No.2326 [Last50 Posts]
MONARCHY DOESN'T ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS, lolbergs.
All governments have an arbitrary motive to respect their subjects. By the grace of God, they don't exist for a singular purpose. Monarchy is different from other governments. A parliament can also claim to represent a shared interest in protecting private property rights. A totalitarian communist regime can claim to share the economic interests of the proletariat. These economic interests are all based on the ideals of a social contract. While social contract theory isn't inherently anti-monarchy, it has been the will of radicals to denounce the purpose of monarchy through social contract theory; in short, they are political animals who only care about their self-conceit and economic gain.
Monarchy is a shared heritage. A shared national identity. History defines a people. Monarchy is a government of authority, based on hereditary rights, the foundational model being the family. The monarchy is just a royal family. This is simple, yet it means everything: monarchy is the government of the people, because it uplifts the true bond of the people. Every proletariat works for his family. Every property right is meaningful under the prospect of future gain, often the prospect of having a marriage or future children. Every household stands for their honor, which corresponds to the AUTHORITY of the father.
Too many monarchists see monarchy through the lenses of a political animal. They don't understand the nature of monarchy. How does monarchy inevitably fix itself? Through hereditary succession, or the authority of the crown, known as sovereignty. This transgression represents not only the honorable succession of ordinary households, and the father's right, but also the world's destiny.
Think of it like the classical Troy and the tale of the Aeneid. It was their destiny that moved them. All governments, under a Divine Will, are taken through their destines, and monarchy is the only government that understands this concept. The Divine Right of Kings is a similar notion, often misunderstood: every government exists under heavenly grace, even the worst of governments, but monarchy recognizes their destiny.
Joseph de Maistre made the point that the state exists under God's Creation, but also the consent of men. The truth is men only consent to obey, and most partisan governments exist like a dictatorship – that is, consenting to obey, and listening to a dictator's directions/speeches. A social contract works on consent, but nobody truly consents to a government. The only social contract that applies to the nature of government is the kind that pivots on the idea of authority.
The state exists for the family. Each life begins with the conception of man and woman. The two stable roles for man and woman are father and mother, both of which are formalized under the name of monarchy. Each social interest begins at the rudimentary model of the family. The natural model for leadership is first known by the actions of fathers. Fatherhood is the destiny of the male sex. Despite being an individual, who isn't a father, the ideal mode of leadership within the sexes is fatherhood. Motherhood is the destiny of the female sex. Despite being an individual who isn't a mother, the ideal mode of leadership within the sexes is motherhood.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2327
>why does this matter?
Because monarchy is closer to the common man, the proletariat, and the economic classes – than any other government. More than the communist regimes, the totalitarian partisans, or any republican government. People don't gravitate towards falsehoods like being a socialist, an anarchist, a communist, a republican, or any breed of partisanship or spook. What partisanship seeks to do is dismantle the identity of ordinary people and make them anything but responsible MEN and WOMEN. Each interest and shared social responsibility conceives itself with the family, because the family is the origin of the individual and society. The society is modeled on the family, that being the organization of sexes, elderly, and economic classes.
When it comes to private property, think of the origins of the state. Most monarchists view it as under the guidance of a clan, a military leader, or the patriarch. It is said the state exists for the family, and that is why monarchy and its hereditary government best represents the identity of a nation.
What is tradition, if anything more than the wisdom of the past generations? That being said, the more our minds wander further from the past, the more common wisdom is lost.
The nation is more than a social contract, and the monarchy is more than a model: it is a living blood. The constitution of every monarchy is truly its tradition and heritage. Every good monarch looks to their grandfathers for inspiration of leadership. Consider Kaiser Wilhelm II, who had much reverence for his grandfather.
This is more than ideology. Monarchy is sovereign under the true destiny of mankind.
