/siberia_archive/ - Siberia Archive

Previous Royal Colony threads

New Grace pics

>>8707
Don't stop, we need more pictures!

>>8708
Especially more Grace x Alunya content, that's the only thing gives my heart sweets and is the only reason I am continuing living!

>>8709
There will be 6 more pics soon.

>>8709
couple pics are expensive
anyone else could draw fan art or comm said art

Hey Grace, I found a cool frog.

https://www.tumblr.com/tincanforest/108981377086

Die.

Live.

First new image is here

I changed my mind, we don't need more images.

>>8716
That's not a new image.
This >>8714 is old /abdl/ stuff.

But speaking of new images, here is a new one

>>8717
why are you posting an angry dog each post

>>8717
also gib source on the tickling pic/full pic

>>8720
go to /tkr/

>>8719
because i am angry

>>8722
why are you. cmon.

>>8717
While Grace-chan is very cute when upset, I do not like it when she is not happy.

>>8688
i dont care and stop acting smug

>>8724
kill yourself

da phuc is ein tyrannophile?

>>8726
>>8725
mad

>>8727
That was a joke in my early days in 2018.
I was always humored w/ how Hobbes referred to tyrannophobia & I inverted it and said tyrannophile.

leftypol adores graceposting b/c it is anti-imperialism.
so anons give critical support to yours truly.

>>8729
stop being a heckin' tyrannophobic chinlet

>>8731
I really adore Hobbes for it.
Only Hobbes really has this opinion.
You will find nobody like him.

>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 of Commonwealth in general, and another evil seed, not differing much from the former.

It is music to my ears.
b/c I find nothing more annoying–
than hearing tyrant this & tyrant that.
& those who get into namecalling & abuse it.
I love to see them defanged, their venom & seditions null.

>>8733
but grace-chan, monarchism is even more globally irrelevant than socialism

"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 [Dr. Fauci] to tell him what he ought to do…" -Xenophon, Cyropaedia

This is now an assassination thread.

Your prize, sir.

You know how in weddings they throw the flowers into the crowd?

This is now a Mymy from Ongezellig appreciation thread.
Grace's eyes in this pic kinda remind me of Mymy.
My performance will be so awe-inspiring, I'll finally be promoted to class representative! Or, in other words… ABSOLUTE EMPRESS OVER THE SERVING UNTERMENSCH–
Sounds like something Grace would say.

>>8688
what are your thoughts on prince harry and his latest book?

>>8745
I'm not a monarchist b/c of the Windsors.
I focus on the Monarch or the heir apparent more than the rest.
& like many people here testify
drama like this & the press is not what I like about monarchy

>prince harry
Harry fell for the brown gf meme.
Royalty get a cult of personalty
& race is a part of it, like it or not.
It's the truth nobody wants to say.

>his latest book
A few points on Monarchy ached me.
Harry drew out from under the rug this:
>1. He admits the Royal Family fears being abolished.
>2. He focuses on the cost of the Monarchy: the Royal Family responds to this srsly.
>3. "But no one wants to hear a prince argue for the existence of monarchy."
#2 is an r/monarchism-tier dilemma imo & I'd disagree w/ #3.

>>8746
>I'm not a monarchist
cool, same

>>8747
I like King James VI & I.
He argues for Monarchy.

>>8747
I am an e-monarkiddie.
Make no mistake, anon.

>>8747
>>8748
>I am an e-monarkiddie.
I've been one since 2014.

Someday a cosplayer should cosplay Grace.
I know Alpha-chan has a cosplay.

>>8752
found one

>>8754
>>8753
This anon is so aggro'd.
Guillotine posts wherever I go.

>>8755
That's just how Anarchist express their loves Grace-chan. They can be such silly tsunderes sometimes, what with their Propaganda of Deed nonsense

>>8752
who's the cosplayer? purely out of interest

hey high-supreme queen grace
I know you're a Caligula fangirl but I think I found the perfect flash game for you, about caesar.
https://www.silvergames.com/en/caesars-day-off

>>8758
Played.

>>8759
show ending

>>8761
definitely better than mine

<King James VI & I: Mystery of State / Mystical Reverence
>That which concerns the mystery of the King's power, is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and take away the mystical reverence, that belongs unto them–

>Encroach not upon the Prerogative of the Crown: if there fall out a question that concerns my Prerogative or mystery of State, deal not with it, till you consult with the King or his Councell, or both: for they are transcendent matters, and must not be with over-rash willfulness; for so you may wound the King–

>I conclude then this point touching the power of Kings, with this Axiome of Divinity, That as to dispute what God may do, is Blasphemy; but quid vult Deus, that Divines may lawfully, and do ordinarily dispute and discuss; for to dispute A Posse ad Esse is both against Logic and Divinity; So is it sedition in Subjects, to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power; But just Kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear to all my doings, and rule my actions according to my Laws.

Court eulogizes Ramses II:
"We come to thee, lord of heaven, lord of earth, Re, life of the whole earth, lord of duration, of fruitful revolution, Atum for the people, lord of destiny, creator of Renenet, Khnum who fashioned the people, giver of breath into the nostrils of all, making all the gods live, pillar of heaven, support of earth, adjusting the Two Lands, lord of food, plentiful in grain, in whose steps is the harvest goddess, maker of the great, fashioner of the lowly, whose word produces food, the lord vigilant when all men sleep, whose might defends Egypt, valiant in foreign lands, who returns when he has triumphed, whose sword protects the Egyptians, beloved of truth, in which he lives by his laws, defender of the Two Lands, rich in years, great in victory, the fear of whom expels foreign lands, our king, our lord, our Sun, by the words of whose mouth Atum lives. Lo, we are now before they majesty, that thou mayest decree to us the life that thou givest, Pharaoh, breath of life, who makes all men live when he has shone on them."
>>"lord of food"
>"in whose steps is the harvest goddess"
>"whose word produces food"

<& contrast this w/ US President Joe Biden.
<w/ small stroke of his pen, he claims to build the economy & provide millions of jobs.

Those who hold those in pre-eminence generally don't weigh their conscience against them. As a modern phenomenon, the right libertarians & the Free Market. Or, /pol/ & Hitler. –A problem w/ e-monarchists I notice is they are eager to discuss when to kill the Monarch, but this isn't really a mark of pre-eminence to discuss at every instance when to kill and subject the Monarch… which I think shows a big problem w/ other monarkiddies, since they unlike the right libertarians or the Hitlerists don't uphold Monarchy to the same esteem as say the Free Marketeers or Hitlerists do. Nobody who fervently believes in their cause does this.

Royalty cannot really do what Joe Biden does. I blame it squarely on the rejection of monarchical sovereignty.

>>8763
Aristotle says for a pre-eminent Monarchy:
>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 [(like term limit or party coalitions)]
>is in the relation of the whole to a part
>he should have the supreme power
>that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always

This reminds me of a Sovereign Monarch.

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.

>>8688
I do not understand what itch this scratches for you tbqh but it weirds me out

grace after seeing her family executed

built for netorare

>>8769
What does that mean?

>>8770
he wanna be cucked.

>>8771
So, he wants to date Grace only to watch her get fucked by someone else?

Cute pair.

>>8768
grace just has habsburg jaw from being inbred

>>8774
I would watch alunya killing grace, just that, nothing less.

>>8775
the virgin nazi vs the CHAD CHARLES II

Where did these edgy 12 years old haters come from?

>>8777
'ate 'apitalism
'ate 'eirarchy
'ate 'onarchy
simple as

Have you read up on your Roman history yet grace?

>>8777
/leftypol/

>>8777
It's like reverse summerfren syndrome. School started so the smart people are busy, so the dumb ones are dopamine starved and start shitting up the board.

>>8783
> if they ban bad thing why don't they also ban good thing?
It will always remain a mystery.

>>8777
I think the 12 yos are a tally twice/thrice the age.

Only manchildren would continously obsess over this dead site.

>>8784
>>8783
leftypol hates when /pol/ or soyjak.party raid them
but falls in love when i raid leftypol.org
that for 7 consecutive threads in a row
they have given invitations, rolled the red carpet,
kissed the royal hand and bowed
b/c I am a generous & /kind/ raider.

<On the danger of border disputes:
>And this is the point for which we oftentimes see wars betwixt neighbour princes, for the subjects of their frontiers, who not well knowing whom to obey, submit themselves sometimes to the one and sometimes to the other: and oftentimes exempting themselves from the obeisance of both two, are ordinarily invaded and preyed upon by both the one and the other. As the country of Walachie having exempted it self from the obeisance of the Polonians, has become subject unto the Turks; and afterwards submitting it self unto the kings of Polonia, paid tribute nevertheless unto the Turk, as I have learned by the letters of Stanislaus Rasdrazetoski sent to the constable of France, bearing date the 17 of August 1553.

>Which hath also happened upon the borders of England and Scotland, where some particular men have made themselves great commanders within this twenty or thirty years, against the ancient agreements. For, for to meet with such enterprises, the English and the Scots had of ancient time agreed, That the Batable ground, (that is to say a certain part of the country so called, upon the frontiers of both realms, being five miles long, and two miles broad) should neither be til∣led, built, or dwelt upon; howbeit that it was lawful for both people there to feed their cattle: with charge that if after the sun setting, or before the sun rising, any of their beasts were there found, they should be his that so found them: which was one of the articles agreed upon by the states of Scotland, in the year 1550, and sent to Henry the second the French king, as was by him provided.

Very relatable to the Ukrainian conflict.
Borders have a lot to do w/ the nature of Sovereignty itself.

Self-preservation is the core virtue of modern states.
Like Hobbes tells us,
>Salus Populi (the Peoples Safety) its Businesse
And why corporal punishment was done away with.
In Russia's case
That this is a conflict of self-preservation–
Should be taken seriously.

>>8787
Is that a new image? It's cute.

Well, >>8789, the pictures showcased >>8781 here will come out soon.

>>8772
yes
gigachad.png

New Grace pics

>>8792
>>8793
Amazing! I love her very much!

I want to be the one who saves Grace from the WELL DESERVED revolutionary terror! 💖

>>8795
>WELL DESERVED
Anon deserves to be hung, drawn, and quartered.
On the pretext of high treason!
Grace wants to be the one who saves anon.
So Grace pardons anon! <3
You're welcome. ^_~

>>8796
>So Grace pardons anon! <3
omg ilu bigly Gracie! 😍

>>8765
>I do not understand what itch this scratches for you
I see myself as keeping the flame alive.
That flame is Absolute Monarchy & the politics of Majesty.

>>8799
What kind of emotions the last two convey?

This >>8743 / >>8744

>>8803
second picture should be called sheseesyourdick.jpg

North Korea is based & monarchypilled.
& a proud & decent socialist country.

Ban this reactionary autist already, sick of seeing them.

>>8806
No. Graceposter is an inalienable part of /siberia/.

>>8806
<Ban this reactionary autist already, sick of seeing them.
My tyranny over /siberia/ will never end.

holding hands with grace and alunya

>>8807
Grace and Alunya are important for each other's enrichment and habitat.

how does grace feel about this video

>>8811
Neofeudalists are the biggest thorn in my side
& they reject majesty / monarchical sovereignty.
I speak a different language when it comes to Monarchy.
I wish it were really that simple w/ monarchist politics.

