, ipso facto, friendship is anulled, like a Catholic Divorce; it never had truth to it.
>why did God the Father not sacrifice his only friend instead of his only son?I would say it's because God has no friends; no equals, which makes the case of Christ most curious. I am not necessarily a trinitarian in my Christian theology.
>>823914>like a fandom gravitates around charaters they gravitate around a kingYes; the medium is the idol of voluntary worship.
>I prefer to look at the soul as being whole and unique, one. Would you admit that this is a Christian convention?
>The only way to stop this is to make the people see themselves as not apart from the king but one with the monarch and synonymous.Right, which in Enlightenment terms we may describe as Nationalism or Patriotism. I am pessimistic that there will always be strife between tribes, creating disunity. In the British Empire, there were still foreign loyalists, but they were a minority. Today, they're called "Uncle Toms".
>>823930>I dislike classWell, the people of Leftypol see Nationalism as class collaborationism, not class dissolution - and they are right. Where King Trump tells his loyal subjects to die for Israel, this is the ruling class warring against the lower orders by tyranny. I internalise this modern cynicism. I do not in turn claim that the people "have no country", but instead seek to reclaim the Nation from tyrants.
>I don't see the king as merely a high priest who offers rituals to the gods – the king is how the gods themselves are discovered and realized by men within the natural world.That's an interesting view. It is also Peterson's view - that nature arranges itself in dominance hierarchies. On this point, Žižek is actually more conservative, since in their debate, Peterson sees hierarchy as a result of merit, while Žižek sees it as a result of natural right. The king lobster is not the most utilitarian, yet he is still the leader; Žižek apparently takes this from Kiekegaard.
>To me it feels like being surrounded by oligarchists who hate monarchy. That's probably true enough.
>>823967>Why can't there be world peace or a world government or an institution like the UN?There can be global legislators, but they will always serve a majority power, like any parliament. The proof is in the pudding; Israel is declared to commit war crimes, yet nothing is done about it. The UN is not neutral.
>823985>OnenessWe can think of it like the Trinity: 3 parts, one substance, like Plato's soul. But are the parts co-equal? We can say that the trinitarian Godhead is one of friendship, not monarchy, thus. I see that the whole is made of parts, and so the nation cannot be the head alone. The Church is the "body", which includes all of its separate parts.
>>823994>I'm not convinced this anon is really much of a monarchistI'm not, reallty. I'm more aristocratic in my beliefs.
I take the view that the best man should have the most power, but I also think that many great men means the ideal rule of the few. Distance between the best and the second-best isn't a chasm to me, like it may be to you. As I say, I am a liberal, not a conservative, so I take Peterson's point over Žižek; of utilitarian instrumentality.
>I'll try to end this conversation.That's fair enough.
It's been pleasant talking with you.
>>824058>I would say that since the economic prececes the political, monarchy thus precedes other configurations. Monarchy is the most natural type of rule, is it not?I think the stance is that a little monarchy is a little city.
So a kingship is an embryo.
Now Aristotle suggests the opposite.
Aristotle>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.So for Aristotle deems the city / or state prior to the family and individual, the wholes such as these come prior.
Most people see individualism… in terms of simply individuals…. but families are also a kind of individualism – the point there is no family is an island, a family also needs a pot of soil.
Confucius stressed a kind of familial loyalty early on. –This is what I think is different between civic foundation between the West and the Far East: the Far East is very family oriented; when they think of big states, they think of big families, big family blocs. –In that sense, I think the Far East actually is more nationalist or at least homogeneous compared to the West without even trying. –Whereas the West, as GK Chesterton suggests, has never been as firmly nationalist in that way, but more of a motley stew–I think that's a great point of GK Chesterton to the point he even suggests that Westerners only get nationalism from the Jews paradoxically enough… now I don't 100% believe Chesterton there, but that's my point–the civic view that the West has had early on has kind of placed the West in a position more partial to republicanism or democracy.
That is why I can't agree with traditionalist monarchists that the Western political canon is perfect for monarchy.
Nope, I have to agree with Hobbes' pessimism that the reason why we keep getting conflicts with monarchy in the West is obviously: Western political canon and classical tradition is very ambivalent, if not outright hostile to monarchy at times, saving the very rare occasion you have a preeminent king, but still. That includes the Bible as well. There are a lot of mixed messages there, but I don't think it is straightforward–partially because the West hated the Persians and the Jews hated the Pharaoh and both associated that with a hatred of monarchy in general, I think–so I would agree with Hobbes also about the Uranus myth has set a bad tone–Plato also thought that way, but even Plato doesn't remedy that for me. –But as far as monarchy in the West is concerned, I think the only fully optimistic party in the political canon is 16th century absolutism.
This is why I don't believe a monarchy in the West can be planned out. It is completely accidental. Monarchy in the West is a kind of accident.