Read Study on Sovereignty, by Joseph de Maistre. He is often the chief critic of Rousseau and the Enlightenment. There is a passage here that explains the role of social contract in a society, and the origin of authority.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2328
http://maistre.uni.cx/sovereignty.html
It is certainly true, in an inferior and crude sense, that sovereignty is based on human consent. For, if any people decided suddenly not to obey, sovereignty would disappear; and it is impossible to imagine the establishment of a sovereignty without imagining a people which consents to obey. If then the opponents of the divine origin of sovereignty want to claim only this, they are right, and it would be quite useless to dispute it. Since God has not thought it appropriate to use supernatural agents in the establishment of states, it is certain that all developments have come about through human agencies. But saying that sovereignty does not derive from God because he has made use of men to establish it is like saying that he is not the creator of man because we all have a father and a mother.
…
The partisans of divine authority cannot therefore deny that the human will plays some part in the establishment of governments; and their opponents cannot in their turn deny that God is preeminently the author of these same governments.
It appears then that the two propositions, Sovereignty comes from God and Sovereignty comes from men, are not absolutely contradictory, any more than the other two, Laws come from God and Laws come from men.
–
This is Maistre's thoughts on social contract theory. Most deny it outright, and others only see the state from the perspective of social contract theory. What Maistre states is there is truth in both ideas, whether authority comes from consent or from God. The relationship looks something like this:
Power > Sovereignty > Consent
All power comes from the Divine. All sovereignty comes from power. All consent corresponds to sovereignty – consenting to obey what is dictated.
Joseph de Maistre also explains that the first king wasn't a fortunate soldier, but rather the first soldier was paid by the first king.
This is important because social interests go back to the fundamental structures of society, but also you must have honor.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2329
Before you read Leviathan, look at Thomas Hobbes'
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
Politics is the nature of self-interest, fundamentally. There is something bad about it, but also good. The reason a royal family is the chief capstone of a government is because it represents the most benign form of self-interest – that is, honoring your family, or providing for others within your family. Also to be understood, before you have an agreement… you must honor it.
No social contract or any government agency is understood best without honor. All authority is subconsciously understood, and honor is absolutely necessary. The most honorable government is monarchy, because every man seeks to profit himself – yet every society is a bond of families who seek honor. This is what upsets communists, because monarchy is almost the antithesis of a classless society. Hierarchy is merely understood from the will of people… in their desire of self-benefit. Hence, most egalitarians don't understand the nature of hierarchy and how someone can benefit under an authority…
You will find Hobbes here.
http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/27/57.pdf
Let's finish this and explain why mankind's destiny isn't to be a bunch of political animals under self-interest. Despite what Thomas Hobbes has said, Sir Robert Filmer, who wrote Patriarchia, explains the first model of leadership came from patriarchy.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/filmer-patriarcha-or-the-natural-power-of-kings
Let us remember that our history and our lives matter more than a social contract, or whether we consent or not consent. It is what we do that matters most. Some think the authoritarian is a malignant source of inspiration for government. Some believe the totalitarian path is best. However, without authority, there is no leadership. The most salient understanding of leadership is a man who acts. What defines his motives is whether he'll act for other people. Which people? His people. A collective of people is best known through their family. A sovereign who acts for the legacy of his family is the most benevolent form of leadership.
This is why we must not forget leadership, and the inherent need for hierarchy, and the life we live – not just our assets.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2330
Please remember this.
Each government works under authority, or seeks it.
Most democracies are built on popularity contests and what the government can do to jack off (((interest groups))). This is their means of legitimizing authority, and it is malignant compared to monarchy's source of authority.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2331
Politics and political identities will always be considered trashy. Being a socialist more chiefly than a man is what ruins our world.
This quote here explains how social contract theory and democracy fail to unite a nation. It is equal votes for unequal minds. There is no such thing as the "Will of the People". The plural isn't singular. Everyone's interests are competing against each other, and the only unity is that common social bond of loyalty.
Loyalty is honoring someone despite your self-sacrifice/feelings.
If you are loyal to your cause, despite how much modernism and jewry impacted our world and institutions, monarchy the same, then that is honorable. Understand that the world will restore itself – if it doesn't end.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2332
On Divine Right of Kings
Let it be known how the Divine Right of Kings is misunderstood. It applies to all those who possess power. The concept is often laughed and mocked from those who understand it from a different angle. Prompting questions like, "What about communists or revolutionary governments – why should they exist?" The answer is everything exists with grace. The medieval understanding is close also. Consider Dante's Purgatorio. There is a canto with kings in purgatory, who are spared because they were leaders with power and had responsibility. Every government has responsibility. This is the chain of thought behind the concept of human rights and basic liberties. The shameful thing is most disregard the responsibility half portion of their freedom. There is no such thing as freedom from responsibility.