What /his/ anons or leftists don't understand–
Is my view of monarchy on their terms is "ahistorical".
At least in this context, not confined to these stages of history.
That is, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc.
It's not Monarchy = Feudalism for me.
That doesn't mean I don't also appreciate history–
But when you talk to rightwingers, it's completely different.
How they view Monarchy in relation to these categories.
They view feudalism like ancapism basically.
I'm strongly opposed to the political positions of neofeuds.
Neither do I see everything in the Middle Ages as ideal.
My view of monarchy is the pre-eminence of one person.
For all ages & my politics of Monarchy–
Is that of the Herodotus Debate & 16th century monarchical sovereignty.

Yours truly has severe fatigue arguing w/ other e-monarkiddies about this & everything else.
Almost enough to retire from being a 24/7 monarchy shill.
So I'll avoid having that conversation & funpost later.

>>8814
before u go give me some books on monarchism, im bored and wanna learn

>>369032
Lol I wrote about Robert Filmer during sixth form and signed up to this academic website so I could see essays about him. Now I get e-mailed whenever a new Filmer essay drops.

>>8811
i love this

<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."

The Supremacy of the Monarch:
Only accountable to the laws of Nature and God.

Jean Bodin
>For both the one and the other hold nothing of themselves, but are to give account of their doings unto the prince, or the people of whom they had the power so to command: whereas the prince or people themselves, in whom the Sovereignty rests, are to give account unto none, but to the immortal God alone.

>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

>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…

King James VI & I
>As it is a Christian duty in every man, Reddere rationem fideri, and not to be ashamed to give an account his procession before men, and Angels, as oft as occasion shall require: So did I ever hold it a necessity of honour in a just and wise King, though NOT to give an account to his people of his actions, yet clearly to deliver his heart and intention unto them upon every occasion.

Thomas Hobbes
>The OFFICE of the Soveraign, (be it a Monarch, or an Assembly,) consisteth in the end, for which he was trusted with the Soveraign Power, namely the procuration of the Safety Of The People; to which he is obliged by the Law of Nature, and to render an account thereof to God, the Author of that Law, and to none but him

Robert Filmer
1.
>To this it was answered by the Privy Counselors, that Her Majesty had committed them for Causes best known to Her self, and to press Her Highness with this Suit, would but hinder them whose Good is sought: that the House must not call the Queen to account for what she doth of Her Royal Authority: that the Causes for which they are restrained may be High and Dangerous: that Her Majesty liketh no such Questions; neither doth it become the House to search… into such matters. In the 39 Eliz
2.
>the reason why a King cannot be punished, is not because he is excepted from Punishment, or doth not deserve it, but because there is no Superiour to judge him, but God onely, to whom he is reserved.
3.
>Ask Salmasius what a King is, and he will teach us, that a King is he who hath the Supreme Power of the Kingdom, and is accountable to none but God.
4.
>If it be Tyranny for one man to govern arbitrarily, why should it not be far greater Tyranny for a multitude of men to govern without being accountable…?

Bossuet
>The prince need account to no one for what he ordains… "Observe the mouth of the king, and the commandments of the oath of God. Be not hasty to depart from his face, and do not continue in evil work: for he will do all that pleaseth him. And his word is full of power: neither can any man say to him: Why dost thou so?"

>>8818
I only make this known.
B/c I am annoyed at /pol/fags
Because /pol/ spouts Accountability
One bullet for one man
That the Monarch would be in the spotlight–
For them to make accountable
Compared to unaccountable shadow oligarchy elites
…
I hate it. Another angry Gracepost.
My unpopular opinion: The Monarch wouldn't be accountable to them.
I'll re-assert this maligned doctrine in spite of these people.

The greatest mishap for e-monarchists is this:
Great Man Theorylets tend to be democracy simps:
I know, I know, Thomas Carlyle, by no means, though the Romanticists & the purported Great Men unfortunately cannot fully embrace Monarchy. Esp. when it comes to hereditary monarchy (unfortunately) where they feel compelled to tout the sentiments of Thomas Paine… I partially feel the Great Man Theory is another invention devised to shun Majesty and democratic psych-op. Neither do I like what BAP introduced to this conversation (whose opinions I frankly shun). It disgruntles me for every Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, & lately for them also, Hitler, they are bound to shun the politics of Majesty… & royalists taught to ignore the ancient plea let there be one ruler despite their name monarchist.
Where the Great Man Theory people have this problem, the partisans of Majesty are married to the reign, not rule crowd & Sic Semper Tyrannis traditionalist conservatives (who scream, THUS to ambitious men, but have nothing but praise when it comes to private men who are ambitious) & have a stupid lolbert bug. It is an upside down world: where North Korea has children cartoons repeating Homer's monarchist maxim let there be one ruler & royalists are taught to sing the praises of democracy and to abhor republican dictators & the supreme governance of one person himself as arbitrary and always tyrannical. Forgetting that these titles they lavish came from a dictator named Julius Caesar.

>>8819
>The Monarch wouldn't be accountable to them.
yes they will

>>8821
It makes me think to myself:
Was I mistaken in royalism and not republicanism?

>>8822
So long as I am here they won't.

inb4 napoleon x alexander meme

alunya and grace and Kim Jong holding hands

I know it is not much, but will Grace-chan accept this gift from me? Just for today.

>>8826
>Just for today
Grace-chan accepts.
unfortunately, I have no Grace valentine pics or cards

Grace-chan wishes /siberia/ & /leftypol/ a happy valentines day too
here is a cake for lefty anons & Alunya from Grace
Let them eat cake

>>8828
Thank you!!

>>8828
happy valentines grace!

this is the best imgboard in the world. The most talented artists, the most intellectual, muscular proletariat, all here

valentines day is for netorare chads only

There will be more art soon.

"The Household / Family well ordered is the true image of the Commonwealth." -Jean Bodin

"My old home the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth

"Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of Despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in Despotism." -Friedrich Nietzche

"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." -Gryffith Williams

"For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations." -Aristotle

"The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head." -Aristotle

"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." -Plato

"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." -Jean Bodin

"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']" -Aristotle, Politics

<Bossuet on the Royal Bond / Hereditary State
>The people, by themselves, have grown accustomed to this. "I saw all men living, that walk under the Sun with the second young man, who shall rise up in his place."

>The second reason which favors this government, is that it makes the authorities who guide the State the ones who are most interested in its preservation. The prince who works for the State works for his children; and the love he bears his kingdom, mixed with that he has for his family, becomes natural to him."

>Thus it is that peoples become attached to royal houses. The jealousy that one naturally feels against those whom one sees above him here turns into love and respect.

Grace-chan will snuggle & whisper to her Alunya fumo:
Let there be One ruler, One Grace like I tell anons here
Does this every night before sleeping.
& Grace STOMPS & KICKS the fumo at times
Venting b/c democracyfags, constitutionalists, & libertarians anger Grace
& b/c Alunya is an anarchist & far leftist catgirl

>>8840
im scared

how does grace feel about the emperor of the central African republic Bokassa?

>>372059
> Grace_soft
yes

>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies,
>Who have no King, by their confusion dies.
This is the people w/o a royal bond
Renounce the partisanships & be a familial State.
All the State revealed, One Person.
No confusion, no political parties, no anarchy.
Monarchy will be our Manifestation.

<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.

<Bossuet: Peace, Bliss, Happiness under Monarchy
>The people must keep itself in a condition of repose under the authority of the Prince… As soon as there is a King, the people has only to remain at rest under his authority. If an impatient people stirs, and does not want to keep itself tranquil under royal authority, the fire of division will flare up in the State, and consume the bramble-bush together with all the other trees, that is to say the King and the nations… When a King is authorized, "each remains at rest, without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig-tree, from one end of the Kingdom to the other." …And every man tilled his land with peace… the ancient men sat all in the streets, and spoke together of the public good; and the young men put on them glory, and the robes of war… and every man sat under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and lived without fear. – …To enjoy this repose one needs not just external peace: one needs internal peace as well, under the authority of an absolute prince.

>Men are the true riches of a king… One is delighted when he sees, under good kings, the incredible multitude of people and the astonishing largeness of the armies. By contrast one is ashamed of Achab and of the kingdom of Israel exhausted of people, when one sees his army encamp "like two little flocks of goats"–while the Syrian army which faced it covered the face of the earth… In the enumeration of the immense riches of Solomon, there is nothing finer than these words: Judah and Israel were innumerable, as the sand of the sea in the multitude." …But here is the pinnacle of felicity and of richness. It is that this whole innumerable people "ate and drank of the fruit of its lands, every one under his vine and under his fig-tree, and rejoicing." For joy makes bodies healthy and vigorous.

<Caesar, Earth's greatest good!
<Caesar, Heav'n's chiefest care!

>>8848
Why is she sad?

>>8850
Did you run someone over???

Cheer up!!

>>8848
holding hands with grace to cheer her up

>>8852
>>8853
Anon wants to hold Grace-chan's hands.
I'm not sure what would cheer Grace up.

What will cheer up Grace?
if lefty anons made more Grace video montages.
Like >>8705
but no bullying!

>No matter what I do
>All I think about is you

<Even when I'm with my boo
<You know I'm crazy over you

>>8855
How do I make videos like that on GNU/Linux?

>>8856
You could use a browser-based editor.
Like Kapwing video editor or anything else.

Grace reaching out to an anon.
It may not be a perfect system, but it's still the best one there is.
w/ a picture of Charles II of Spain, ofc

Alunya hug Grace

If anons want to help me brainstorm Grace pic ideas, I will listen.

I can think of a few examples related to this.
Vid related, 58 seconds in: It reminds me of the anatomy of rebellion.
Front & rear echelon, team leader, gas officers, arrest officers.

<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.

Glowie spies / Crowd control tactics, the intelligence.
The front & back echelons, the limbs.
Gas officers, the strength / weapons.
The team leader, the head.

While the author or leader of rebellion is said to be a good orator, but not too prudent or wise: what I think matters more in this interpretation is more that the leaders command. Like the video suggests, it's they aim for the violent participants.

<A Court of Counsellors is rather to be compared with the head, or one Counsellor, whose only Counsell (if of any one alone) the chief Ruler makes use of in matters of greatest moment: for the office of the head is to counsell, as the soules is to command

<It is therefore necessary to the defence of the City, First, that there be some who may as near as may be, search into, and discover the counsels and motions of all those who may prejudice it. For discoverers to Ministers of State, are like the beames of the Sunne to the humane soule, and we may more truly say in vision politicall, than naturall, that the sensible, and intelligible Species of outward things, not well considered by others, are by the ayre transported to the soule, (that is to say to them who have the Supreme Authority) and therefore are they no lesse necessary to the preservation of the State, than the rayes of the light are to the conservation of man; or if they be compared to Spiders webs, which extended on all sides by the finest threds, doe warn them, keeping in their small holds, of all outward motions; They who bear Rule can no more know what is necessary to be commanded for the defence of their Subjects without Spies, than those Spiders can when they shall goe forth, and whether they shall repair, without the motion of those threads.

