/monarchy/ -Neo-Absolutism

Name
Email
Subject	REC STOP
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki	Show oekaki applet (replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf Max filesize is16 MB. Max image dimensions are15000 x15000. You may upload4 per post.

File: dfb11aaa1b23eca⋯.jpg (261.56 KB,494x597,494:597,Charlemagne.jpg)

File: 88cea49f97a2a54⋯.png (26.46 KB,716x270,358:135,Filmer.PNG)

Neo-Absolutism Peasant 06/16/18 (Sat) 23:22:35 No.3132

I haven't seen a discussion thread about anything regarding The Journal of Neoabsolutism, so I'll get one started.

>What is Neoabsolutism?

I don't know what distinguishes it from regular absolutism other than this being new and absolutism being old, however there is most likely a definition on the two websites that the ideas come from. The two wordpresses where the term "neo-absolutism" comes from are The Journal of Neoabsolutism (https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/) and the earlier wordpress which preceded it, Reactionaryfuture (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/).

This thread will be for the discussion of the ideas on these two sites, a good place to start is the "Absolutist and Anarchistic Ontology" (https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/absolutist-and-anarchistic-ontology/). This section of the site is a good place to start for any new monarchist and will get them to stop thinking like republicans and more like monarchists.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/17/18 (Sun) 02:34:35 No.3133

>neo-anything

Nope.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/17/18 (Sun) 02:50:25 No.3134

>>3133

You're voluntarily holding yourself back, there's a great amount of information here that I don't see in too many other places.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Aristocrat 06/21/18 (Thu) 07:47:06 No.3143

>>3133

This tbh. Why prefix something old and traditional with "neo-"?

>>3132

>Absolutism

Why do so many monarchists flock to absolutism? That wasn't the predominant form of government for most of history, nor was it the most successful one. In fact, it was absolutism that made democracy possible. Democracy requires a central authority in which all powers of state are vested, it cannot be established when the king rules over his vassals who rule over their vassals who rule over theirs…

Not to mention, absolutism was never pure authoritarianism. Not in practice, we all know that hopefully, but also not in theory. That no one could enforce the right conduct of the king didn't mean he had no obligation to act rightly, or even that his power wasn't inherently bound by reason and justice. Hence, the royal advisors had a duty to the king to advise him right and just conduct so he could rule not as a tyrant, but a god-given king. That's hard to grasp from the standpoint of modern political theory, which fetishizes procedural rules and has no place for extralegal morality or divine justice.

>Charlemagne

Was not absolutistic, not by a long stretch.

>Robert Filmer

And why does everybody love him so much? His argument was based on faulty exegesis and he wrote at a time when monarchy was in a bad place.

From one of your links:

>An anarchistic ontology is an intellectual system which takes the individual as anterior to society

In a sense, methodological individualism and all that.

>and which rejects the formative and definitive role of authority.

No. No one rejects that authority plays a big role in how society functions, but what everyone with the right mind should reject is that a political authority can transform and finetune a society according to its whims. We, of all people, should reject such positivist ideas.

>Anarchistic ontologies necessarily have to assume a great deal of conditions to which there have been no proofs supplied

Try doing sociology without methodological individualism. A society is composed of individuals, there is no way around it, so to fully understand society, you must understand how individuals interact. This is distinct from saying that society itself is a myth, or that individuals are somehow completely independent from society, or that social bonds don't matter. It's proper methodology, it doesn't even have that many implications.

>such as the potential for spontaneous order that allows for a society without governance, and all other manner of fictions.

How are those fictions? We see spontaneous orders arising constantly, to call them fictitious is ideologically motivated, willful blindness. We even have examples of societies that weren't centrally governed, like Pennsylvania in its early years or the Icelandic Commonwealth. Even feudalism would strike a modern person as anarchic, as there simply was no means to exercise control over a whole society. There isn't today, either, but more than there used to be, what with public schools and a widespread and stable police force, and there being only one authority and not several competing ones (local lord, king, Church…).