There is leadership and authority, but not freedom from responsibility. Having the mantle of leadership aka the Divine Right of Kings means to hold the burden of the state. Every statesman must be responsible for their power, or they will face the consequences. That is the understanding. The difference between monarchy and other governments is monarchy recognizes the source of power, and monarchy makes it into a ceremony.
Having rights is ordained by a certain kind of freedom, but not a freedom from responsibility. It cannot be repeated enough. Having a conflict between duties and privileges is divisive. The individual vs the collective idealism is a source of division. A monarchy unites because it understands responsibility, from the fundamental theological view, to the role of parenthood.
Aristotle had such am impact on Medieval thought. Other cultures have similar understandings of legitimate leadership/authority. It should be noted this hierarchy is understood from that perspective as well as the Biblical understanding.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2333
DIVINE RIGHT CONTINUED
Mad Monarchist explains the concept here:
"The Divine Right of Kings has been traced by some, like Filmer, all the way back to Adam in the Garden of Eden when God gave Adam dominion over all creation. Not too many, however, took things to that extreme and not because it was impossible to trace a family line back to the first man on earth as one might assume but more because, if one accepts that Adam was the father of all humanity, being descended from him is not that special. More often it came down to being a descendant of King David of Israel and, once upon a time, it was very important for royal families to be able to trace their ancestry back to that Old Testament monarch who was called a man after God’s own heart. The reasoning behind this can get a little bit confusing so it is best to start at the beginning. The Divine Right of Kings goes back to the Divine Right of King David and the Davidic line of kings who ruled the people of Israel. This came about because of the seventh covenant between man and God and, in many ways, it is perhaps one of the most fascinating interactions between the human and the divine to be found in the books of the Bible."
https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-divine-right-of-kings.html
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2334
What separates monarchy from other governments
To understand why monarchy is different from a communist nation like North Korea aka Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it should be understood the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian government.
Totalitarianism is partisan in nature, looking to political parties and the concept of the general will (Will of the People)… for answers. It is typically contrived from social contract theory. These governments, particularly the communist ones, are often arbitrary and not absolute. This means power without regard/interest of private property and social status. Arbitrary power is often the power associated with tyrants or dictators. Not that autocrats, or monarchs, cannot be benign. There are even exceptions for certain totalitarian governments that do benevolent things. These governments try to think like a hivemind, in a way, representing the will of the People as a giant mass of drones.
Authoritarian government is always about authority. Whether it is social contract theory, or the Divine Right of Kings. There is always a sense of legitimacy first. It rotates around a dynasty or an individual. The concept of absolute power is the ideal of power with constraint and responsibility. It is legitimate and recognizes property.
Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet explains the difference between arbitrary vs absolute power (power of tyrants/dictators vs kings/leaders) here: (also from his book Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture)
http://www.iupui.edu/~histwhs/H114.dir/H114.webreader/H114.read.a.Bossuet.html
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2335
Arbitrary vs Absolute Power
There is among men a type of government that is called arbitrary, but it is not found among us, nor in properly constituted states.
Four characteristics are associated with this type of government. First, its subjects are born slaves, that is, in true bondage, and among them there are no free persons. Second, nothing is possessed as property since all belongs to the prince, and there is no right of inheritance, even from father to son. Third, the prince has the right to dispose freely not only of his subjects' goods but even of their lives, as would be done with slaves. Finally, there is no law other than his will.
This is what is called arbitrary power. I do not wish to inquire whether it is lawful or unlawful. There are peoples and great empires that are satisfied with it, and it is not for us to disturb them concerning their form of government. It is sufficient for us to say that this type of government is barbarous and odious. These four characteristics are very far removed from our customs, and for this reason arbitrary government does not exist among us.