>Sure, but in this case, the state is passive to economics. We intuit that it is wise policy to have no policy. Wu-wei.Actually, I don't think the state is passive, but yes, I do think that initially channels were dug and the foundation was set.
This is how absolutists see it with Romulus, the first divisions of property began with him, he set the foundation for activity.
This relationship persists even today, because you see economic bodies come to the state for assistance.
If standardization is called for, especially, this enables communication.
The Tower of babylon story makes the case: severe the communication–that commonwealth is death.
It is true that only Nimrod could do it, being half-god, but due to being a mortal god it inevitably failed.
If you actually look at the tower of Babylon story, it was the greatest achievement possible. –If there was ever a competent king, it was Nimrod otherwise how could this be pulled off?
I think Hobbes' LEviathan speaks of a like pessimism.
I think esotericists would say that communication implied is religion, and sure I'd concede, but I think in my nuanced view this applies to all states no matter the religion.
Jean Bodin continued<Of course each man was ruler of his family and had the right of life and death not only over the slaves but also over his wives and children, as Caesar himself testified. Justinian, in addition to many others, erred in alleging, in the chapter on a father's power, that no people had so much power over their sons as the Romans had, for it is evident from Aristotle and the Mosaic Law that the custom is also common to the Persians and the Hebrews. The ancients understood that such was the love of the parents toward their sons that even if they wished very much to abuse their power, they could not. Moreover, nothing was a more potent cause of virtue and reverence in children toward their parents than this patriarchal power.
<Therefore, when they say that they are masters of the laws and of all things, they resemble those kings whom Aristotle calls lords, who, like fathers of families, protect the state as if it were their own property. It is not contrary to nature or to the law of nations that the prince should be master of all things and of laws in the state, only he must duly defend the empire with his arms and his child with his blood, since the father of a family by the law of nations is owner not only of the goods won by him but also of those won by his servants, as well as of his servants
<Even more base is the fact that Jason when interpreting in the presence of King Louis XII a chapter of law well explained by Azo, affirmed recklessly that all things are the property of the prince. This interpretation violates not only the customs and laws of this kingdom but also all the edicts and advices of all the emperors and jurisconsults. All civil actions would be impossible if no one were owner of anything. "To the Kings," said Seneca, "power over all things belongs; to individual citizens, property." And a little later he added, "While under the best king the king holds all within his authority, at the same time the individual men hold possessions as private property." All things in the state belong to Caesar by right of authority, but property is acquired by inheritanceJean Bodin on property>But beside the sovereignty of State thus by us set down, as the strong foundation of the whole Commonwealth; many other things besides are of citizens to be had in common among them, as their markets, their churches, their walks, ways, laws, decrees, judgements, voices, customs, theaters, walls, public buildings, common pastures, lands, and treasure; and in brief, rewards, punishments, sutes, and contracts: all which I say are common unto all the citizens together, or by use and profit: or public for every man to use, or both together. That is also a great community which arises of colleges and corporations of companies, as also of benefits both given and received. For otherwise a Commonwealth cannot be so much as imagined, which has in it nothing at all public or common.
<Although it may so be, that the greatest part of their lands be common unto the citizens in general, and the least part unto every one of them in particular: as by the law of Romulus, called Agraria, all the lands of Rome, at that time containing eighteen thousand acres, was divided into three equal parts, whereof the first part was assigned for the maintening of the sacrifices; the second for the defraying of the necessary charges of the Commonwealth; and the third was equally divided among the citizens; who being in number but three thousand, had to every one of them alloted two acres: which equal partage long time after continued with great indifference, for Cincinnatus the Dictator himself 260 years after had no more but two acres of land, which he with his own hands husbanded.
>But howsoever lands may be divided, it cannot possibly be, that all things should be common amongst citizens; which unto Plato seemed so notable a thing, and so much to be wished for, as that in his Commonwealth he would have all men's wives and children common also: for so he deemed it would come to pass that these two words, Mine and Thine, should never more be heard amongst his citizens, being in his opinion the cause of all the disc0rd and evils in a Commonwealth. But he understood not that by making all things thus common, a Commonwealth must needs perish: for nothing can be public, where nothing is private: neither can it be imagined there to be any thing had in common, if there be nothing to be kept in particular; no more than if all the citizens were kings, they should all have no king; neither any harmony, if the diversity and dissimilitude of voices cunningly mixed together, which makes the sweet harmony, were all brought unto one and the same tune. Albeit that such a Commonwealth should be also against the law of God and nature, which detest not only incests, adulteries, and inevitable murders, if all women should be common; but also expressly forbids us to steal, or so much as to desire any thing that another man is.