For the author of rebellion, the intelligence is partially from their doctrines and cohorts employed to gather information, who work like the senses for him. The leader of a rebellion who blows the trumpet or screams into a microphone helps give the crowd a soul or direction, but it has to be communicated in short terms or repetition for the multitude to follow. In conjecture, the leaders are maybe the first actors and that's why the target them, so they cannot be imitated – this way the crowd returns to particular judgments rather than coalescing in unity and is easier to disperse.

This WrathOfGnon quote aches me.
B/c I think kings would have killed for better non-lethal crowd control.
Like he says,
<You know the pretence of the Long Parliament’s rebellion was salus populi
They anticipate a lethal response, in the sense that he think right, that which is wrong
<It is required therefore in an author of sedition, that he think right, that which is wrong; and profitable, that which is pernicious;
This way there is a cause to usurp the pretense of salus populi & like Hobbes suggests conflate the multitude with the whole people. Esp. if this happens at a symbol of the State like a palace or gives them their own martyrs.

Another thing I noted is that Jean Bodin states that it's healthy for a Monarchy to appoint magistrates and officials long-term, but healthy for democracies and oligarchies more short-term.
<I believe that for the protection of a popular and aristocratic rule this office might be granted for a short time, as seemed best to Aristotle. But I should think that in a kingdom a different opinion might prevail.
Jean Bodin also noted that for Monarchies, a frequent change of officials flexes / frustrates / ripples the power of the Monarchy. So it's bad for monarchies to play leapfrog:
Rebels augment their strength by introducing weaknesses for the State itself. So that the State might destroy itself and have more imperfections: anti-monarchy rebels will readily assassinate magistrates / officials to re-create this effect or weakness in Monarchy and artificially impose a frequency in officials (that Bodin says is good for democracy / oligarchy, but bad for and frustrates Monarchy and prompts the Monarch more and more to flex his power and make decisions that could backfire and bring more sedition in the parties for whom the Monarch chooses again and again).


Another possible way to fade away their hope of rebellion is to appease their discontent or successfully co-opt the rebellion. That might be worse for rebels b/c with their leaders seduced away and discontent brushed aside and pretenses vanishing, they are taken under the wing.
<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.
This could be advice, but it could also lead to more imperfections for the institution and pretenses w/ concessions.
Pic related.
<Never trust a social democrat
It's worse for the rebellion maybe if Grace sits next to Alunya, but Grace might suffer imperfections for it.

More OC soon.

Samuel Johnson has a well known saying:
>How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?
It is somewhat related to what Hobbes says.
<that the name that signifieth children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifieth 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.
<Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest
In the context that children in the family were obnoxious to the power of others, the context I think Hobbes means is the children of the master were obnoxious to the family servants or maids: b/c the father prefers his children.
Though this is another instance where Hobbes differs from Aristotle: b/c Aristotle is famous for telling Alexander to treat his his own like a father as they were his children and to treat foreigners like a master as his servants. Hobbes says both children and servants are in full subjection.
Hobbes somewhat changed his opinion about democracy and freedom in his earlier work and later in Leviathan said that the subjects are no more free in Monarchies than in Democracies.
>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.
>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.
& also–
>The Liberty, whereof there is so frequent, and honourable mention, in the Histories, and Philosophy of the Ancient Greeks, and Romans, and in the writings, and discourse of those that from them have received all their learning in the Politiques, is not the Liberty of Particular men; but the Liberty of the Common-wealth
>The Athenians, and Romanes, were free; that is, free Common-wealths: not that any particular men had the Liberty to resist their own Representative; but that their Representative had the Liberty to resist, or invade other people. There is written on the Turrets of the city of Luca in great characters at this day, the word LIBERTAS; yet no man can thence inferre, that a particular man has more Liberty, or Immunitie from the service of the Commonwealth there, than in Constantinople. Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchicall, or Popular, the Freedome is still the same.
>But it is an easy thing, for men to be deceived, by the specious name of Liberty
>And because the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under Monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politiques,(lib.6.cap.2) “In democracy, Liberty is to be supposed: for ’tis commonly held, that no man is Free in any other Government.” And as Aristotle; so Cicero, and other Writers have grounded their Civill doctrine, on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate Monarchy
Though Robert Filmer briefly rebuked Hobbes for this; I think Filmer mentioned that popular states do have that kind of freedom (Hobbes did share that opinion earlier in Elements of Law, his earlier work, but not in Leviathan, his later work, I think).

<The Multitude vs the People
>Alunya: *peaceful protesting* Do you hear the people sing–singing a song of angry men!
<Grace: *on balcony w/ microphone* The People? I AM the People!
Hobbes notes.
<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.

>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

Once the Sword of Commonwealth hits the Rebellion: it is fair game.
The full strength of the Sovereign has to be hurled: to subdue or kill the Rebellion.
queues oblivion combat music
>Grace vs Alunya
<Leviathan vs Behemoth

Kill yourself

>>376689
>>376690
Wonderful, I love her

holding hands with grace to cheer her up after a nasty bout of food poisoning

Vendi, vidi, vici. Latinum Americanum linga Posadism est. Rega Grace parvus est. Posadism setllarium nova. Ad Stellaris commilitones.

Also Grace is Lesbian for Alyuna. Yuri is good for the soul.

>>8873
she looks so sad in the last ones.

>>8874
We failed to protect her smile.

>>8875
I've let her down, like everybody in my life

>>8874
>>8875
>>8876
It is okay, anon.
I will wipe your tears away.

>>8880
Why is graceposter enclosed with the anti-grace anons?

>>8881
I cannot tell what's happening in the video.

New Grace art inc.
in a month likely + an edit shortly.
…
Grace Frogger challenge.
Grace-chan Frogger highscore: 14100 <- Sega Genesis / Kega Fusion
Any anon is invited to beat this high score.
Requirements: Sega Genesis Frogger.
to emulate, you can find & download SBWin to convert Genesis roms to .bin
& use Kega Fusion for emulation

>>8880
the small dig wants to sexo the duc

Alunya in a Grace cosplay.

Whether man is or isn't a political animal is a difficult question for me: I look between political nature and political artifice a lot. Natural examples like natural fathers or queen ants or queen bees. Sometimes political artifice. Most people readily accept the former.

It can be tedious. Aristotle says that men are political animals ranked among bees and ants: while /leftypol/ probably agrees, there's also muh hoooooman nature meme and /pol/fags themselves say that they're not like those Chinese bugmen they say who are like ants – /pol/ will likely also make the case for man being a political animal, them saying that about the Chinese stands in stark contrast to men being ranked among the zoon politikon such as ants and bees. Where man goes, states will follow. I've seen them call Aristotle the first totalitarian b/c of this

Aristotle
>When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the [completed] nature is the end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end of the best.

>Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either above humanity, or below it; he is the tribeless, lawless, hearthless one – to whom Homer denounces–the outcast who is a lover of war; he may be compared to an unprotected piece in a game of draughts.

>Now the reason why man is more of a political animal than bees or any gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere sound is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedent and inexpedient, and likewise the just and unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state.

>Thus the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they are no longer the same, but only that they have the same name. 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.

I have read Hobbes' objections to Aristotle.

De Cive

We see all countries though they be at peace with their neighbours, yet guarding their Frontiers with armed men, their Townes with Walls and ports, and keeping constant watches. To what purpose is all this, if there be no feare of the neighbouring power? Wee see even in well−governed States, where there are lawes and punishments appointed for offendors, yet particular men travell not without their Sword by their sides, for their defences, neither sleep they without shutting not only their doores against their fellow Subjects, but also their Trunks and Coffers for feare of domestiques. Can men give a clearer testimony of the distrust they have each of other, and all, of all?

The mutuall fear. It is objected: It is so improbable that men should grow into civill Societies out of fear, that if they had been afraid, they would not have endur'd each others looks: They Presume, I believe, that to fear is nothing else than to be affrighted: I comprehend in this word Fear, a certain foresight of future evill; neither doe I conceive flight the sole property of fear, but to distrust, suspect, take heed, provide so that they may not fear, is also incident to the fearfull. They who go to Sleep, shut their Dores; they who Travell carry their Swords with them, because they fear Theives. Kingdomes guard their Coasts and Frontiers with Forts, and Castles; Cities are compact with Walls, and all for fear of neighbouring Kingdomes and Townes; even the strongest Armies, and most accomplisht for Fight, yet sometimes Parly for Peace, as fearing each others Power, and lest they might be overcome. It is through fear that men secure themselves, by flight indeed, and in corners, if they think they cannot escape otherwise, but for the most part by Armes, and Defensive Weapons; whence it happens, that daring to come forth, they know each others Spirits; but then, if they fight, Civill Society ariseth from the Victory, if they agree, from their Agreement.

It hath been objected by some: If a Sonne kill his Father, doth he him no injury? I have answered, That a Sonne cannot be understood to be at any time in the State of Nature, as being under the Power and command of them to whom he ownes his protection as soon as ever he is born, namely either his Fathers, or his Mothers, or his that nourisht him.

Some object that this principle being admitted, it would needs follow, not onely that all men were wicked (which perhaps though it seeme hard, yet we must yield to, since it is so clearly declar'd by holy writ) but also wicked by nature (which cannot be granted without impiety). But this, that men are evill by nature, followes not from this principle;

For though the wicked were fewer than the righteous, yet because we cannot distinguish them, there is a necessity of suspecting, heeding, anticipating, subjugating, selfe−defending, ever incident to the most honest, and fairest condition'd

Much lesse do's it follow that those who are wicked are so by nature, for though from nature, that is from their first birth, as they are meerly sensible Creatures, they have this disposition, that immediately as much as in them lies, they desire and doe whatsoever is best pleasing to them, that either through feare they fly from, or through hardnesse repell those dangers which approach them, yet are they not for this reason to be accounted wicked; for the affections of the minde which arise onely from the lower parts of the soule are not wicked themselves, but the actions thence proceeding may be so sometimes, as when they are either offensive, or against duty. Unlesse you give Children all they aske for, they are peevish, and cry, I and strike their parents sometimes, and all this they have from nature, yet are they free from guilt, neither may we properly call them wicked; first, because they cannot hurt; next, because wanting the free use of reason they are exempted from all duty; these when they come to riper yeares having acquired power whereby they may doe hurt, if they shall continue to doe the same things, then truly they both begin to be, and are properly accounted wicked; In so much as a wicked man is almost the same thing with a childe growne strong and sturdy, or a man of a childish disposition; and malice the same with a defect of reason in that age, when nature ought to be better governed through good education and experience. Unlesse therefore we will say that men are naturally evill, because they receive not their education and use of reason from nature, we must needs acknowledge that men may derive desire, feare, anger, and other passions from nature, and yet not impute the evill effects of those unto nature.

Born fit. Since we now see actually a constituted Society among men, and none living out of it, since we discern all desirous of congresse, and mutuall correspondence, it may seeme a wonderfull kind of stupidity, to lay in the very threshold of this Doctrine, such a stumbling block before the Readers, as to deny Man to be born fit for Society: Therefore I must more plainly say, That it is true indeed, that to Man, by nature, or as Man, that is, as soone as he is born, Solitude is an enemy; for Infants have need of others to help them to live, and those of riper years to help them to live well, wherefore I deny not that men (even nature compelling) desire to come together.