There is a great difference between a government that is absolute and one that is arbitrary. It is absolute by reason of constraint, there being no power capable of coercing the sovereign who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary. Because, although anything is permitted to the judgment of God and to a government called arbitrary, it is certain that states have laws against which anything that is done is of no right. And there is always available a means of redress on other occasions and in other times, so that each remains legitimate possessor of his property, no one being able to believe that he may ever possess anything in security contrary to the laws, whose vigilance and action against injustices and violences is immortal…. And it is in this that a government called legitimate is opposed by its nature to arbitrary government….
Government is established in order to free all men from every oppression and violence, as has often been stated. And it is this that creates the state of perfect liberty, there being in essence nothing less free than anarchy, which destroys all legitimate rights among men, and knows no law but that of force.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2336
Feel free to comment, debate, and laugh.
Go ahead and pin.
Most democratic ideology is hell-bent on dismantling the individual, or punishing the society as a whole. The reason is democracy is a failed disease. There is no universal consent. Nobody sees eye-to-eye on all issues. There is an absolute will, but no absolute will of the People. When it comes to a decision, someone or some group makes an answer.
Often, monarchists from /liberty/ only understand monarchy as an economic utility, or a safeguard of their rights. They often forget the fruitfulness of the monarchy, as the safeguard of society and tradition. As the original form of leadership, monarchy is not only economically useful for the safety and stability of a nation, but also the identity and heritage. If anyone only advocates for monarchy to defend their private property, and nothing else, it makes communism look plausible. But history is beyond economics, the movement of classes is nothing compared to the truth behind the human condition. The human condition is timeless and strives for an identity and a culture. H
Historical materialism subjects history to economic classes. Marxists believe capitalism and dialectical materialism has defined this century. The truth is ideology is tearing people apart. History defines a people, but their economic class is meaningless compared to their heritage, race, and religion. History is more than class struggle. Social hierarchy and tradition might seem like safeguards for the bourgeoisie, but they are safeguards for an entire people.
Social contract theory and the Enlightenment are more important for the monarchist to study than modern ideology. The root of these thoughts are often tied to thinkers like Rousseau. Even further back to the Classical Age, there are thinkers who inspired the Enlightenment. The problem with the Enlightenment isn't necessarily with the modern world. Modernism can be repaired, fixed, and restored. Only the desire for revolution and dismantling society like an experiment. Society isn't a source of inequity rather people themselves are, and whatever impacts their behavior. Often the lefties are keen to despise society because they feel this way.
Often the answer is their social responsibility and need for social cohesion. This is what makes a society whole, and often they seek their own self-identity in this process. As Hobbes said, people seek a form of honor. Ideology has taken this desire and corrupted it, making people into an -ism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2338
>mad monarchist
Slapping 18th century quotes on an anime macro is a revolutionary act. Prove me wrong. Protip: You cant
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2340
>>2338
No, it is reactionary.
Anime is a reactionary artform.
Only high-ranking spergs will understand this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2343
>>2327
*a note on Kaiser image*
This resembles a strong collusion between both political theories, Divine Right and social contract. If you glance at this image and recognize the hats, signalling social consent, and the divine thunder and bright aura (representing a divine willpower), it is understood both resemble a social consent and a grasp of power.
Most modern monarchies were colliding with the ideals of the modern state, nationalism, and the honorable ideals of a monarchy, patriarchalism. Since the English Civil War, the concept of rights progressed throughout history and the role a government must play within a society. It is self-evident that the English Civil War ended with a dead sovereign, whose mind and thoughts were all over his right to be king. Understandably, the notion of rights were lost. The King proved the notion as a defender of rights when King Charles I became a martyr. To this very day, as forces of the republic trample over the dignity of their subjects, the idea of rights conflicts with the notion of a constitution, back to the authoritarian government of a monarchy.
Will there be a resolution between the past and the present? If the world understands the injustice, and the bloodshed, perhaps the forces of secular parliament will understand liberty better. Despite abhorring rights on a fundamental level, these governments are trying to stand for the rights of the individual, yet won't sacrifice their power and deign their authority… for the design of a political construct – the constitution. When it is understood that a sovereign upholds justice, and rights are intrinsically connected with a higher willpower and relate to an authority that defends those rights, that will be an answer to the question of freedom and human rights.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2344
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2346
>>2343
>liberty
>constitution
>freedom
>rights
>anglos
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2347
>>2346
This isn't an appeal to constitutionalism.