<Whereby it evidently appears this opinion for the community of all things to be erroneous, seeing Commonwealths to have been to that end founded and appointed by God, to give unto them that which is common; and unto every man in private, that which unto him in private belongs. Besides that also such a community of all things is impossible, and incompatible with the right of families: for if in the family and the city, that which is proper, and that which is common, that which is public, and that which is private, be confounded; we shall neither family nor yet Commonwealth. In so much that Plato himself (in all other things most excellent) after he had seen the notable inconveniences & absurdities which such a confused community of all things drew after it, wisely of himself departed from that so absurd an opinion, and easily suffered that Commonwealth which he had attributed unto Socrates to be abolished.
>Wherefore as a Commonwealth is a lawful State of many families, and of those things which unto them in common belongs, with a puissant sovereignty: so is a Family the right government of many subjects or persons, and of such things as are unto them proper, under the rule and command of one and the same head of the Family. For in that especially consists the difference betwixt a Commonwealth and a Family: for that the Master of a Family has the government of domestical things, and so of his whole Family wit that which is unto it proper; albeit that every house or family be bound to give something unto the Commonwealth, whether it be by the name of a subsidy, tax, tribute, or other extraordinary imposition.
<And it may be that all subjects of a Commonwealth may live together in common, in manner of Colleges, or companies, as did in ancient time the Lacedemonians, where the men apart from their wives and families, used to eat and sleep together by fifteen and twenty in a company. As also in ancient time in Creet, all the citizens of all sorts men and women, young and old, rich and poor, always eat and drink together; and yet for all that, every man had his own proper goods apart, every one of them still contributing what was thought expedient for the defraying of the common charge. Which thing the Anabaptists in our time began to practice in the town of Munster, having commanded all things to be common, excepting their wives (of whom they might have many) and their apparel, thinking thereby the better to maintain mutual love and concord among them: in which their account they found themselves far deceived. For they which admit this community of all things, are so far from this good agreement of citizens among themselves, which they hope thus to maintain, as that thereby the mutual love betwixt man and wife, the tender care of parents towards their children, and their dutifulness again towards them, and in brief the mutual love of neighbours and kinsmen among themselves, is quite extinquished; all the kind bond of blood and kindred (than which none stronger can be imagined for the friendship and good agreement of citizens) being by this means taken away. For that which thou shouldest dearly love must be thine own, and that also all thine: whereas community is of the Lawyers justly called of it self, the mother of contention and disc0rd. Neither are they less deceived, which think greater care to be had of things that be common, than of things that be private; for we ordinarily see things in common and public to be of every man smally regarded and neglected, except it be to draw some private and particular profit thereout of.
>Besides that, the nature of love and friendship is such, that the more common it is, or unto more divided, the less force it is of: not unlike to great rivers, which carry great vessels, but being divided into small branches, serves neither to keep back the enemy, neither for burthen: in which manner love also divided unto many persons or things, loses his force and virtue.
<So the lawful and certain government of a Family, divides every private men's wives and children, servants and goods, from all other men's families; as also that which is unto every particular man proper, from that which is to them all common in general, that is to say, from a Commonwealth. And withall in every well governed Commonwealth we see the public magistrate to have a certain especial care and regard of the private goods of orphans, of mad men, and of the prodigal: for that it concerns the Commonwealth to have their goods preserved unto them to whom they belong– >>824058>Yes; the medium is the idol of voluntary worship.Here, I have to agree, that insofar as monarchy is concerned–institution of commonwealth without a stain is very rare.
–Inevitably, there is some recourse to compulsion or there might be a ceremony or event before the other parties are banned, to make it like a freeman's physician with some persuasion, but inevitably all the dictators ban the other parties or ultimately sideline them.
Hitler makes says this for Christianity–Christianity could tolerate no other altars.
So I kind of pessimistically have to relate to Machaivelli's quote about armed prophets.
HObbes relates that there is a kind of consent there. His Leviathan is consensual upon the institution. It might seem like a warped view of consent… but the distinction is there is consent by inference and consent by affirmation or something… if you play the game, that signifies consent–if you vote, even if the opposing party wins, that means consent–if you vote but don't like the system, nevertheless the same. If you accept public services, then also consent by inference. If you live a peaceful life and not in open rebellion actively fighting, consent by inference. –If you are given the choice to submit or die, and you choose to live, Hobbes would also consider that consent.
–I personally have come to see it as Queen Chrysalis suggests–that concord is not so prompt if your goal is that kind of monarchy.
I take Bodin's view that the first monarchies were Lordly Monarchies and yes this could have been unjust but eventually Lordly Monarchies became Royal Monarchies. –That is how I view it with dictators (if not marred by usurpation which always leaves a bad precedent no matter the intent–I almost always consider usurpation a tyrannical move that way). In order to get the ball rolling, some Lordly Monarchy had to chop at the tree to begin to arrange the furniture.