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Aristocrat 06/21/18 (Thu) 08:05:16 No.3144

>>3143

I searched the text for references to spontaneous order, and found this:

>All monarchs, or rulers, issue forth from the authority of the ruler of the society in question or come from external authority. The simplicity of this concept is deceptive. What is being said is that even new rulers that arrive by revolution are either fathered by the authority being overthrown or were fathered by external authority. There is no room for any conception of spontaneous order at all here, and this is exactly the mechanism outlined by Jouvenel. The implication of such a model is that when we consider any form of social and political upheaval that appears to be spontaneous, we should immediately seek to locate a sponsoring hand in the affair, and not assume it is due to spontaneous causes which don’t exist. One such clear example of this process is provided by the mother of all parliaments, the English Parliament.

That's not at all relevant to what libertarians mean with a spontaneous order. If all government must be put in place by someone, then that says nothing about whether order cannot arise spontaneously in other spheres of public life. Clearly, it can. The entire price structure of our global economy is a spontaneous order. The current form of the market is a spontaneous order, in that there is no mastermind behind it, just individuals doing their own thing with no specific form of the market as their collective endgoal. The law, likewise, is to some extent a spontaneous order, influenced by customs as it is. In all this, of course, people act, and this creates these spontaneous orders, but that doesn't make them planned. They are called spontaneous because no one planned them. Even the political order is to a great extent a spontaneous order. No one can overlook our current mess of competing and cooperating agencies, their personal intertwinements with each other and the private sector, and so on. Entire agencies, I would argue, only exist because nobody bothered to remove them. The government is full of vestiges, yet obviously, no one planned it to be that way. In this sense, the government, too, is a spontaneous order. And, yes, revolutions are also often spontaneous orders, not because no one is in charge of them or sponsored them, but rather in that no one can finetune them and control the everyday conduct of their members. There is a guiding hand above them, usually, but no marionettist. You can assert your force and authority against social forces, but you cannot take them over.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/21/18 (Thu) 09:28:47 No.3145

File: 133fe79976eb733⋯.jpg (167.63 KB,848x1200,53:75,Jose Antonio Primo Rivera ….jpg)

>>3143

>anarchism

Why do so many autists flock to this ideology so much? It's sheer ideology, pinned with tribal antics about overthrowing the state and overwhelmingly trusting your fellow man. Anarcho- anything is ridiculous to me. Criticize absolutists all you want, and you may also attempt to re-define what absolutism stands for. It doesn't begin with King Louis XIV for most of us. Absolutism is acknowledging a king's right to authority over restrictions like a constitutional or parliamentary system. The feudal system is absolute and anarchists don't have a place lecturing absolutists on what is modern. It sounds like another "more holier than thou" language, and it's silly coming from an anarchist to criticize everyone for being too modern. Different varieties and doctrines centering around absolutism reinforce modern doctrine, like Hobbes, but I wouldn't paint them all in a broad brush.

>Sir Robert Filmer

Understood very well the foundational aspects on monarchy and stood apart from secular defenders of monarchy like Hobbes. Started off his book explaining that the first kings were fathers of families. A good point to emphasize which stretches out what a monarchy is. Also dealt with social contract theory and the root of democratic thought.

>John Locke

Most of his followers are hypocrites, so I suppose we shouldn't really listen to him. Why listen to anyone?

>Democracy

Is a silly ideology and is hardly pragmatic.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/21/18 (Thu) 19:35:23 No.3146

File: ae69911bb579c10⋯.jpg (3.11 MB,2916x4320,27:40,Alexander_III_of_Russia's_….jpg)

1) Sovereignty is conserved. Someone always rules.

1A) Rule by protocol, or formula, is fraud and sham.

1B) Imperium in Imperio is a solecism. (unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/03/divine-right-monarchy-for-modern.html)

1B1) Imperium in imperio has been the main driver behind culture in the west, with the course of liberlism and all associated intellectual traditions being explainable as a result of selection (Both positive and negative) by power in accordance with power needs.