It is the hypocrisy of parliament.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2375
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2377
>MONARCHY DOESN'T ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS, lolbergs.
Yeah it kinda does and antisemites should leave
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2378
>>2377
The holocaust never happened lol
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2381
>>2377
I never said it didn't, but monarchy has stronger values.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2387
My points are…
#1: Men seek HONOR & self-profit, and this is a kind of despotism. The most benevolent form of honor is honoring your family. This is what makes monarchy socially compatible more than a republic, because it uplifts the best of man. Monarchy exists as a shared heritage between the nation and the royal family, accounting for history that defines a people.
#2: JUSTICE is what upholds rights, not merely a constitution. It takes a sovereign will to be just rather an a collective of people. Every monarch has the duty to regard the justice of his kingdom, as Frederick the Great once said.
#3: All sovereignty comes from authority, which in turn comes from a higher power. Social contract theory and popular consent might be applicable, but only in the instance of consenting to obey more than not.
#4: The state exists for the family, not the family for the state. This is backed up by Patriarchia, which asserts the first forms of leadership were patriarchs of families.
#5: Rather than focus on economic utilities/rights, /monarchy/ should remember the right of fatherhood and inheritance within the family; /monarchy/ should see a shared heritage between the monarchy and the sovereignty of a nation, and the people. Generations inherit the future. Despite saying that monarchy only exists to protect property rights, monarchy fulfills property rights. The problem is communists will always detest monarchy from this perspective, and it is important to prove them wrong.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2403
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2426
>>2387
>King Gustav surrounded by fucking emoji.
>>>/suicide/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2427
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2443
>>2326
>MONARCHY DOESN'T ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS
And that's why the redcoats lost.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2444
>>2443
>make the ancient point about honor, the oldest value of civilization
>heritage, the history a people share and the legacy of a household
>justice, being uphold in court and by sovereign will; intrinsic rights inherently only matter by the force that defends them.
>the importance of family/blood over civics & ideology
>the right of inheritance and fatherhood, the most fundamental rights to manhood…
…
>property rights, the natural right of a person to produce and build their reputation
None of these things are bad things. Yet, if it were to come down to it, property rights would be meaningless without the things mentioned above. Yes, a republican government might maintain those things, but a monarchy does them better.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2447
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2448
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2450
REMINDER
LIBERTY WEARS A CROWN
MONARCHY IS THE TRUE FRIEND OF LIBERTY
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2454
>>2443
actually redcoats lost because the french and spanish cockblocked our navy
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2478
>>2454
They owe a lot to the Kingdom of France.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2495
Read Joseph de Maistre.
This book has the best response to Rousseau and the disciples of Rousseau who challenge the idea of civilization.
The reason we have the modern republic is because of a falsehood. They observe the State of Nature, from the observation of native tribes in the New World, and they conflate their observations with their idealism. This folly is reinforced with the idea "we wuz primitives n shit" and lead to artificial, illegitimate states we know today from the French Revolution.
Maistre makes the point why we have hierarchy and attacks the notion of a State of Nature, saying – "The State of Nature wasn't meant for mankind." In these two pictures, thieves attack a wealthier man and take apart his wealth. When they greedily begin taking it, they cry, "NO FAIR, IT MUST BE EQUAL". The next part Joseph de Maistre explains why government and hierarchy exist.
http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Joseph%20de%20Maistre/228540273-Joseph-de-Maistre-Against-Rousseau-On-the-State-of-Nature-and-On-the-Sovereignty-of-the-People.pdf
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2546
It comes to a shared heritage, the very people who walk and inherit a land, to dismantle their nation for private property. This is what libertarianism has leads us. Thanks social contract theory and republicanism, you've done us a service.
Since the discovery of the New World, the Enlightenment examined the tribes of native America and thought this insight enough for the Western world & to the state of nature theory of Rousseau. This modern political doctrine is tribal, and they are the true political animals.
Remember that BLOOD is thicker than WATER Heritage and livelihood, history and tradition, will weigh more than your ideals. The best achievement political idealism has brought is farts in the wind, because ideals brought into our world are like thoughts; remembered and forgotten.