Bodin doesn't view conquest as tyrannical between two mutual enemies.
>>824058>Would you admit that this is a Christian convention?Perhaps.
Although I wouldn't say it couldn't be thought of in other ways.
>but his own cowardice loses legitimacy.You say it is cowardice–someone else could say it is prudence that he hasn't flown over yet, lol.
>Monarchy is the most natural type of rule, is it not?That is up for consideration.
I wouldn't say that it is natural in that it is seen everywhere and is really common.
I kind of suggested that monarchy was monstrous and is a real spectacle.
Nietzsche tended to focus on Aristtole:
BEAST OR GODTHe Sphinx with Khafre looks like a beastly god.
Machiavelli suggests that one must be a bit of a beast and a god, a lion and a cunning fox.
Maybe there are monsters in nature, like big foot or other legendary creatures.
I think in Bodin's view, this would be the case.
>>824058>Where King Trump tells his loyal subjects to die for Israel, this is the ruling class warring against the lower orders by tyrannyI'm not sure I would call Trump a monarch.
He is just a powerful magistrate or official.
There are dictators that I would consider preeminent enough to be a monarch:
>>799540 &
>>799536I think there are constitutions that have what I call a "preeminence clause" where they set down the majesty of the leader.
Aristotle 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!(So here you see a reversal: individual is clearly a part, BUT –BEAST or a GOD & founder of state clause*)
(I keep this dichtomy in mind often, not beast or god as much, but how an individual manages to become preeminent–I say, monarchy is monstrous, preeminent virtue si profound in that it is a monstrous virtue, a virtue that is not "terrible" but in Ivan the Terrible's case, terrible as in to inspire awe, that is what Hobbes means by without comparison and a state of awe).
This is how I interpret "preeminent in virtue" – not as just any excellency or doing x amount of pushups to demonstrate or prove, but a kind of monstrous virtue or awe that is without comparison). Presidents have the style of "Your Excellency" and Monarchs have "Your Majesty". So it isn't that he is just somewhat exceptional or competent "your excellency" but to be so preeminent in virtue is like a unique situation, like pulling a camel through the eye of a needle sense of awe, to turn an individual into such a monstrous monarch or mortal god or king kong–maybe not in the sense of sheer strength, but I prefer the term lifeforce or as Hobbes puts it soul of the commonwealth.
Hobbes<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.Aristotle>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 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!I think if you ever played Fallout new Vegas, Mr. House makes a good case for monarchical preeminence–of course, he's just a shirveled up man, his excellecny isn't seen promptly but… pic related.
>>824161>House isn't perfect, but he's too important and his mind, too valuable to lose. He built robco. Hr designed your pipboy, the securitrons, all of new vegas defenses. He holds the secrets of life extension and other technologies we can only imagine. And every other faction requires you kill him (even if you just unplug him, his pod is contaminated and he will die), and it's not worth it. Killing him is like burning down the library of Alexandria. You set the world back a thousand years when you kill house. He is the single most important man in the Mojave.This I think sets the tone for monarchical preemince.
Too big to failNow I think Mr. House stresses it in a technocratic sense, but I'm not just stressing technocracy–to me, the monarch is the soul of the commonwealth, technocrat or not.
In the Wizard of Oz, they meet the Wizard and their impression of him is like a god even if he is in actuality just a humble man behind the curitains.
>>824164Also, note, that Mr. House is the founder of New Vegas–that is a mark of preeminence as Aristotle lays down as well: the great founder.
>>824171If is funny here because I admit, Aristotle gives advice for tyrants and lays out thsi idea of a half-decent tyrant .
I mutter, "I think a half-tyrant is my ideal"
>trump
I'm not going to comment too much on his appearance or character.
Personally, that Trump is a megalomaniac or narcissist doesn't bother me–in fact, I kind of like that in a king.
I would comment that Bodin as well approves of haughtiness in a king and even says a bad man makes a great king.
I wouldn't like monarchs like Louis XIV or Gaius Caligula honestly if I adored too much mildness or humility–I personally also find mildness too unbearable. Maybe that is how you would know I am a tyrannist for sure, that too much mildness or too much humility is overbearing to me. –I would like royal granduer and a big palace–this is worth the cost to me.–As I said, the royal palce to me is the soul building of the nation–I want the royal palace to be as majestic as Versailles or greater, and I wouldn't say this is only the King's vanity, but also our vanity and heritage, our sense of identity that is built up – so I would say that tremendous funds could be commissioned for an exceptional & majestical palace in that it is the capitol building and that is a sense of majesty. I see a royal palace that way as a building to be patriotic about to have in that kind of monarchy and as their emblem as well.