But civill Societies are not mere Meetings, but Bonds, to the making whereof, Faith and Compacts are necessary: The Vertue whereof to Children, and Fooles, and the profit whereof to those who have not yet tasted the miseries which accompany its defects, is altogether unknown; whence it happens, that those, because they know not what Society is, cannot enter into it; these, because ignorant of the benefit it brings, care not for it. Manifest therefore it is, that all men, because they are born in Infancy, are born unapt for Society. Many also (perhaps most men) either through defect of minde, or want of education remain unfit during the whole course of their lives; yet have Infants, as well as those of riper years, an humane nature; wherefore Man is made fit for Society not by Nature, but by Education:

Furthermore, although Man were born in such a condition as to desire it, it followes not, that he therefore were Born fit to enter into it; for it is one thing to desire, another to be in capacity fit for what we desire; for even they, who through their pride, will not stoop to equal conditions, without which there can be no Society, do yet desire it.

The greatest part of those men who have written ought concerning Commonwealths, either suppose, or require us, or beg of us to believe, That Man is a Creature born fit for Society: The Greeks call him Zoon politikon, and on this foundation they so build up the Doctrine of Civil Society, as if for the preservation of Peace, and the Government of Man−kind there were nothing else necessary, than that Men should agree to make certain Covenants and Conditions together, which themselves should then call Laws. Which Axiom, though received by most, is yet certainly False, and an Errour proceeding from our too slight contemplation of Humane Nature; for they who shall more narrowly look into the Causes for which Men come together, and delight in each others company, shall easily find that this happens not because naturally it could happen no otherwise, but by Accident: For if by nature one Man should Love another (that is) as Man, there could 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 doe 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: How by what advice Men do meet, will be best known by observing those things which they doe when they are met: For if they meet for Traffique, it's plain every man regards not his Fellow, but his Businesse; if to discharge some Office, a certain Market−friendship is begotten, which hath more of Jealousie in it than True love, and whence Factions sometimes may arise, but Good will never; if for Pleasure, and Recreation of mind, every man is wont to please himself most with those things which stirre up laughter, whence he may (according to the nature of that which is Ridiculous) by comparison of another mans Defects and Infirmities, passe the more currant in his owne opinion; and although this be sometimes innocent, and without offence; yet it is manifest they are not so much delighted with the Society, as their own Vain glory.

But if it so happen, that being met, they passe their time in relating some Stories, and one of them begins to tell one which concernes himselfe; instantly every one of the rest most greedily desires to speak of himself too; if one relate some wonder, the rest will tell you miracles, if they have them, if not, they'l fein them: Lastly, that I may say somewhat of them who pretend to be wiser than others; if they meet to talk of Philosophy, look how many men, so many would be esteem'd Masters, or else they not only love not their fellowes, but even persecute them with hatred: So clear is it by experience to all men who a little more narrowly consider Humane affaires, that all free congress ariseth either from mutual poverty, or from vain glory, whence the parties met, endeavour to carry with them either some benefit, or to leave behind them that same eudokimein, some esteem and honour with those, with whom they have been conversant: The same is also collected by reason out of the definitions themselves, of Will, Good, Honour, Profitable. For when we voluntarily contract Society, in all manner of Society we look after the object of the Will, i.e. that, which every one of those, who gather together, propounds to himselfe for good; now whatsoever seemes good, is pleasant, and relates either to the senses, or the mind, but all the mindes pleasure is either Glory, (or to have a good opinion of ones selfe) or referres to Glory in the end; the rest are Sensuall, or conducing to sensuality, which may be all comprehended under the word Conveniencies.

All Society therefore is either for Gain, or for Glory; (i.e.) not so much for love of our Fellowes, as for love of our Selves: but no society can be great, or lasting, which begins from Vain Glory; because that Glory is like Honour, if all men have it, no man hath it, for they consist in comparison and precellence; neither doth the society of others advance any whit the cause of my glorying in my selfe; for every man must account himself, such as he can make himself, without the help of others.

But though the benefits of this life may be much farthered by mutuall help, since yet those may be better attain'd to by Dominion, than by the society of others: I hope no body will doubt but that men would much more greedily be carryed by Nature, if all fear were removed, to obtain Dominion, than to gaine Society. We must therefore resolve, that the Originall of all great, and lasting Societies, consisted not in the mutuall good will men had towards each other, but in the mutuall fear they had of each other.

Aristotle reckons among those animals which he calls Political, not man only, but diverse others; as the Ant, the Bee, which though they be destitute of reason, by which they may contract, and submit to government, notwithstanding by consenting, (that is to say) ensuing, or eschewing the same things, they so direct their actions to a common end, that their meetings are not obnoxious unto any seditions. Yet their gathering together [is not] a civil government, and therefore those animals not to be termed political, because their government is only a consent, or many wills concurring in one object, not (as is necessary in civil government) one will. It is very true that in those creatures, living only by sense and appetite, their consent of minds is so durable [long-lasting; w/o complaint or revolts], as [because] there is no need of any thing more to secure it, and (by consequence) to preserve peace among them, than barely their natural inclination.

But among men the case is otherwise.
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.

2nd. Next, the natural appetite of Bees, and the like creatures, is conformable, and they desire the common good which among them differs not from their private; but man scarce esteems any thing good which hath not somewhat of eminence in the enjoyment, more than that which others doe possess.

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.

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.

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.

Last of all, the consent of those brutall creatures is naturall, that of men by compact only, (that is to say) artificial; it is therefore no matter of wonder if somewhat more be needful for men to the end they may live in peace. Wherefore consent, or contracted society, without some common power whereby particular men may be ruled through fear of punishment, doth not suffice to make up that security which is requisite to the exercise of natural justice.

Elements of Law
But contrary hereunto may be objected, the experience we have of certain living creatures irrational, that nevertheless continually live in such good order and government, for their common benefit, and are so free from sedition and war amongst themselves, that for peace, profit, and defence, nothing more can be imaginable. And the experience we have in this, is in that little creature the bee, which is therefore reckoned amongst animalia politica. Why therefore may not men, that foresee the benefit of concord, continually maintain the same without compulsion, as well as they?

1st. To which I answer, that amongst other living creatures, there is no question of precedence in their own species, nor strife about honour or acknowledgment of one another’s wisdom, as there is amongst men; from whence arise envy and hatred of one towards another, and from thence sedition and war.

2nd. Secondly, those living creatures aim every one at peace and food common to them all; men aim at dominion, superiority, and private wealth, which are distinct in every man, and breed contention.

3rd. Thirdly, those living creatures that are without reason, have not learning enough to espy, or to think they espy, any defect in the government; and therefore are contented therewith; but in a multitude of men, there are always some that think themselves wiser than the rest, and strive to alter what they think. amiss; and diverse of them strive to alter diverse ways; and that causeth war.

4th. Fourthly, they want speech, and are therefore unable to instigate one another to faction, which men want not.

5th. Fifthly, they have no conception of right and wrong, but only of pleasure and pain, and therefore also no censure of one another, nor of their commander, as long as they are themselves at ease; whereas men that make themselves judges of right and wrong, are then least at quiet, when they are most at ease.

6th. Lastly, natural concord, such as is amongst those creatures, is the work of God by the way of nature; but concord amongst men is artificial, and by way of covenant. And therefore no wonder if such irrational creatures, as govern themselves in multitude, do it much more firmly than mankind, that do it by arbitrary institution.

Leviathan
Why Certain Creatures Without Reason, Or Speech,
Do Neverthelesse Live In Society, Without Any Coercive Power

It is true, that certain living creatures, as Bees, and Ants, live sociably one with another, (which are therefore by Aristotle numbred amongst Politicall creatures;) and yet have no other direction, than their particular judgements and appetites; nor speech, whereby one of them can signifie to another, what he thinks expedient for the common benefit: and therefore some man may perhaps desire to know, why Man-kind cannot do the same. To which I answer,

1st. First, that men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity, which these creatures are not; and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, Envy and Hatred, and finally Warre; but amongst these not so.

2nd. Secondly, that amongst these creatures, the Common good differeth not from the Private; and being by nature enclined to their private, they procure thereby the common benefit. But man, whose Joy consisteth in comparing himselfe with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent.

3rd. Thirdly, that these creatures, having not (as man) the use of reason, do not see, nor think they see any fault, in the administration of their common businesse: whereas amongst men, there are very many, that thinke themselves wiser, and abler to govern the Publique, better than the rest; and these strive to reforme and innovate, one this way, another that way; and thereby bring it into Distraction and Civill warre.

4th. Fourthly, that these creatures, though they have some use of voice, in making knowne to one another their desires, and other affections; yet they want that art of words, by which some men can represent to others, that which is Good, in the likenesse of Evill; and Evill, in the likenesse of Good; and augment, or diminish the apparent greatnesse of Good and Evill; discontenting men, and troubling their Peace at their pleasure.

5th. Fiftly, irrationall creatures cannot distinguish betweene Injury, and Dammage; and therefore as long as they be at ease, they are not offended with their fellowes: whereas Man is then most troublesome, when he is most at ease: for then it is that he loves to shew his Wisdome, and controule the Actions of them that governe the Common-wealth.

6th. Lastly, the agreement of these creatures is Naturall; that of men, is by Covenant only, which is Artificiall: 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.

Robert Filmer on Hobbes' Leviathan & De Cive

PREFACE

With no small Content I read Mr. Hobbes' Book De Cive, and his Leviathan, about the Rights of Sovereignty, which no man, that I know, hath so amply and judiciously handled: I consent with him about the Rights of exercising Government, but I cannot agree to his means of acquiring it. It may seem strange I should praise his Building, and yet mislike his Foundation; but so it is, his Jus Naturae, and his Regnum Institutivum, will not down with me: they appear full of Contradiction and Impossibilities; a few short Notes about them, I here offer, wishing he would consider, whether his Building would not stand firmer upon the Principles of Regnum Patrimoniale (as he calls it) both according to Scripture and Reason. Since he confesseth, the Father, being before the institution of a Commonwealth, was Originally an Absolute Sovereign, with power of Life and Death, and that a great Family, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, is a little Monarchy. If, according to the order of Nature, he had handled Paternal Government before that by Institution, there would have been little liberty left in the Subjects of the Family to consent to Institution of Government.

In his pleading the cause o f the people, he arms them with a very large commission of array; which is, a right in nature for every man, to war against every man when he please: and also a right for all the people to govern. This latter point, although he affirm in words, yet by consequence he denies, as to me it seemeth.

He saith a representative may be of all, or but of a part of the people. If it be o f all he terms it a democracy, which is the government of the people. But how can such a commonwealth be generated? for if every man covenant with every man, who shall be left to be the representative? if all must be representatives, who will remain to covenant? for he that is sovereign makes no covenant by his doctrine. It is not all that will come together, that makes the democracy, but all that have power by covenant; thus his democracy by institution fails.