Property and rights are devoid of purpose without authority and before you can truly have authority you need a code of honor. Honor is what builds institutions and disciplines men. A right is what is defended in court and by justice. Justice is what is upheld in court.
Sovereignty is the source of justice.
Authority has always been the right of sovereignty I suppose monarchy is the better authority because it understands honor, exists from the perspective of a family, and it isn't imposed but rather is inherited Justice, however, is always imposed because it is the law of the land.
So, family and your blood has always been better than your property because property exists under this very prospect. Without this code of honor and this prospect of a family, the property you have is useless to you as an individual.
Property has always been the means to produce and build your reputation. Without property, the family cannot have a true heritage, but without a family, property is devoid of a future. Therefore, this state owes itself to a heritage and honor.
For this reason, it is monarchy that fulfills property rights and it isn't that it merely exists for property.
The biggest problem today is the corruption and ignorance of honor. People became political animals and become socialists, anarchists, and any other breed of partisan, thinking of their prestige and honor, but forget who they truly are. This freedom has left behind responsibility.
Freedom is good and all, but freedom without responsibility is detrimental to a society. Think of the nasty politicians when I speak on behalf of this, who blame others and use sovereignty of the people/monarch as a shield.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2548
>>2326
>MONARCHY DOESN'T ONLY EXIST TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS, lolbergs.
Originally, it probably did. Either the monarch had to protect his subjects, or he was a spiritual leader, or he was leading them on raids. He could also have been just the patriarch of a tribe or clan, without any actually designated function.
>All governments have an arbitrary motive to respect their subjects.
Why is that motive arbitrary?
>Monarchy is different from other governments. A parliament can also claim to represent a shared interest in protecting private property rights. A totalitarian communist regime can claim to share the economic interests of the proletariat. These economic interests are all based on the ideals of a social contract. While social contract theory isn't inherently anti-monarchy, it has been the will of radicals to denounce the purpose of monarchy through social contract theory; in short, they are political animals who only care about their self-conceit and economic gain.
Social contract theory is shit, no one here would dispute that, I think. To this:
>These economic interests are all based on the ideals of a social contract.
No, they aren't. You can have a social contract without focusing on economic interests, like with Rousseau, who was more interested in the brotherly friendship between all citizens. Likewise, you can ask that the state only demand property rights and do nothing more, even though you believe in an absolute monarch ordained by God. You will enter no contradiction.
>Monarchy is a shared heritage. A shared national identity. History defines a people. Monarchy is a government of authority, based on hereditary rights, the foundational model being the family. The monarchy is just a royal family. This is simple, yet it means everything: monarchy is the government of the people, because it uplifts the true bond of the people. Every proletariat works for his family. Every property right is meaningful under the prospect of future gain, often the prospect of having a marriage or future children. Every household stands for their honor, which corresponds to the AUTHORITY of the father.
>Too many monarchists see monarchy through the lenses of a political animal. They don't understand the nature of monarchy. How does monarchy inevitably fix itself? Through hereditary succession, or the authority of the crown, known as sovereignty. This transgression represents not only the honorable succession of ordinary households, and the father's right, but also the world's destiny.
That is fair enough. Indeed, the monarch should be a father figure to his nation. Here, I pretty much fully agree with you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2549
>>2326
>Think of it like the classical Troy and the tale of the Aeneid. It was their destiny that moved them. All governments, under a Divine Will, are taken through their destines, and monarchy is the only government that understands this concept. The Divine Right of Kings is a similar notion, often misunderstood: every government exists under heavenly grace, even the worst of governments, but monarchy recognizes their destiny.
You cannot tell me that a massive chimpout by failed intellectuals and embittered army officers could have granted Lenin a divine mandate. And once the Soviets had this mandate, they kept it after starving millions of farmers and workers to death and after razing hundreds of churches to the ground? That is an absurdity. If you want to believe in a government not bound by property rights, at least make a distinction between legitimate governments and godless shit like the USSR, the Khmer Rouge, the Cromwellian Regime, or Democratic China.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2550
>>2326
Okay, I wanted to go further, but nevermind that. Here's where I lost it:
>>2327
>This is more than ideology. Monarchy is sovereign under the true destiny of mankind.