…
Now the White House is modest in its excellency and is supposed to represent a kind of modest republican virtue–Aristotle says that the virtues considered with monarchy, a democracy, and a republican are different and in the sense of the Herodotus Debate I agree–I am not saying that political and economical are different, but strictly the forms of state.
…
–I'm not going to comment about certain things here, but let's say that happens–that Trump dynasty happens and America becomes a de facto monarchy–I agree with you: America is no longer America. Americans are no longer Americans. THeir cult of personaltiy is dead. Old god is gone and a new god is here. Then it would be TRUMP™ America. Americans would be TRUMP™ Americans or "Trumpians", maybe it wouldn't officially be called that, but what I am saying is in the spirit of that–neither would be American flag be the American flags even if they kept the full appearance of an American flag. They would be "TRUMP" flags. –Now if you aren't a Trump supporter, this would probably be treadful, lmao, and I admit that is kind of lulzy and goofy in a way, and I'm not a Trump supporter but I would be mildly amused by that.
It would be like as if Dr. Robotnik from the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog took over America. America is now Robotnik Land, Americans are now Robotniks. I have to admit, while you'd call this the ultimately tyranny, I call it a guilty pleasure and find that amusing. That Trump is a megalomanic is not what I find unbearable about the Trump administration even if some people by now have Trump fatigue–admitably, this is what Christianity does , you are all now Christians and the Church is the body of Christ. The only difference there is considering Christianity that Christians have no doubt Jesus is such a god. Now the Jews themselves did think it was megalomania, but whatever.
…
Point is, I agree with you–that would be the TRUMP™ America's original sin to overthrow the Constitution and make a new America. Even if Trump as a righteous man or had good intentions. That's what I'm saying with monarchy as well. I'm somewhat in what Hobbes would call sinful behavior to kind of admire monarchy, but I deny I am actively calling for a the USA to become a monarchy. It is more of a privy fancy. –And if it did become a monarchy, then TRUMPICANS can read the royal colony thread and study me like I am their sage, lmao.
Thomas Hobbes: Thou shalt not have the gods of other nations
>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.
I think your gist is from Game of Thrones:
>Tywin Lannister famously said, "Any man who must say, 'I am the king,' is no true king"
I see what you mean, but I just view that as another waxy, flowery Tolkienesque sentiment that isn't actually practiced.
I see the fake "I am a humble man, i don't actually want to be a king" as political theater.
It is a humblebrag
Pahlavi did it, Khamanei did it–it's theatrical performance, the tyrants are self-aware that they have to humblebrag.
The end result to me is cheesy and corny.
Caesar refused a crown, but I look at this in a more nuanced way.
Caesar refused a crown–in part to humblebrag, in part because he understood that crown was no real monarchy.
I think I would rather have an honest megalomaniac.
Even a true king is very adament that he is a king and I'd even agree with Hobbes that it needs to be preached to an extent.
Plato said that everyone over the age of 10 is to be expelled and a new generation is to be taught.
That was what Hitler had Hitler YOuth.
Christ is adamant about this–you tell his children to not belong to him, then let a millstone be placed around your neck and hurled into the ocean.
>>824286To note, that is one sentiment of Plato's that I disagree with.
I agree more with what Frederick the Great says, that a king is bound to be ambitious for the benefit of his state.
>>824114Tower of babel, not babylon*
>>824347Personally, I still side with Queen Chrysalis here.
MLP stresses that kind of friendship over Chrysalis, but at the end of the day I prefer Chrysalis' Hive and the familial bond: as I stressed with an ant colony, the ideal of an absolute monarchy is much akin to state corporatism in that way in making the country to be a great family.
>>824349I think while Starlight Glimmer represents the state corporatist or communist outlook after beign reformed in the show, –Queen Chrysalis represents my kind of monarchical absolutism (just ignore the obvious clothing of her being a tyrant and looking at that neutrally).
>>824366>nothing wrongOh okay, actual genocide apologia, we don't give a shit anymore I see.
>>824383I'm not saying genocide is a good thing, but it can happen to anyone.
>>824058>The Church is the "body"Christ is the Church in that sense, you partake in Christ.
I wouldn't' say that Christ is the head, but encompasses the entire body and is felt in every fiber of it.
…
Anyways, Hobbes talked about this–he says that attempts to do this leads into 3 separate factions.
>>Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul… For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the Kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so.
>To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact.Hobbes did comment on this, but he distinguishes the multitude from the people: the city does not revolt against itself, but a multitude does.
…
It is the same dilemma with the branches of government–there is majesty that is singular, and the branches proceed from the sovereign.
The Nepal Mahendra constitution writes,
>The sovereignty of Nepal is vested in His Majesty and all powers–executive, legislative, and judicial emanate from Him.So it isn 't the case the the sovereign is merely the executive.