The same may be said of a democracy by acquisition; for if all be conquerors, who shall covenant for life and liberty? and if all be not conquerors, how can it be a democracy by conquest?

A paternal democracy I am confident he will not affirm, so that in conclusion the poor people are deprived of their government, if there can be no democracy by his principles.

Next, if a representative aristocratical of a part of the people be free from covenanting, then that whole assembly (call it what you will) though it be never so great, is in the state of nature, and every one of that assembly hath a right not only to kill any of the subjects that they meet with in the streets, but also they all have a natural right to cut one another’s throats, even while they sit together in council by his principles. In this miserable condition of war is his representative aristocratical by institution.

A commonwealth by conquest he teacheth, is, then acquired, when the vanquished to avoid present death covenanteth that so long as his life, and the liberty of his body is allowed him, the victor shall have the use of it, at his pleasure: here I would know how the liberty of the vanquished can be allowed, if the victor have the use of it at pleasure, or how is it possible for the victor to perform his covenant, except he could always stand by every particular man to protect his life and liberty?

In his review and conclusion he resolves, that an ordinary subject hath liberty to submit, when the means of his life is within the guards and garrisons of the enemy. It seems hereby that the rights of sovereignty by institution may be forfeited, for the subject cannot be at liberty to submit to a conqueror, except his former subjection be forfeited for want of protection.

If his conqueror be in the state of nature, when he conquers he hath a right without any covenant made with the conquered: if conquest be defined to be the acquiring of right of sovereignty by victory, why is it said the right is acquired in the peoples’ submission, by which they contract with the victor, promising obedience for life and liberty? hath not every one in the state of nature a right to sovereignty, before conquest, which only puts him in possession of his right?

If his conqueror be not in the state of nature, but a subject by covenant, how can he get a right of sovereignty by conquest when neither he himself hath right to conquer, nor subjects a liberty to submit? since a former contract lawfully made cannot lawfully be broken by them.

I wish the title of the book had not been of a commonwealth, but of a weal public, or commonweal, which is the true word carefully observed by our translator of Bodin de Republica into English: many ignorant men are apt by the name of commonwealth to understand a popular government, wherein wealth and all things shall be common, tending to the levelling community in the state of pure nature.

Observations on Mr. Hobbes' Leviathan: Or his Artificial Man – A Commonwealth
Robert Filmer–
I.
If God created only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman; and if by generation from them two as parts of them all mankind be propagated: if also God gave to Adam not only the dominion over the woman and the children that should issue from them, but also over the whole earth to subdue it, and over all the creatures on it, so that as long as Adam lived no man could claim or enjoy anything but by donation, assignation, or permission from him; I wonder how the right of nature can be imagined by Mr. Hobbes, which he saith, page 64, is a liberty for each man to use his own power as he will him self for preservation of his own life; a condition of war of everyone against everyone; a right of every man to everything, even to one another’s body, especially since himself affirms, page 178, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord with power over him of life and death.

II.
Mr. Hobbes confesseth and believes it was never generally so, that there was such a jus naturae; and i f not generally, then not at all, for one exception bars all i f he mark it w ell; whereas he imagines such a right o f nature may be now practised in America, he confesseth a government there o f families, which government how small or brutish soever (as he calls it) is sufficient to destroy his jus naturale.

III.
I cannot understand how this right of nature can be conceived with out imagining a company of men at the very first to have been all created together without any dependency one of another, or as mushrooms {fungorum more) they all on a sudden were sprung out of the earth without any obligation one to another, as Mr. Hobbes’s words are in his book De Cive, chapter 8, section 3: the scripture teacheth us otherwise, that all men came by succession, and generation from one man: we must not deny the truth of the history of the creation.

IV.
It is not to be thought that God would create man in a condition worse than any beasts, as if he made men to no other end by nature but to destroy one another, a right for the Father to destroy or eat his children, and for children to do the like by their parents, is worse than cannibals. This horrid condition of pure nature when Mr. Hobbes was charged with, his refuge was to answer, that no son can be understood to be in this state of nature: which is all one with denying his own principle, for if men be not free-born, it is not possible for him to assign and prove any other time for them to claim a right of nature to liberty, if not at their birth.

V.
But if it be allowed (which is yet most false) that a company of men were at first without a common power to keep them in awe; I do not see why such a condition must be called a state of war of all men against all men: indeed if such a multitude of men should be created as the earth could not well nourish, there might be cause for men to destroy one another rather than perish for want of food; but God was no such uyghard in the creation, and there being plenty of sustenance and room for all men, there is no cause or use of war till men be hindered in the preservation of life, so that there is no absolute necessity of war in the state of pure nature; it is the right of nature for every man to live in peace, that so he may tend the preservation of his life, which whilst he is in actual war he cannot do. War of itself as it is war preserves no man’s life, it only helps us to preserve and obtain the means to live: if every man tend the right of preserving life, which may be done in peace, there is no cause of war.

VI.
But admit the state of nature were the state of war; let us see what help Mr. Hobbes hath for it. It is a principle of his, that ‘the law of nature is a rule found out by reason’ (I do think it is given by God, page 64, ‘forbidding a man to do that which is destructive to his life, and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved’ : If the right of nature be a liberty for a man to do anything he thinks fit to preserve his life, then in the first place nature must teach him that life is to be preserved, and so consequently forbids to do that which may destroy or take away the means of life, or to omit that by which it may be preserved: and thus the right of nature and the law of nature will be all one: for I think Mr. Hobbes will not say the right of nature is a liberty for a man to destroy his own life. The law of nature might better have been said to consist in a command to preserve or not to omit the means of preserving life, than in a prohibition to destroy, or to omit it.

VII.
Another principle I meet with, page 65. ‘If other men will not lay down their right as well as he, then there is no reason for any to divest himself of his': hence it follows that if all the men in the world do not agree, no commonwealth can be established, it is a thing impossible for all the men in the world every man with every man to covenant to lay down their right. Nay it is not possible to be done in the smallest kingdom, though all men should spend their whole lives in nothing else but in running up and down to covenant.

VIII.
Right may be laid aside but not transferred, for page 65, ‘he that renounceth or passeth away his right, giveth not to any other man a right which he had not before, and reserves a right in himself against all those with whom he doth not covenant’

IX.
Page 87. ‘The only way to erect a common power or a common wealth, is for men to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices to one will; which is to appoint one man or an assembly of men to bear their person, to submit their wills to his will: this is a real unity of them all in one person, made by covenant of every man with every man, as if every man should say to every man, I authorize, and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions. This done, the multitude so united in one person, is called a commonwealth.

To authorize and give up his right of governing himself, to confer all his power and strength, and to submit his will to another, is to lay down his right of resisting: for if right of nature be a liberty to use power for preservation of life, laying down of that power must be a relinquishing of power to preserve or defend life, otherwise a man relinquisheth nothing.

To reduce all the wills of an assembly by plurality of voices to one will, is not a proper speech, for it is not a plurality but a totality of voices which makes an assembly be of one will, otherwise it is but the one will of a major part of the assembly, the negative voice of any one hinders the being of the one will of the assembly, there is nothing more destructive to the true nature of a lawful assembly, than to allow a major part to prevail when the whole only hath right. For a man to give up his right to one that never covenants to protect, is a great folly, since it is neither ‘in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, nor can he hope for any other good, by standing out of the way, that the other may enjoy his own original right without hindrance from him by reason of so much diminution of impediments’, page 66.

X.
The liberty, saith Mr. Hobbes, whereof there is so frequent and honourable mention in the histories and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and in the writings and discourse of those that from them have received all their learning in the politics, is not the liberty of particular men, but the liberty of the commonwealth. Whether a commonwealth be monarchical or popular, the freedom is still the same. Here I find Mr. Hobbes is much mistaken: for the liberty of the Athenians and Romans was a liberty only to be found in popular estates, and not in monarchies. This is clear by Aristotle, who calls a city a community of freemen, meaning every particular citizen to be free. Not that every particular man had a liberty to resist his governor or do what he list, but a liberty only for particular men, to govern and to be governed by turns: this was a liberty not to be found in hereditary monarchies: so Tacitus mentioning the several governments of Rome, joins the consulship and liberty to be brought in by Brutus, because by the annual election of Consuls, particular citizens came in their course to govern and to be governed. This may be confirmed by the complaint of our author, which followeth:
Hobbes Complaint–
>‘It is an easy thing for men to be deceived by the specious name of liberty: and for want of judgment to distinguish, mistake that for their private inheritance or birthright which is the right of the public only: and when the same error is confirmed by the authority of men in reputation for their writings on this subject, it is no wonder if it produce sedition and change o f government. In the western parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the institution and right of commonwealths from Aristotle and Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romans, that living under popular estates, derived those rights not from the principles of nature, but transcribed them into their books out of the practice of their own commonwealths, which were popular. And because the Athenians were taught (to keep them from desire of changing their government) that they were freemen, and all that lived under monarchy slaves: therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politics. In democracy liberty is to be supposed, for it is commonly held that no man is free in any other government. So Cicero and other writers grounded their civil doctrine on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate monarchy, at first, by them that having deposed their sovereign, shared amongst them the sovereignty of Rome. And by reading of these Greek and Latin authors, men from their childhood have gotten a habit (under a false show of liberty) of favouring tumults, and of licentious controlling the actions of their sovereigns.’

XI.
Page 102. ‘Dominion paternal not attained by generation but by contract’ , which is ‘the child’s consent, either express or by other sufficient arguments declared’. How a child can express consent, or by other sufficient arguments declare it before it comes to the age of discretion I understand not, yet all men grant it is due before consent can be given: and I take it Mr. Hobbes is of the same mind, page 249, where he teacheth that ‘Abraham’s children were bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them for God’s law: which they could not be but in virtue of the obedience they owed to their parents’ ; they owed, not that they covenanted to give. Also where he saith, page 121, the ‘Father and master being before the institution of commonweals absolute sovereigns in their own families’, how can it be said that either children or servants were in the state of jus naturae till the institutions of commonweals? It is said by M r. Hobbes in his book De Cive, chapter 9, section 7, ‘the mother originally hath the government o f her children, and from her the Father derives his right, because she brings forth and first nourisheth them’. But we know that God at the creation gave the sovereignty to the man over the woman, as being the nobler and principal agent in generation. As to the objection, that ‘it is not known who is the Father to the son but by the discovery of the mother, and that he is his son whom the mother will, and therefore he is the mother’s’. The answer is, that it is not at the will o f the mother to make whom she will the Father, for if the mother be not in possession of a husband, the child is not reckoned to have any Father at all; but if she be in the possession of a man, die child notwithstanding whatsoever the woman discovereth to the contrary is still reputed to be his in whose possession she is. No child naturally and infallibly knows who are his true parents, yet he must obey those that in common reputation are so, otherwise the commandment of honour thy Father and thy mother were in vain, and no child bound to the obedience of it.

