/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>7990

It's a good tool to bash in the heads of retarded heretics republicans.

>>7991

The same goes for constitutional monarchy, if any constitutional monarchists feel left out. Hereditary monarch maintains an innate spirit of the system found in the person for those laws~ you seek to preserve. The hereditary principle works both ways, folks. Now, that isn't to say there is no such thing as an heir that brings changes. It does happen. Everything in this world is subject to gradual changes, but hereditary monarchy is like a capsule. That also isn't to deny that the soil and way the monarch is raised, along with the institutions that shape character, don't matter either because it can happen to change the monarch.

The rule is 'like father, like son' and it was always an IMPORTANT trait in hereditary monarchy that the history and heritage of the dynasty was a BIG influence in the reign. That means, being like their father/grandfather. Copying them. There are monarchs who've done this. This goes for a good legacy and a bad legacy; this goes for a good system and bad system; it preserves in the capsule of hereditary youth.

There is always change in a few heirs, btw, but an innovation works with its environment and circumstances. A hereditary monarchy can be flexible, and it can change. You should be patient with the hereditary monarchy, even if you're discontent with the status quo. Wait for what God grants from the offspring of nations and for every generation from your average monarch to the ruling dynasty above. If you have hope for a gracious heir to innovate, you're in the correct mindset even if you disagree.

My opinion is that for a hereditary monarchy, tear down the world around the monarch to establish institutional change. Part of the reason things are as bad as they are now is because our basic institutions suck. I don't think you have to get rid of the monarchs, per say, change the institutions surrounding them.

Every good plant needs good soil.

This constitutional monarch here always looked to his great grandfather and ancestors. Say what you will negative, but a great primary example of a monarch who views his family heritage as guidance.

yes, and an example of innovation; different from his father a bit

On the topic of realism and real life

And effective aestheticfag propaganda for monarchs, btw!

You need to realize is that the real life is boring and kinda lame. Few things capture the imagination without an enthusiasm. We live for greater fancy, but reality denies us the grandiose. Is disillusion with real life really a bad thing? Not really. Because our imagination realizes the potential of the real world to become better. Part of the joy of living is being contained in the conscious imagination while living life in the mundane.

TYRANNY IS JUST A WORD FOR MONARCHOMACHISTS

MONARCHY IS THE RULE OF ONE

DON'T LISTEN TO MONARCHOMACHISTS

Robert Filmer dissecting the tyrannophobia business.

REALIZING THIS WORLD SOMETIMES NEEDS TYRANNY

IS

THE ULTIMATE PURPLEPILL

>>8013

> depending on how you look at it, tyranny isn't even exclusive to humanity. The natural world itself is tyrannical

What horrible revelation is this?

MAURRAS ON DICTATORSHIP VS MONARCHY

In addition this type of dictator is responsible only for a certain length of time–at maximum for the duration of his life. If he avoids errors and risks of a too direct and too immediate a nature, there is nothing to prevent him from compromising, mortgaging or sacrificing the future of the country. This is the danger of personal dictatorship. And this is why we demand sovereign power not for one man, not for a whole people, but for one family which represents the people and itself represented by one man. We hope that no one will reply with any nonsense about the hazard of birth. As if elections contained no hazard! As if these were not worse than the first! A dauphin is brought up in preparation for the throne; there is no special upbringing for presidential candidates. Besides which, the natural hazards of hereditary have never, in any country, nor even is the most primitive tribes, placed upon the throne a succession of mediocrities remotely comparable to the series: Carnot, Perier, Faure, Loubet. The presidential honour was nevertheless conferred upon these four abysmal nonentities by the 'choice' of both Houses, meeting in solemn Congress.

The system of hereditary monarchy assumes, upon the basis of natural feelings of consideration for the family's future (which will be there nine times out of ten, even if once its lacking), that the head of state will not gamble idly away the future of his dynasty and that in all of his plans he will feel obliged to exercise prudence and thought. It is precisely these truly paternal qualities, appropriate to fathers and to heads of families, which have distinguished the House of Capet in its task of representing France. Its principles, applied from one reign to the next….

MAURRAS CONTINUED

The descendants of Hugh Capet all handed down their heritage just as they received it from their predecessors or increased by a province or two.

If then, in order to spare ourselves fruitless and dangerous electoral contests, to forestall the periodic recurrence of political agitation, and finally ensure peace, if, we repeat, it is agreed power must be entrusted to a family, it is obvious that it is to the finest, the oldest and the most illustrious of French families that such an honour must fall. Neither the Bonapartes, however 'glorious' their historic role may have been, nor any other French family, whatever 'services' they have rendered to the nation, can offer guarantees comparable to those of the race of Capet. It is the oldest royal line in Europe, and it belongs to us. Even better, 'It is us.' Its history is our history. The fate of our land everywhere records their name and memory. Just as Ivan the Terrible came to be known as the founding father of Russia, so this dynasty can be called the founding father of France. Without it there is no France. This is an unchangeable statement of fact.

Memories of the Roman Empire created Italian unity. The realities of the Germanic race and tongue, linked to the traditions of Charlemagne and of the Holy Roman Empire, created German unity. The unity of the British stems from their island nature. But the unity of the French, a political achievement, created by the long exercise of the gentlest and the firmest of authoritarian policies, is the result and exclusively the result of a thousand years of unswerving dedication by the House of France. This unity as solid as today it 'seems' spontaneous and natural, is the sole creation of our princely line.