1C) What occurs and does not occur within a sovereigns territory is allowed or disallowed by the sovereign. Sovereignty is conserved.

2) Power which is unsecure is satanic.

2A) Unsecure power is power which lacks formalism.

2B) Unsecure power is power with no potential to act in accordance with reason, and no incentive to act in a virtuous manner. Unsecure power follows its own logic, which is automatic destruction of society. For more on this see this post (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/protocol-governance/)

2C) The current Liberal-Democratic system is unsecure power which is not formalised. It is a contingent tragedy which arose from power dynamics within Western Europe. For more on this, see these posts(https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/de-jouvenel-and-the-english-monarchy/) and(https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/on-reading-de-jouvenel/) and (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/jouvenel-and-left-and-right/).

3) Reactionary governance is governance in accordance with classical reason and judgement, this marks it out as utterly hostile to modern philosophy, which can be defined as everything post-Descartes.

3A) Formalised governance is rule by judgement, as formalism is the acceptance of the conservation of sovereignty.

3B) Rule by judgement is rule by persons with judgement.

3C) Set rules have their place, but are subsumed under human judgement. For more on this area in relation to the necessary ethical framework for a formalised reactionary political structure, see the following posts – (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/ethics-of-excellence/) and (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ethics-and-reaction/

4) Reaction’s underlying structure is non-deterministic.

4A) Governance by human reason is rejection of deterministic and reductionist philosophy. Deterministic philosophy is the bed rock of leftism and democratic rightism, in short, it is the bedrock of modernity.

5) Governance is at all times the province of the elite within society.

5A) The level of agency of those within society is linked to their biological and physical capability, and their ethical development.

5B) Reactionary political theory is fundamentally based on the acknowledgement of human society as comprised of people of varying degrees of development and capability and as such is incompatible with modern political theory. See this post for further analysis (https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/ethics-and-reaction/) which calls for a greater engagement with virtue ethics and the work of McIntyre.

5C) Men are born into traditions which comprise the context of his existence. This can be suppressed and mutilated through education, but it is ingrained in the biology of the person.

5D) Reactionary political theory can be said to be so far outside of the modern framework, that there are no existing critiques of it. Such claims as racism, sexism or other such Liberal only applicable terms are irrelevant on a deep level.

6) Leftism is anarchy, reaction is order. The right in democracy is an order seeking process that is trapped in the paradox of trying to order anarchy – it is systematically flawed.

6A) Order is rule by formalised governance using judgement.

6B) Achievement of order is only possible in one action. You cannot push back anarchy to a point of order part by part. (http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/11/14/a-letter-to-france/)

6C) The only conceivable means to correction for the current system is a complete removal of the current Liberal Democratic system and a restart. This can be achieved through the true election (unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/03/true-election-practical-option-for-real.html) the auto-coup (unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/09/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html) and the reboot (unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/secession-liberty-and-dictatorship.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.

Peasant 06/21/18 (Thu) 19:36:29 No.3147

File: 60d74890414ae11⋯.jpg (736.99 KB,1287x1689,429:563,Portrair_of_Thomas_Carlyle.jpg)

>>3146

The first point for the theory is that any society which is systematically turned against itself, is one in which chaos will take hold. To place segments of society in the situation in which engaging in conflict with others in society is of benefit to them is recipe for suicide. The thinking of republicans and the avocation of Imperium in imperio is utterly disastrous and based on basic stupidity which has played out over, and over, and over again. Away with it. If you can’t not deal with this, then I don’t care, you are not reactionary in any way shape or form. You have renounced a state.

Following on from this is the realisation that there is a reality external to the political unit which is comprised of events and eventualities that can never be collected and accounted for within a constitution. The concept is preposterous. All limited governance and all constitutionalisms are shams and frauds.