XII.
[…]
It seems Mr. Hobbes is of the mind that there is but one kind of government, and that is monarchy, for he defines a commonwealth to be One Person, and an assembly of men, or real unity of them all in one and the same person, the multitude so united he calls a Commonwealth: this his moulding of a multitude into One Person, is the generation of his great Leviathan, the King of the children of pride page 167. Thus he concludes the person of a commonwealth to be a Monarch

XIII.
I cannot but wonder Master Hobbes should say, page 112, the consent of a subject to sovereign power is contained in these words, I authorize and do take upon me all his actions, in which there is no restriction at all of his own former natural liberty. Surely here Master Hobbes forgot himself, for before he makes the resignation to go in these words also, ‘I give up my right of governing myself to this man’ : this is a restriction certainly of his own former natural liberty when he gives it away: and if a man allow his sovereign to kill him which Mr. Hobbes seems to confess, how can he reserve a right to defend himself? And if a man have a power and right to kill himself, he doth not authorize and give up his right to his sovereign, if he do not obey him when he commands him to kill himself.

XIV.
Mr. Hobbes saith, page 112, ‘No man is bound by the words of his submission to kill himself, or any other man: and consequently that the obligation a man may sometimes have upon the command of the sovereign to execute any dangerous or dishonourable office, dependeth not on the words of our submission, but on the intention which is to be understood by the end thereof. When therefore our refusal to obey, frustrates the end for which the sovereignty was ordained, then there is no liberty to refuse: otherwise there is’. If no man be bound by the words of his subjection to kill any other man, then a sovereign may be denied the benefit of war, and be rendered unable to defend his people, and so the end of government frustrated. If the obligation upon the commands of a sovereign to execute a dangerous or dishonourable office, dependeth not on the words of our submission, but on the intention, which is to be understood by the end thereof; no man, by Mr. Hobbes’s rules, is bound but by the words of his submission, the intention of the command binds not, if the words do not: if the intention should bind, it is necessary the sovereign must discover it, and the people must dispute and judge it; which how well it may consist with the rights of sovereignty, Mr. Hobbes may consider: whereas Master Hobbes saith the intention is to be understood by the ends, I take it he means the end by effect, for the end and the intention are one and the same thing; and if he mean the effect, the obedience must go before, and not depend on the understanding of the effect, which can never be, if the obedience do not precede it: in fine, he resolves refusal to obey, may depend upon the judging of what frustrates the end of sovereignty, and what not, of which he cannot mean any other judge but the people.

XV.
Mr. Hobbes puts a case by way of question, page 112: ‘A great many men together have already resisted the sovereign power unjustly, or committed some capital crime, for which every one of them expecteth death: whether have they not the liberty then to join together and assist and defend one another’ Certainly they have, for they but defend their lives, which the guilty man may as well do as the innocent: there was indeed injustice in the first breach of their duty, their bearing of arms subsequent to it, though it be to maintain what they have done, is no new unjust act, and if it be only to defend their persons it is not unjust at all.’ The only reason here alleged for the bearing of arms is this: that it is no new unjust act, as if the beginning only of a rebellion were an unjust act, and the continuance of it none at all: no better answer can be given to this case than what the author himself hath delivered in the beginning of the same paragraph in these words: To resist the sword of the commonwealth in defence of another man, guilty or innocent, no man hath liberty: because such liberty takes away from the sovereign the means of protecting us, and is therefore destructive of the very essence of government. Thus he first answers the question, and then afterwards makes it, and gives it a contrary answer; other passages I meet with to the like purpose. He saith, page 66, A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life: the same be said of wounds, chains and imprisonment. Page 69. A covenant to defend myself from force by force is void. Page 68. Right of defending life and means of living can never be abandoned.

These last doctrines are destructive to all government whatsoever, and even to the Leviathan itself: hereby any rogue or villain may murder his sovereign, if the sovereign but offer by force to whip or lay him in the stocks, since whipping may be said to be a wounding, and putting in the stocks an imprisonment: so likewise every man’s goods being means of living, if a man cannot abandon them, no contract among men, be it never so just, can be observed: thus we are at least in as miserable a condition of war as Mr. Hobbes at first by nature found us.

Since anons are talking about Mr. Beast so much.

Hobbes on Public Charity
>And whereas many men, by accident unevitable, become unable to maintain themselves by their labour; they ought not to be left to the Charity of private persons; but to be provided for, (as far-forth as the necessities of Nature require,) by the Lawes of the Common-wealth. For as it is Uncharitablenesse in any man, to neglect the impotent; so it is in the Soveraign of a Common-wealth, to expose them to the hazard of such uncertain Charity.

>Benevolence— Desire of good to another, BENEVOLENCE, GOOD WILL, CHARITY. If to man generally, GOOD NATURE.

>>8893
This charm Bossuet speaks of.
I have seen its effects on /leftypol/ & /siberia/.
Grace-chan is cherished and loved.

>>8893
Grace is made to be loved and holding hands

>>8896
Is this a good anime?

>>8897
>idolshit
Probably not

>>8899
Is Grace-chan an idol?

Monarchists w/ muh bees & muh ants

tbh, I have complicated feelings.

I dislike how replacement is justified w/ bees.
hate regicide theories, but most monarchists support them
I see it as a republican / constitutionalist tendency or slippery slope into oligarchism

It does satisfy perpetuity, but frustrates my notions of indivisibility & pre-eminence.
not to be replaced while living or deemed like another part, but their bond

I emphasize the typical notion w/ ants:

Where the queen ant dies, the colony inevitably dies off w/ that queen ant.
this depends on the species of ant

This works w/ the sense of majesty: despair like when you lose the king in chess.

Everything is lost and begins to decay.

<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.

<Hobbes / King David
P.
>There was a case put to King David by Nathan, of a rich man that had many sheep, and of a poor man that had but one, which was a tame lamb: the rich man had a stranger in his house, for whose entertainment, to spare his own sheep he took away the poor man’s lamb. Upon this case the King gave judgment, “Surely the man that hath done this shall die.” What think you of this? Was it a royal, or tyrannical judgment?

L.
>[…] I will not contradict the canons of the Church of England, which acknowledge the King of England within his own dominions hath the same rights, which the good Kings of Israel had in theirs; nor deny King David to have been one of those good Kings. But to punish with death without a precedent law, will seem but a harsh proceeding with us, who unwillingly hear of arbitrary laws, much less of arbitrary punishments, unless we were sure that all our Kings would be as good as David.

P.
>I cite not this precedent of King David, as approving the breach of the great charter, or justifying the punishment with loss of life or member, of every man that shall offend the King; but to show you that before the charter was granted, in all cases where the punishments were not prescribed, it was the King only that could prescribe them; and that no deputed judge could punish an offender but by force of some statute, or by the words of some commission, and not ex officio. They might for a contempt of their courts, because it is a contempt of the King, imprison a man during the King’s pleasure, or fine him to the King according to the greatness of the offence: but all this amounteth to no more, than to leave him to the King’s judgment.

<Leviathan
>And to rob a poor man, is a greater Crime, than to rob a rich man; because ’tis to the poor a more sensible damage.

I've read all the stuff, I dunno if these are ironic but those texts are all seeming to build a pointless personality cult pointlessly aims for monarchy?¿ with just nothing but all subjectivity waving the ocean as such texts are just using "justice" "god" "family" and so on in a complete abbys, like what is god? A family? A justice? Beyond the subjective meaning you give it.

But… thank you for all the this Grace-Anon, you really make here sweet. And the artworks are way too cute! You are awesome!!! I am sure Alunya will be happy to listen her lover saying all these stuff then Alunya will lean to Grace as Grace will blush and her heart will bump as it never happened before in such intense form, It's so pretty to imagine :3
Grace x Alunya is just too heartwarming… best form of the art…

>>8907
> I dunno if these are ironic but those texts
This is all unironic & in earnest.
Some anons think it is ironic
it's not

>pointlessly aims for monarchy?
Let there be one Grace.

>to build a pointless personality cult
Everyone is drawn to a persona.
There is nothing that stands out.
Like the majesty of one person, tbh.

<Alunya will lean to Grace as Grace will blush
Kinda like Alunya is drawn to Grace.

>>8908
>Everyone is drawn to a persona. There is nothing that stands out. Like the majesty of one person, tbh.

I don't think so, your personality, is just mere complication of your choices you took for the outsider-reflections of things. And many ppl are attracted to monarchy because it made it so somehow, and if the thought of it's contradiction pleases the spirit, it'd believe otherwise, and guillotine will look prettier than a royal family.

>Kinda like Alunya is drawn to Grace.
The spark of love bonds two spirits into everlasting affection, dear Grace-Anon. They both feel that I believe, just their desperate and everyday consuming affections trying it's best and different ways to get out of it's cage to finally unite. *w-
(Also… cute artworks 0//o)

>>8909
Persona is the face.
& you yourself said you wanted to see Grace-chan blush.

>And many ppl are attracted to monarchy because it made it so somehow
Crowds that admire one person b/c one person helps to personify them.
That's how the idiom goes:
X with a human face.
Without a persona, everything feels cold & sterile like the blade of a guillotine itself.

>>8910
>You yourself said you wanted to see Grace-chan blush.

Y-yes I like it… because it gives me imaginations of Alunya and Grace being together and is cute.

>Crowds that admire one person b/c one person helps to personify them. That's how the idiom goes: X with a human face. Without a persona, everything feels cold & sterile like the blade of a guillotine itself.

That's inherently your idea, that can't be same or embraced by everyone. As the monarchy can't make itself pleasing for every soul it consists, and since monarchies adopt capitalist mode of production… Life's just painful for many! Even if you distract them from that with religious,patriotic,persona stuff!
And… If some void creature without a persona lives under my bed… I wouldn't do anything to it and let the creature stay for how long it desires ^^, I dont feel the same as you Grace-Anon, I like the void and bitterness to some scale and my feelings aren't only special to persona.

>>8911
>That's inherently your idea
>that can't be same or embraced by everyone
Idk some leftists are fascinated by the persona more than most royalists themselves. & they make ample use of the persona to embody revolution.
I cannot speak for anarchists.

Y' know, collectivism & individualism are always opposed.
As paradoxical as it is, what the collective longs for is to be made individual.
What anons like about Alunya & Grace pairing is their harmony & love
despite being sworn enemies
A monarchist like Grace should really hate anarchy and communism.

>>8913

Collectivism&Individualism stuff are pretty eh anon. Because everything being pleased or valued lies in the individual itself, as collectivism practices something that enforces it's bitterness upon the every individual in the (same form?)

>What anons like about Alunya & Grace pairing is their harmony & love despite being sworn enemies, a monarchist like Grace should really hate anarchy and communism

Their everlasting and binding love getting ahead of everything they had embraced, they had, and believed… all gone with the sweet winds of love, I like it. Grace-Anon, I wholeheartedly believe that, Grace and Alunya surely have different world views for to make both of them live with their love & their desires in their believed forms, and Alunya and Grace have contradiction of those believes, barrier believes, but the love, is the prettiest thing, what makes all the absurd intreactions between one and one the most pleasing thing to them! It's just heartmoving to imagine how they will react to the love, which lungs, bumps, even more intensely to finally escape their cages and finally for two spirits to be one! What they do in the materiality wont matter anymore, ( but since communism is the doctrine of abolishing every alerting-bitter outsider forces imposed on us *w- and monarchy just being a bitter form of goverment, It's unknown but maybe Grace Chan would change her thoughts… or maybe Alunya?) As all they care and long for becoming indulging in their divine love ^^

I thought about befriending leftypol more.
& visiting their minecraft server.
Though I also keep my respective distance.
idk if it's active anyways. I wish it were.