People say that absolute monarchists just didn't have any concept of branches of government, but no,–I think it is actually very deliberate with Bodin or Hobbes. They just had other ideas. Or they could be looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. As a matter of stress, the stress is first and foremost on unity–on the simple unity and being a unitary being rather than a composite creature. I think it is more that the stress is on the unity… if I had to stress it was simply that unity is stressed more in a tonal way.
Jean Bodin writes,
>For there are (says Aristotle) three parts of a Commonwealth, the one to take advice and councel, the other to establish magistrates and officers, and the third to administer and execute justice. Here (in my opinion) or else no where he seems to speak of the right of Sovereignty; for that a Commonwealth can by no means receive that division, as it were of the whole into parts, except the sovereign government were also spoken of. Neither have Polybius also determinantly defined or set down the rights and marks of SOvereignty: but in speaking of the ROman Commonwealth, he says, That their estate was mixt the Power royal, of the Aristocratical government, and the Popular liberty: seeing (says he) that the people made laws and officers; the Senate disposed of the provinces and common treasure, received and dismissed ambassadors, and had the managing of the greatest affairs; the Consuls held the prerogative of honour, in royal form and quality, but especially in wars, wherein they were all in all. Wherein it appears, that he has touched the principal points of Sovereignty, seeing that they whom attributeth the same, had the chief government of the COmmonwealth….Absolute monarchists also make the distinction between the state and government, BUT it is ultimately the sovereign who is said to be governing. He just chooses to govern in a democratic or aristocratic method of governing–absolute monarchists acknowledge that there can be mixed government but not mixed sovereignty. So you can have the assemblies and parliament as a method of governing, but the preeminence stays with the sovereign. –He himself can also partake in governing, because I fear people make this distinction that since the distinction is there that a sovereign cannot reign and govern–that I also deny.
>>824058>It's been pleasant talking with you.I am going to promptly end the conversation here.
>the people of Leftypol see Nationalism as class collaborationism, not class dissolution
The appeal to Fascism is not merely the stress in the classes, but the stress in the State as an arbiter.
If you just focused on the classes divided and not the arbiter's unity, then it would lose its entire appeal to me. The appeal is the subordination of all classes to the State.
To stress class alone without this emphasis just means division and factionalism.
Again, it a matter of stress–I don't like class in the sense of division/factionalism, but I do like the stress on its unity.
I don't see a sovereign monarch as simply a top-down member of class or another rich man or noble, an agent of top-down class war, but a unifier that wholyl subsides this conflict.
A cult of personality is stressed to resolve the "mine" and "thine" of class division, people see all persons manifest by one person.
As for a body, it is not that Jesus would be a head on a different body, so only Jesus' head on Michael Jackson's body–the whole body is Jesus 's body with his persona on the head and shaped by this mold. Soul of commonwealth molds the body into a respective appearance and identity.
…
Anyways:
There is a sense of appeasement in the way that "you are all equal before god".
…
Joseph de Maistre: a kind of equality
>Now, it is one of the greatest advantages of monarchical government that in it the Nobility loses, as much as the nature of things allows, all those features offensive to the lower classes.
>And this order of things appears still more perfect when it is remembered that the Nobility of birth and office, already softened by the right belonging to every family to enjoy the same distinctions in its turn, is stripped of everything possibly offensive to the lower orders BY THE UNIVERSAL SUPREMACY OF THE MONARCH before whom no citizen is more powerful than another; the man in the street, who is insignificant when he measures himself against a great lord, measures the lord against the sovereign, and the title of subject which brings both of them under the same power and the same justice is a kind of equality that stills the inevitable pangs of self-esteem.
Thomas Hobbes
>And as the power, so also the honour of the sovereign, ought to be greater than that of any or all the subjects. For in the sovereignty is the fountain of honour. The dignities of lord, earl, duke, and prince as his creatures. As in the presence of the master, the servants are equal, and without any honour at all; so are the subjects, in the presence of the sovereign. And though they shine some more, some less, when they are out of his sight; yet in his presence, they shine no more than the stars in the presence of the Sun.
>The inequality of subjects proceeds from the acts of sovereign power, and therefore has no more place in the presence of the sovereign; that is to say, in a court of justice, than the inequality between kings and their subjects in the presence of the King of kings. The honour of great persons is to be valued for their beneficence, and the aids they give to men of inferior rank, or not at all. And the violences, oppressions, and injuries they do are not extenuated, but aggravated, by the greatness of their persons, because they have the least need to commit them. The consequences of this partiality towards the great proceed in this manner. Impunity makes insolence; insolence, hatred; and hatred, an endeavor to pull down all oppressing and contumelious greatness, though with the ruin of the Commonwealth.
Alexander Hamilton
>If government is in the hands of the few, they will tyrannize the many; if in the hands of the many, they will tyrannize over the few. It ought to be in the hands of both, and be separated…they will need a mutual check. This check is a monarch.