Thirdly, Sovereignty is conserved. This means that at all times, there is always a person or institution which is de facto sovereign. There is no sovereign rule of law, and as such, everything that occurs within the sovereign’s domain is their responsibility through either action or deliberate non-action. Hiding behind shams and frauds, and passing off responsibility to protocols and formulas is appallingly childish behaviour, but it is a signature of anglo political theory based on fantasy.

Fourthly, if sovereignty is conserved, then acknowledging this sovereignty and placing the requisite responsibility and freedom of action with this sovereign so they can engage their judgement in matters is formalism. In non-formal governance, the sovereign in un-secure and unable to engage judgement and multi-direction decision making potentials – they are trapped, and must continue serving the leftward trend or be replaced.

Fifthly, at the basis of all political theory of any value is a genuine understanding of what humans are, and it subsequently deciphers theory accommodating this. All modern political theory has this absolutely backwards, especially liberalism which has formulated a human actor which has no connection to reality, and then sought to bring this human into existence. This has no place in reactionary thought. Humans are hierarchical social creatures that mimic others and can only reach their full flourishing within political entities with ordered goods. The state must be ethical and must direct the population.

Sixth, Society as such, and any functioning state, is united in direction and purpose and must not, and cannot have internal sections of it which have incentives which do not align with the state, and power which threatens the state. Such things are absurd and represent a direct renunciation of the state and a challenge to the state. All ethics, and all actions by actors within the state must be conducted with mind to not only other sub-state actors, but also the state itself. This formally renounces all forms of anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, liberalism, republicanism. Begone with this idiocy.

In conclusion, above all, Liberalism must be removed in total. Not one shred of this cancer can be allowed to remain at all. Any claim that liberalism has been of any value to mankind is pure propaganda and delusion. The claim that the spread of liberty is an unalloyed good is beyond psychotic, and rests on the assertion that somehow political organisation has halted technological development, when evidence shows this to be unsupported. Liberty for a Newton, a Shakespeare or a Vermeer is liberty for them to become what they were capable of – and they had this liberty. Liberty for a criminal, a rapist and a scoundrel is liberty for them to become what they are capable of – and this is all that liberal liberty gives us. Liberalism is acid, it is cancer, it is the most hideous disaster to befall mankind and until it is stopped completely, the disaster will continue its work. Enough of these abstract and contextless values such as liberty, equality and freedom. Enough of the fraud.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/21/18 (Thu) 19:48:14 No.3148

>>3147

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/

This site should be required reading for any reactionary. Now some of my favorite posts.

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/locke-versus-filmer-or-why-you-are-all-communists/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/liberty-versus-licence/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/materialism-and-determinism/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/03/05/the-iron-law-of-rebellious-tools/

Read the iron law post in particular.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/23/18 (Sat) 23:03:05 No.3153

>>3132

Neo-absolutism describes the period after the 1848 revolution in which constitutions were abolished and the monarch ruled freely again, namely Franz-Josef in Austria. The term is already taking and autistic e niggers cannot claim it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 06/26/18 (Tue) 22:33:25 No.3158

>>3148

Great recommendations, I enjoyed the Iron Law the best.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 07/08/18 (Sun) 18:08:22 No.3179

File: 8c892111f45cb21⋯.jpg (137.29 KB,593x1024,593:1024,King_Charles_I_after_origi….jpg)

>>3158

Thank you! I also have more.

>>3148

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/foundations/

dodd report

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/4579/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/the-cathedral-enforces-anarcho-capitalism/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/reactionary-restoration-organisation-rro-blueprint/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/platform-building/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/true-reaction/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/reactionary-property/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/two-models-of-goverance/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/absolute-monarchy-the-future/

https://reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/the-eastern-europe-dominated-future-of-europe/

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 09/01/18 (Sat) 00:38:56 No.3405

File: dc6455abf11c811⋯.png (176.81 KB,300x205,60:41,1437501206102.png)

Aristotelian Absolutism: Reinforces the ideals of an aristocracy (unequal members of a society) among different groups. The monarchy plays the role of separating and distinguishing the different levels, being the capstone of the social character. The monarch resembles a superior power and superior authority from within the hierarchy. (Aristotle himself tutored Alexander the Great).