>>8914
>I like it. Grace-Anon
It makes my day, anon.
To have /kind/ visitors.

>>8915
>It makes my day, anon.
It also applies for me too, as I said before, you made a lot of my days dear Grace-Anon, thank you so much for the threads!

Another Alunya cosplay

I hope for another inter-board sports event.
It was so much fun the last /icup/.

My final reading list.
I have compiled many others
This will be my very last b/c I want to retire.

>>8919
You're retiring? From what, Graceposting? Being a monarchist?

>>8920
Going from being a 24/7 monarchist shill
To being a lazy monarchist shill.
There will still be Grace art & stuff.

>>8919
>>8921
Oh… I was saddened thought you will going forever… Glad you will still exist in this lost lands ^^

>>8919
Add Kierkegaard to your list

new grace art in a bit

>>8921
*spit*

<Hobbes / Every Age an Age of Absolutism
>Secondly, they object, That there is no Dominion in the Christian world Absolute; which indeed is not true, for all Monarchies, and 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.

(Jean Bodin is also of the opinion here).

<Hobbes / As if policy made body-politic & not body-politic policy
>This device therefore of them that will make civil laws first, and then a civil body afterwards, (as if policy made a body politic, and not a body politic made policy) is of no effect.

<Xenophon Cyropaedia

The father of Cyrus, so runs the story, was Cambyses, a king of the Persians, and one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race

<The education of youth
>It is true that he was brought up according to the laws and customs of the Persians, and of these laws it must be noted that while they aim, as laws elsewhere, at the common weal, their guiding principle is far other than that which most nations follow.

>Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. (3) But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object.

<Friend & Enemy distinction: careful not to teach children dangerous things
>Yes, my son, it is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage. And he drew the line between what one should do to one's friends and what to one's enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right to even deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose.

(This is important b/c regicide theories would also use the basis of friend / enemy distinction between a king or tyrant & justify killing their king; though I think that the subjects shouldn't be taught to distinguish their Sovereign as any such enemy–their relation like children & the sovereign monarch their father–if they are taught anyone is an enemy, it is the opponents of their Sovereign & never the Sovereign himself, b/c esp. the monarchy-haters are too apt to abuse this).

>And in teaching these lessons he had also to train the boys to practise them upon one another, just as also in wrestling, the Greeks, they say, teach deception and train the boys to be able to practise it upon one another. When, therefore, some had in this way become expert both in deceiving successfully and in taking unfair advantage and perhaps also not inexpert in avarice, the did not refrain from trying to take an unfair advantage even of their friends.

>In consequence of that, therefore, an ordnance was passed which obtains even unto this day, simply to teach out boys, just as we teach our servants in their relations towards us, to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage; and if they should act contrary to this law, the law requires their punishment, in order that, inured to such habits, they may become more refined members of society.

(All States today do this: they teach their citizens at birth to uphold the values of their State & only a friendly image, & reserves the bad teachings for any enemies, like is said – that they may become more refined members of society)

>But when they came to be as old as you are now, then it seemed to be safe to teach them that also which is lawful towards enemies; for it does not seem likely that you would break away and fun into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect. In the same way we do not discuss sexual matters in the presence of very young boys, lest in case lax discipline should give a free rein to their passions the young might indulge them to excess.

<The ungrateful man & shamelessness: the chief instigator to every kind of baseness
>They reason that the ungrateful man s the most likely to forget his duty to the gods, to his parents, to his fatherland, and his friends. Shamelessness, they hold, treads close on the heels of ingratitude, and thus ingratitude is the ringleader and chief instigator to every kind of baseness. Further, the boys are instructed in temperance and self-restraint, and they find the utmost help towards the attainment of this virtue in the self-respecting behaviour of their elders, shown them day by day. Then they are taught to obey their rulers, and here again nothing is of greater value than the studied obedience to authority manifested by their elders everywhere. Continence in meat and drink is another branch of instruction, and they have no better aid in this than, first, the example of their elders, who never withdraw to satisfy their carnal cravings until those in authority dismiss them, and next, the rule that the boys must take their food, not with their mother but with their master, and not till the governor gives the sign.

<The importance of obedience
>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.

>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.

>Drovers may certainly be called the rulers of their cattle and horse-breeders the rulers of their studs—all herdsmen, in short, may reasonably be considered the governors of the animals they guard. If, then, we were to believe the evidence of our senses, was it not obvious that flocks and herds were more ready to obey their keepers than men their rulers? Watch the cattle wending their way wherever their herdsmen guide them, see them grazing in the pastures where they are sent and abstaining from forbidden grounds, the fruit of their own bodies they yield to their master to use as he thinks best; nor have we ever seen one flock among them all combining against their guardian, either to disobey him or to refuse him the absolute control of their produce. On the contrary, they are more apt to show hostility against other animals than against the owner who derives advantage from them.

<But with man the rule is converse; men unite against none so readily as against those whom they see attempting to rule over them. (3) As long, therefore, as we followed these reflexions, we could not but conclude that man is by nature fitted to govern all creatures, except his fellow-man.

>But when we came to realise the character of Cyrus the Persian, we were led to a change of mind: here is a man, we said, who won for himself obedience from thousands of his fellows, from cities and tribes innumerable: we must ask ourselves whether the government of men is after all an impossible or even a difficult task, provided one set about it in the right way. Cyrus, we know, found the readiest obedience in his subjects, though some of them dwelt at a distance which it would take days and months to traverse, and among them were men who had never set eyes on him, and for the matter of that could never hope to do so, and yet they were willing to obey him. Cyrus did indeed eclipse all other monarchs, before or since, and I include not only those who have inherited their power, but those who have won empire by their own exertions.

>It is obvious that among this congeries of nations few, if any, could have spoken the same language as himself, or understood one another, but none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: not one of them dared lift hand against him. And yet he was able, at the same time, to inspire them all with so deep a desire to please him and win his favour that all they asked was to be guided by his judgment and his alone.

<Xenophon / A good ruler differs not from a good father
>Gentlemen, this is not the first time I have had occasion to observe that a good ruler differs in no respect from a good father. Even as a father takes thought that blessings may never fail his children, so Cyrus would commend to us the ways by which we can preserve our happiness.

<A ruler's charm
>But we seem to learn also that Cyrus thought it necessary for the ruler not only to surpass his subjects by his own native worth, but also to charm them through deception and artifice.

>At any rate he adopted the Median dress, and persuaded his comrades to do likewise; he thought it concealed any bodily defect, enhancing the beauty and stature of the wearer. The shoe, for instance, was so devised that a sole could be added without notice, and the man would seem taller than he really was. So also Cyrus encouraged the use of ointments to make the eyes more brilliant and pigments to make the skin look fairer. And he trained his courtiers never to spit or blow the nose in public or turn aside to stare at anything; they were to keep the stately air of persons whom nothing can surprise. These were all means to one end; to make it impossible for the subjects to despise their rulers.

<Taming of men
>Thus he moulded the men he considered worthy of command by his own example, by the training he gave them, and by the dignity of his own leadership. But the treatment of those he prepared for slavery was widely different. Not one of them would he incite to any noble toil, he would not even let them carry arms, and he was careful that they should never lack food or drink in any manly sort.

>When the beaters drove the wild creatures into the plain he would allow food to be brought for the servants, but not for the free men; on a march he would lead the slaves to the water-springs as he led the beasts of burden. Or when it was the hour of breakfast he would wait himself till they had taken a snatch of food and stayed their wolfish hunger; and the end of it was they called him their father even as the nobles did, because he cared for them, but the object of his care was to keep them slaves for ever.

>Thus he secured the safety of the Persian empire. He himself, he felt sure, ran no danger from the massages of the conquered people; he saw they had no courage, no unity, and no discipline, and, moreover, not one of them could ever come near him, day or night.

>But there were others whom he knew to be true warriors, who carried arms, and who held by one another, commanders of horse and foot, many of them men of spirit, confident, as he could plainly see, of their own power to rule, men who were in close touch with his own guards, and many of them in constant intercourse with himself; as indeed was essential if he was to make any use of them at all. It was from them that danger was to be feared; and that in a thousand ways. How was he to guard against it?

<He rejected the idea of disarming them; he thought this unjust, and that it would lead to the dissolution of the empire. To refuse them admission into his presence, to show them his distrust, would be, he considered, a declaration of war.

>But there was one method, he felt, worth all the rest, an honourable method and one that would secure his safety absolutely; to win their friendship if he could, and make them more devoted to himself than to each other. I will now endeavour to set forth the methods, so far as I conceive them, by which he gained their love.

>In the first place he never lost an opportunity of showing kindliness wherever he could, convinced that just as it is not easy to love those who hate us, so it is scarcely possible to feel enmity for those who love us and wish us well.

>So long as he had lacked the power to confer benefits by wealth, all he could do then was to show his personal care for his comrades and his soldiers, to labour in their behalf, manifest his joy in their good fortune and his sympathy in their sorrows, and try to win them in that way. But when the time came for the gifts of wealth, he realised that of all the kindnesses between man and man none come with a more natural grace than the gifts of meat and drink.

(This is somewhat notable for a few reasons: 1. The Christian mass also has formally bread & wine. 2. States have state dinners to also show kindness. 3. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar remarks, Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous. – Mark Antony responds, Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous, He is a noble Roman, and well given. – Julius Caesar finally says, Would he were fatter! But I fear him not.)

>Accordingly he arranged that his table should be spread every day for many guests in exactly the same way as for himself; and all that was set before him, after he and his guests had dined, he would send out to his absent friends, in token of affection and remembrance. He would include those who had won his approval by their work on guard, or in attendance on himself, or in any other service, letting them see that no desire to please him could ever escape his eyes.

>He would show the same honour to any servant he wished to praise; and he had all the food for them placed at his own board, believing this would win their fidelity, as it would a dog's.

>Or, if he wished some friend of his to be courted by the people, he would single him out for such gifts; even to this day the world will pay court to those who have dishes sent them from the Great King's table, thinking they must be in high favour at the palace and can get things done for others. But no doubt there was another reason for the pleasure in such gifts, and that was the sheer delicious taste of the royal meats.

<Nor should that surprise us; for if we remember to what a pitch of perfection the other crafts are brought in great communities, we ought to expect the royal dishes to be wonders of finished art.

<Royal excellence in great servants
>Necessarily the man who spends all his time and trouble on the smallest task will do that task the best.

>But when there is work enough for one man to boil the pot, and another to roast the meat, and a third to stew the fish, and a fourth to fry it, while some one else must bake the bread, and not all of it either, for the loaves must be of different kinds, and it will be quite enough if the baker can serve up one kind to perfection—it is obvious, I think, that in this way a far higher standard of excellence will be attained in every branch of the work.