So if we take your view that the rich elites check the monarch, like nobles checking King John–then these adages have no appeal.
So in my view, if the monarch was only thought of just the head of a cabinet or clique of selfish elites, that would not be appealing at all –'That is why I don't like strict technocracy or cliqueism–I don't like thinking of monarchy in terms of strict class stratification that way–this appeal of the above^ paragraph would lack utterly its appeal – but if the poor thought "the monarch doesn't belong to us" they would feel no sense of identity and belonging to the monarch, which is a problem.
The monarch's appeal is everybody belongs to the monarch.
That might sound slavish to some and difficult to understand, but it does have a certain appeal. at least to me
It certainly is an acquired taste.
Thomas Hobbes - Subjects inheritance of the ruler
>We cannot on better condition be subject to any, than one whose interest depends upon our safety, and welfare; and this then comes to pass when we are the inheritance of the ruler; for every man of his own accord endeavours the preservation of his inheritance. But the lands, and monies of the subjects are not only the prince's treasure, but their bodies, and active minds.
>>824408De Jouvenel writes,
>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.De Jouvenel sees this as a bad thing,
>the extremes of individualism and socialism meet.And
>In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State.But I'm of such an opposite perspective that I romanticize this.
What De Jouvenel laments is a good thing from my perspective. This is what I want in absolute monarchy.
Jean Bodin
>No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government.
So the stress is not on the walls, neither the persons, but the -union-.
Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.
The stress is not on the concord of many men, but the union of many men.
Jean Bodin on Monarchy
>If we should inspect nature more closely, we should gaze upon monarchy everywhere. To make a beginning from small things, we see the king among the bees, the leader in the herd, the buck among the flocks or the bellwether (as among the cranes themselves the many follow one), and in the separate natures of things some one object excels: thus, adamant among the gems, gold among the metals, the Sun among the stars, and finally God alone, the prince and author of the world. Moresoever, they say that among the evil spirits one alone is supreme. But, not to continue indefinitely, what is a family other than the true image of a state? Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king.
Bodin on Plato: not several lords, several heads, several pilots, several bee queens, several gods–
>If, then, Plato were to change the nature of things and set up several lords in the same family, several heads for the same body, several pilots on a ship, and finally several leaders among bees, flocks, herds (if only the farmers will permit); if at length he would join several gods into an association for ruling, then I would agree with him that the rule of the optimates is better than a kingdom.
Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities
>But if the entire nature of things protests, reason dissents, lasting experience objects, I do not see why we ought to follow Plato or anyone else and violate nature. What Homer has said, "No good thing is a number of masters; let one man be master, one man be king," Euripides has repeated, "Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities." For this reason Sibylla is said to have prophesied in her poems that the safety of the Roman Republic is founded upon a kingdom, that is, the citizens cannot be protected unless they have a king.
Maybe the analogy for soul here is understood – not as Plato's soul – but from what I have read to paraphrase the stoic view of the soul…
I consulted AI on this, so take this with a -heavy- grain of salt.
>The Stoics viewed the soul as a physical, corporeal substance made of a hot, fiery breath called pneuma that infuses and animates the human body. Unlike modern or Platonic ideas of an incorporeal, spiritual soul, the ancient Stoics treated the mind and soul as real, physical entities that obey the laws of physics.https://iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/>Finally, the Stoics denied Plato’s and Aristotle’s view that the soul has both rational and irrational faculties. Instead, they argued that the soul is unified and that all the faculties are rational concluding that the passions are the result not of a distinct irrational faculty but of errors in judgement.A Physical Substance (Pneuma)
>Vital mixture: They described the soul as pneuma, a dynamic blend of active fire and air elements that pervades every part of the living organism.…
>Chrysippus argued that the soul is one single substance—a physical, hot, tension-filled breath called pneuma.
>The Octopus Analogy: Chrysippus famously compared the soul to an octopus or a spider's web. The central head of the octopus is the hêgemonikon (the commanding faculty), located in the heart. The tentacles are the five senses, speech, and reproduction. The tentacles are not separate "parts" with independent wills; they are simply extensions of the exact same, single pneuma reaching out to touch the world and sending information instantly back to the center.
>An irrational emotion (like rage or greed) is not a separate beast waking up inside you; it is your entire commanding faculty making a sudden, distorted judgment. He described it as a rapid, total fluctuation of the single pneuma. …
>The pneuma of the soul has a specific structure which helps account for its capacities. The Stoics held that the soul consists of eight parts which are spatially recognized portions or streams of pneuma. The eight parts of the soul are the five senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch), the reproductive faculty, the speech faculty, and the central commanding faculty [hêgemonikon]. All of the parts of the soul can be seen as extensions of pneuma originating in the hêgemonikon. Several analogies were employed to explain the structure of the soul: the soul is like an octopus, a tree, a spring of water, and even a spider’s web. The analogies of the octopus, tree, and spring emphasize the unity of the soul and the idea that the individual powers or faculties are rooted in or sprout from the hêgemonikon in the heart.Queen Chrysalis' throne represents the idea of a monopoly on force.