Deistic Absolutism: Monarch takes the role of a deity and inherits the power. The ritualistic elements of this monarchy shows the monarch as impersonating a deity or taking upon a relationship with a deity (sometimes as ritualistic marriage). In certain instances, the monarch is the deity. Most often when the monarch resembles the deity, the monarch takes upon the paternal role of that figure (such as Zeus or Odin).

Monotheistic/Divine Right Absolutism: The monarch receives power from the central God of the Universe. Balances on the ideal of sovereignty, the combination of justice and nation together within the monarchy. Sovereign inherits the right to hold power. Often the power passes from monarch to monarch depending on how God favors them. The relationship between the monarchy and the Church also impacts this form of monarchy. (Example: Patriarchal doctrine of Robert Filmer, Bishop Jacques Bossuet's absolutism; Maistre follows Aristotelian absolutism and fancies Hobbes, making a concord between social consent and divine right by making it into a hierarchy of power).

Hobbesian Absolutism: Members of society are equal, but this is the central form of conflict within that society. The monarch takes and reforms a system of sovereign justice and makes different forms of status (what each member is responsible for). This allows people to take unequal roles in an equal society to resolve this source of conflict. People unanimously consent to obey and enter an authoritative sovereign body of justice. This is built up through man's inherent desire for honor (as in honoring your father/mother, as in praise and prestige, and as in doing virtuous deeds) mixed with self-interest.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 11/08/18 (Thu) 20:07:40 No.4290

File: 1f66718cc8b7dba⋯.png (1.12 MB,1214x897,1214:897,1f66718cc8b7dba04291ed9c09….png)

This board is full of the non-absolute variety. We have (A. anarchists. (B. constitutionalists. (C. democrats. I am surprised to find that an absolute monarchy is least popular on this board lately.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 11/08/18 (Thu) 20:26:07 No.4291

File: 8de98a85b439047⋯.jpg (43.97 KB,494x453,494:453,8878.jpg)

>>3143

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 11/08/18 (Thu) 21:04:00 No.4292

Anarchists have a strawman about what absolutism is. It is unfettered sovereignty of a crown from a constitution or assembly. The feudal perspective is absolutist for the 'Divine Right of Kings'. It has nothing to do with being 'statist' or 'totalitarian' as it seems. The usual problem is the anarchists perceive absolutism as social contract theory. This isn't the case for all absolutists. This is the Hobbesian political philosophy. The feudal concept of vassalship actually persists in the absolute monarchy rather than what anarchists would believe. It is all about autocracy and people rather than laws and ideals.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 11/08/18 (Thu) 21:15:53 No.4294

File: 3e1fc53a0ac8d7b⋯.jpg (84.8 KB,212x315,212:315,Unbeliefandrevolution__441….jpg)

File: ff47b11cf8a2411⋯.pdf (3.22 MB,UnbeliefinReligionandPolit….pdf)

I recommend reading this.

When you only look at things from an economic pov, like feudalism, and receive anarchism as an economic structure… the way monarchy is understood is much different. Unbelief and Revolution approaches the loss of 'Dei Gratia' monarchy and the decline. Unbelief and Revolution is from a Reformist view. It deals with political philosophies and revolutions. The absolutist pov is not about big gubmit or being totalitarian. This is a misunderstanding. You can point to King Louis XIV and 'I am the State'. This is perhaps what they're poking at. It isn't about social engineering, though. Frankly, the monarchy is a form of government. It is not an anarchy. It is not an economic pov.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Peasant 11/08/18 (Thu) 21:26:34 No.4295

File: 1dae221bbbe8934⋯.jpg (59.63 KB,575x431,575:431,UnR-01.jpg)

File: 762bacf17ffcbd1⋯.jpg (91.75 KB,582x677,582:677,UnR-02.jpg)

>pic related from 'Unbelief and Revolution'

This explains what I mean.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.