<Royal gifts
>Thus it is easy to see how Cyrus could outdo all competitors in the grace of hospitality, and I will now explain how he came to triumph in all other services.

>Far as he excelled mankind in the scale of his revenues, he excelled them even more in the grandeur of his gifts. It was Cyrus who set the fashion; and we are familiar to this day with the open-handedness of Oriental kings.

>There is no one, indeed, in all the world whose friends are seen to be as wealthy as the friends of the Persian monarch: no one adorns his followers in such splendour of rich attire, no gifts are so well known as his, the bracelets, and the necklaces, and the chargers with the golden bridles. For in that country no one can have such treasures unless the king has given them.

(Do you know how it's said dictators use gifts? The same is said here)

>And of whom but the Great King could it be said that through the splendour of his presents he could steal the hearts of men and turn them to himself, away from brothers, fathers, sons?

<The King's Eyes & The King's Ears
>Indeed, we are led to think that the offices called "the king's eyes" and "the king's ears" came into being through this system of gifts and honours.

>Cyrus' munificence toward all who told him what it was well for him to know set countless people listening with all their ears and watching with all their eyes for news that might be of service to him. Thus there sprang up a host of "king's eyes" and "king's ears," as they were called, known and reputed to be such.

>But it is a mistake to suppose that the king has one chosen "eye." It is little that one man can see or one man hear, and to hand over the office to one single person would be to bid all others go to sleep. Moreover, his subjects would feel they must be on their guard before the man they knew was "the king's eye." The contrary is the case; the king will listen to any man who asserts that he has heard or seen anything that needs attention.

(This was a practice: Tsar Paul I would also have a box for any subject to give tell him about any anything or any injustice – Jean Bodin remarked that this system of boxes in other states was abused & not a good practice, I forgot the details how or what grievances Bodin had).

<The King has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears
>Hence the saying that the king has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears; and hence the fear of uttering anything against his interest since "he is sure to hear," or doing anything that might injure him "since he may be there to see." So far, therefore, from venturing to breathe a syllable against Cyrus, every man felt that he was under the eye and within the hearing of a king who was always present. For this universal feeling towards him I can give no other reason than his resolve to be a benefactor on a most mighty scale.

<Royal Shepherd
>Indeed, a saying of his is handed down comparing a good king to a good shepherd—the shepherd must manage his flock by giving them all they need, and the king must satisfy the needs of his cities and his subjects if he is to manage them. We need not wonder, then, that with such opinions his ambition was to excel mankind in courtesy and care.

<Royal Physician
>Moreover, he observed that the majority of mankind, if they live in good health for long, will only lay by such stores and requisites as may be used by a healthy man, and hardly care at all to have appliances at hand in case of sickness. But Cyrus was at the pains to provide these; he encouraged the ablest physicians of the day by his liberal payments, and if ever they recommended an instrument or a drug or a special kind of food or drink, he never failed to procure it and have it stored in the palace.

>And whenever any one fell sick among those who had peculiar claims on his attentions, he would visit them and bring them all they needed, and he showed especial gratitude to the doctors if they cured their patients by the help of his own stores.

>These measures, and others like them, he adopted to win the first place in the hearts of those whose friendship he desired.

(It is useful to add that he supplied these doctors & made sure their care came with his blessing – so that the benefices of the doctors would by extension be benefices of the king – as the quote >>8735 here says, what men would give to be cured adds to the friendship and trust in the king)

<Rewards & Badges
>The day before it he summoned the officers of state, the Persians and the others, and gave them all the splendid Median dress. This was the first time the Persians wore it, and as they received the robes he said that he wished to drive in his chariot to the sacred precincts and offer sacrifice with them.

>With that Cyrus gave the most splendid robes to his chief notables, and then he brought out others, for he had stores of Median garments, purple and scarlet and crimson and glowing red, and gave a share to each of his generals and said to them, "Adorn your friends, as I have adorned you." (4) Then one of them asked him, "And you, O Cyrus, when will you adorn yourself?" But he answered, "–Is it not adornment enough for me to have adorned you? If I can but do good to my friends, I shall look glorious enough, whatever robe I wear."

<Preparations for a royal procession
>Meanwhile Cyrus summoned Pheraulas, knowing that, while he was a man of the people, he was also quick-witted, a lover of the beautiful, prompt to understand and to obey, and one who had ever an eye to please his master.

>And now Cyrus asked him how he thought the procession might be made most beautiful in the eyes of friends and most formidable in the sight of foes.

>"I have issued orders," he added, "for all to obey you in the matter, but to make them the more willing, take these tunics yourself and give them to the captains of the guard, and these military cloaks for the cavalry officers, and these tunics for those who command the chariots."

>So Pheraulas took the raiment and departed, and when the generals saw him, they met him with shouts and cries, "A monstrous fine fellow you are, Pheraulas!" said one: "you are to give us our orders, it seems!"

>"Oh, yes," said Pheraulas, "and carry your baggage too. Here I come with two cloaks as it is, one for you and another for somebody else: you must choose whichever you like the best."

…

>On the morrow all things were ready before day-break, ranks lining the road on either hand, as they do to this day when the king is expected to ride abroad—no one may pass within the lines unless he is a man of mark—and constables were posted with whips, to use at any sign of disturbance.

>In front of the palace stood the imperial guard of lancers, four thousand strong, drawn up four deep on either side of the gates.

>And all the cavalry were there, the men standing beside their horses, with their hands wrapped in their cloaks, as is the custom to this day for every subject when the king's eye is on him. The Persians stood on the right, and the allies on the left, and the chariots were posted in the same way, half on one side and half on the other.

>Presently the palace-gates were flung open, and at the head of the procession were led out the bulls for sacrifice, beautiful creatures, four and four together. They were to be offered to Zeus and to any other gods that the Persian priests might name. For the Persians think it of more importance to follow the guidance of the learned in matters pertaining to the gods than in anything else whatever.

>After the oxen came horses, an offering to the Sun, then a white chariot with a golden yoke, hung with garlands and dedicated to Zeus, and after that the white car of the Sun, wreathed like the one before it, and then a third chariot, the horses of which were caparisoned with scarlet trappings, and behind walked men carrying fire upon a mighty hearth.

<The Appearance of Cyrus
>And then at last Cyrus himself was seen, coming forth from the gates in his chariot, wearing his tiara on his head, and a purple tunic shot with white, such as none but the king may wear, and trews of scarlet, and a cloak of purple. Round his tiara he wore a diadem, and his kinsmen wore the same, even as the custom is to this day. And the king's hands hung free outside his cloak.

>At the sight of the king, the whole company fell on their faces. Perhaps some had been ordered to do this and so set the fashion, or perhaps the multitude were really overcome by the splendour of the pageant and the sight of Cyrus himself, stately and tall and fair. For hitherto none of the Persians had done obeisance to Cyrus.

>And now, as the chariot moved onwards, the four thousand lancers went before it, two thousand on either side, and close behind came the mace-bearers, mounted on horseback, with javelins in their hands, three hundred strong.

<The importance of love and praise
>Praise, Pheraulas saw, will reap counter-praise, kindness will stir kindness in return, and goodwill goodwill; those whom men know to love them they cannot hate.

<Cyrus
>And you, Cambyses, you know of yourself without words from me, that your kingdom is not guarded by this golden sceptre, but by faithful friends; their loyalty is your true staff, a sceptre which shall not fail. But never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the field… No, every leader must win his own followers for himself, and the way to win them is not by violence but by loving-kindness.

<Epilogue
>Of all the powers in Asia, the kingdom of Cyrus showed itself to be the greatest and most glorious. On the east it was bounded by the Red Sea, on the north by the Euxine, on the west by Cyprus and Egypt, and on the south by Ethiopia. And yet the whole of this enormous empire was governed by the mind and will of a single man, Cyrus: his subjects he cared for and cherished as a father might care for his children, and they who came beneath his rule reverenced him like a father.

<Cyrus / To the eldest born son
>Sons of mine, I love you both alike, but I choose the elder-born, the one whose experience of life is the greater, to be the leader in council and the guide in action.

<Cyrus / Let the earth be my grave
>As for my body, when I am dead, I would not have you lay it up in gold or silver or any coffin whatsoever, but give it back to the earth with all speed. What could be more blessed than to lie in the lap of Earth, the mother of all things beautiful, the nurse of all things good? I have been a lover of men all my life, and methinks I would fain become a part of that which does good to man

…

>>8929
Hobbes also viewed sovereignty also to instruct or educate.

<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.

>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.

>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.

>For he that deserteth the Means, deserteth the Ends; and he deserteth the Means, that being the Soveraign, acknowledgeth himselfe subject to the Civill Lawes; and renounceth the Power of Supreme Judicature; or of making Warre, or Peace by his own Authority; or of Judging of the Necessities of the Common-wealth; or of levying Mony, and Souldiers, when, and as much as in his own conscience he shall judge necessary; or of making Officers, and Ministers both of Warre, 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 mis-in-formed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essentiall Rights; because thereby men are easie 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 Soveraignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a Soveraign 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 himselfe 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, dependeth 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

<To the eldest born son
Dante Aligheri also notes, that every house is ruled by its eldest.
though I think that's from Aristotle

Jean Bodin was an ardent defender of hereditary monarchy.
& criticized Aristotle in defense of it
I myself am partial to it.

der kaiser rief und alle allekamen
The emperor called and everyone, everyone came!

<King James VI & I / My sheep hear my voice
>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.

A Bumper Harvest in the Chongsan Plain
Who has brought this happiness?
Our Party has brought it.
Who has brought this happiness?
It is thanks to the Leader!

That's the end of my political discourse for today.
Will relax with some music.

man imagine being a monarch. you grow up you get a crown put on your head and told you're a divine being but you know you're just another humann potato

Obligatory DPRK songs.
Grace-chan reveres these virtues of the DPRK.

& no, this is not a cynical snub.
There is no reason to hold any spite from my pov.
DPRK hasn't overthrown any royalty
& in my eyes has somewhat of a royal virtue

Grace art will be finished soon.

I am drinking lemonade atm.

Also, music like vid related I'd listen to on repeat.
The sound of the waves is relaxing for me.

<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.

I like to think it's the same w/ leftypol.org.

If I mention Grace likes lemonade, I fully expect lefty anons to suddenly be interested in lemonade too.

>>8943
I FUCKING LOVE LEMONADE LICK LICK LICK
EVERYTHING FOR MAJESTY

>>8943
Oh lemonade, my favourite, would her majesty allow me to accompany her for a drink of lemonade?

holding hands with grace and feeding her a lemonade 🙂

>>8944
>>8946
Comrades, lemonade is the drink of the proletariat & Grace-chan.
The working class loves lemonade!
Besides water & vodka.

>>8945
Anon may, but Grace-chan will.
& doesn't need to be fed lemonade.
Though keep in mind to w/ lemonade to rinse & drink water for the sake of your tooth enamel afterwards & also to dilute the lemonade itself with water. Esp. lemon juice concentrate can wear tooth enamel? I think lemonade itself is okay, but it's a citrus.

>>8947
Isn't lemonade just water, lemon and a bit of sugar?