All the other powers were canceled out by her supreme sovereignty.
That is what I firmly believe the throne represented in this episode.
…
Queen Chrysalis says,
>The secret of my throne:
>I can't have powerful ponies using their abilities against me
To be frank, that is great for the hive.
By investing all their strength into one queen, they were able to conquer their enemies thus far.
Yes, they have have a bit of fragility in the queen, but that's all the more reason to safeguard it and not flippantly overthrow her–the queen becomes an extremely vital to the life of the hive and to kill her thwarts everything.
The alternative to "monopoly on violence/force" is force and violence being free real estate amongst squabbling nobles/princessses and instead of running efficiently they overall weaken everything.
>Every pony will do as I command
For a monarchy, this is fair enough.
That is what you get in a monarchy, one commander.
If that is a problem, then don't have any pretense of monarchy, I say.
>My subjects and I will feed on their love for generations!
In any other regime, this is a great thing!
The changelings fought hard to get to this point… they want the spoils of war.
>>824939>>824941If you know how awful it is to be foiled by some squabbling, ANNOYING nobles, then what Queen Chrysalis says is fair.
In this case, I say… fuck the powerful ponies and squabbling nobles.
Let there be one ruler, one queen. >>824953This is exactly the problem with the near universal and frivolous use of the word 'tyrant' is now the changelings turn on their own queen when they were on the cusp of victory–the average changeling might not have realized what was at stake because only Queen Chrysalis is perched up with an eagle's view concerning the hive…
What happened was exactly what Hobbes and I warned about:
>From Aristotle's Civil Philosophy, they have learned, to call all manner of Commonwealths but the Popular, (such as was at that time the state of Athens,) Tyranny. All Kings they called Tyrants… A Tyrant originally signified no more simply, but a Monarch:
>From the same books, they that live under a Monarch conceive an opinion, that the Subjects in a Popular Common-wealth enjoy Liberty; but that in a Monarchy they are all Slaves. I say, they that live under a Monarchy conceive such an opinion; not they that live under a Popular Government; for they find no such matter.
>From the reading, I say, of such books, men have undertaken to kill their Kings, because the Greek and Latin writers, in their books, and discourses of Policy, make it lawfull, and laudable, for any man so to do; provided before he do it, he call him Tyrant. This pretty much is what happened to Queen Chrysalis.
The Assyrians would do this kind of thing–the effect is 1:1 even coming from within domestically.
…
The Assyrians would use a variety of tactics to convince the city to betray their king.
>Assyrian envoys would stand directly outside the city walls and deliver their speeches. When the local ruling officials begged them to speak in Aramaic (the diplomatic language of the elites) so the common people wouldn't understand, the Assyrian envoys aggressively refused. They deliberately shouted in the local native language (e.g., Judean Hebrew) so that the soldiers on the wall and the citizens inside could hear every word, driving an immediate wedge between the rulers and the public.
So Assyrian envoys would do this to coax the people inside to betray.
Spiritual Gaslighting ("God is on our side")
>To break the religious resolve of the citizens, the Assyrians used theological subversion. They argued that the local king had actually offended the gods by changing religious practices or failing to keep peace. The envoy would boldly claim that the local deity had personally commanded Assyria to destroy the city, telling the people that their king was leading them into a hopeless fight against the divine will.
So Assyrians would twist the religious resolve to favor the enemy:
Now religion and virtue are twisted against them and makes them capable of betraying each other. In an instance like this, religion and pretense become a severe enemy.
Assyrians would appeal to fear like the Mongols:
>The Assyrians relied heavily on their broad reputation for absolute brutality. The envoys would list all the neighboring nations and kings they had already crushed, pointing out that no god or ruler had ever successfully stopped them. They made it clear that if the people stayed loyal to their king and resisted, they would face systematic torture—including flaying, impalement, and disembowelment.
Offering an Attractive Counter-Proposal
>Once the population was thoroughly terrified and doubted their king, the Assyrians offered a highly appealing escape clause. They promised that if the citizens surrendered immediately and turned their backs on the king, they would be spared. They framed mass deportation not as slavery, but as an upgrade—promising to relocate the population to a "land of grain and new wine" where "every man would eat from his own vine and drink from his own cistern" until they moved.
This is what the Assyrians would do to conquer a city.
The same could be said for rebels trying to turn people against their ruler like Thorax with the aid of Starlight Glimmer.
Unique IPs: 83