This reads like the fucking myth of the twentieth century, with some gratitious mentions of God thrown in.
Possibly worse, you have nothing to show for your at times radical rhetoric. You concede to every government a divine mandate, and you take no stance at all on religion.
>>2331
Also, fucking anime. Seriously?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2551
>>2548
>Why is this motive arbitrary
Because he has property and is responsible for it. The monarch is responsible to God and owes his property to it. Property in itself is what brought the authority of monarchy, you're right, but property existed for the family and its individual heritage.
>>2549
>you cannot tell me they granted him a divine mandate
God simply allowed it. Monarchs rule by grace. Their relationship with God is that they receive power, and they simply recognize the power and acknowledge they are responsible for it. Communists do not see this authority. Their choices with this power is theirs, but God is their witness. They are boundless and irresponsible because they hate property and they hate authority. Nonetheless, despite their anti-authoritarianism, they still use authority.
I wouldn't call it a divine mandate as much as simply the way it is.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2552
>>2551
Before you come to the conclusion that the king owns God, you need to remember God is the king of kings. God ultimately is responsible for them and there will be justice.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2553
People are too quick to rant about freedom, property, and bashing social contract theory before they think about the origin of the individual and society. Property exists as a means of producing and building a reputation, but it primarily exists for the honor, heritage, and tradition of the family. Without this family, the family estate is worthless because it builds upon nothing and nobody owns it. When someone owns property, it becomes worthwhile to the owner who must be responsible for the property they own. To be responsible for the property they own, they rely on authority because responsibility is connected to justice and authority allows justice.
I'm not even wholeheartedly defending social contract theory. I'm very ambivalent towards it.
>>2548
The economic interests that the radicals propose are based on social contract theory. It isn't that economic interests don't pre-exist these things, but they use the social contract theory to reinforce their own interests over the rest of society.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2554
The reason don't have to take a stance on all other religions is because two reasons. #1. According to Christian theology, God allowed power to even pagan monarchies. #2. Pagan monarchies are also deeply spiritual and religious, so I simply give a pan-monarchist explanation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2555
Hierarchy exists because of responsibility. It is why a peasant has lower status than a lord and a lord has lower status than a king. It is true that society is the source of inequality – family is the source of the individual and society. This could be why God gave the commandment to honor your parents. Your parents are simply responsible for you until you're an adult and can make your own family. Monarchy defends this right of manhood with its very structure and sovereignty. I'm not bashing property, but I'm bashing the lack of concern about the family which the property exists for.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2556
Most republicans disregard the family's role in this and uplift property. This is what allowed them to send away royal families and make their property into a public office. That's the danger I'm concerned about here.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2557
They take away the king's responsibility which was his property and his Crown. They give it to the constitution to defend their rights, ultimately separating the sovereign (who was the defender of rights) from his rightful inheritance.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2558
The monarchy, imo, is the best friend of your liberty, despite the worst that can come out of it.There is no perfect infallible government because that is the consequence of responsibility that made man fallible. This allows the best and worst of man. This is why we need loyalty, but most of all hope.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2559
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2560
For all I know, God could have permitted the Bolsheviks to take power so he could punish them. But I don't know, it's absolutely a mystery to me.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2575
>I want an inbreed ruler
Fuck off monarchy should stay dead and locked away in a coffin
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2580
TL;DR
We wants communists to prove us right.
>>2575
fugg u
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2590
>>2580
Monarchism is inbreeding prove me wrong, like an actual argument.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2592
>>2590
*monarchy is inbreeding is actually a claim and not an argument;
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2593
>>2592
Yours wasn't much of an argument to begin with. Just wild banter.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2594
Inbreeding happened in the past.
What do I say?
Meh. It's not what it was seen today, given royals are so often marrying people of a lesser status. If it becomes a problem, there will be measures against it. It becomes a risk over time. I really don't know what to say other than it has happened but not so often as you will think.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2662
>>2327
>unironically being a monarchist
>"doesn't gravitate towards any spook"
Constanza.png
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.