A dynasty that is truly of the earth and of the soil, since it rounded out our land and shaped our country, and yet one for whom one cannot really asset which of the words boldness or wisdom best serves to describe its qualities! The policy of the Hohenzollerns, so disastrous for France, but so advantageous for the whole German people, has itself been but a competent copy and a thoughtful plagiary of the policy of the House of Capet.

>>8191

CONTINUED

Starting from one corner of the country, this popular and warlike dynasty gradually extended its sway to the limits of ancient Gaul. Its traditions are inextricably blended with all of ours. The liberties which a hundred years of Caesarism and anarchy have made us lose are the liberties that our forefathers conquered for us in days gone by under the rule of the House of Capet. This royal line of kings recognized those liberties in countless acts of solemn consecration. Liberty died with royalty. We now herald their twin rebirth…

Pulcherrima rerum, as the Roman said of his own fatherland: we mean the soil of France and its varied riches, the traditions of France, the interests of France, the thought and feeling of France. We think of the houses, of the altars, of the tombs where holy remains lie sleeping. That real France, being what she is and needing kingship, belongs by definition, having been what she was, to to the kingship of the head of the House of France. He, being who he is, matches this need and these traditions. The people are ready to awaken to the same needs and traditions. May all cultivated minds recognize the natural ties of blood between a great nation and a princely line, and at last comprehend this watchword for the future of our nation.

>>8202

>as is the implication that you cannot have democracy in a monarchy.

This is an absolutist thread.

In other words, I don't care.

Note: not all these people are absolutists anyways; Maurras wasn't.

Being on this board is like running into people who've got a giant big stick up their ass everyday. /monarchy/ is Hell. Half the board is streams of puke and tears. Consistently whining and never producing anything.

All with the exception of honorable Cossack poster and a few others like the BO who is nice and complies with requests.

The child is born, and lives in the domestic association, which is the divine foundation of human associations. Families are grouped among themselves in conformity in conformity with the law of their origin, and, assembled in this manner, they form superior groups, which are called classes. The different classes have each their particular functions. Some cultivate the arts of peace, others those of war; some acquire glory. Others administer justice; while others are devoted to industrial pursuits. Out of these natural groups others spontaneously arise, composed of those who seek glory by the same path, those who are devoted to the same industrial avocations, and those who have the same professions. These various groups are arranged in classes, and all these classes, hierarchically arranged among themselves, constitute a state, a vast association, of sufficient amplitude for all. This is the social point of view.

Considered in a political aspect, families are associated into various groups; each group of families constitutes a municipality, and each municipality is, for the families that compose it, a participation in common in the right of worshiping God, administering their own goods, providing nourishment for the living, and burial for the dead. For this reason each municipality has its temple, the symbol of its religious unity.

MAURRAS ON RESTORING A NEW KINGDOM OF FRANCE

To sum up, the citizen, in every sphere where he is competent and directly affected, where he is capable of knowing and therefore judging, is, at the present time, no more than a slave. Royal power will restore to him the sovereignty and freedom of action in this domain which was seized from him illegally, uselessly and to the detriment of the nation's strength.

This is what the king will do for liberties. He will restore them to the citizens. He will be their guarantor, their defender, their policeman. Let us now examine what he will do for authority, once he has chased it out of the internal details of civil life.

*Authority at the top

He will set authority on its feet, define it and use it for purely national objectives.

The French state, which meddles in everything today, even in schooling and the sale of matches, and which, as a result, does everything infinitely badly, distributing non-inflammable matches and hare-brained education, is powerless to fulfill its true function as a state. It has been handed over lock, stock and barrel to the representatives of the legislative. Ministers are nothing but clerks and servants to senators and deputies and devote themselves exclusively to obeying these their masters in order to preserve the portfolios…

…

Today freedom and its dangers are to be found so to speak 'at the top', that is to say in the elaboration of high-level policy on matters which affect the future and the security of the nation. Authority, however, in its most rigorous form has been pointlessly set up 'at the bottom', to deal authoritatively with matters in which discussion, difference of opinion, and the initiative of every citizen would have been not only harmless but positively advantageous; this sovereign and decisive authority has been applied to the minutest of details and of the relationship between individuals and administration.

Not only does the state irritate and pester the French citizen, it inflicts upon him some very insidious comforts. It helps him in situations where he ought to help himself. It weans him from the habit of thought or personal initiative. Thus, thanks to the state, the civic function of the citizen falls into disuse and atrophies. The citizen becomes ignorant, lazy and cowardly. He loses civic sense and civic spirit…

Royal power cannot fail to lead, with firmness and wisdom (taking into account the time and indispensable precautions required for such a task) to the re-establishment in practice of liberties in every sphere where the higher interests of the nation and of the state do not require the exercise of authority.

This is to say:

Families will arrange their own affairs as it seems best to them. They can leave their property to whoever they wish. Fathers who wish to provide succeeding generations of their descendants with hereditary assets that are neither transferable nor distrainable will have entire liberty so to do. Recognized at last as the natural associations that they are, families will be able to acquire rights analogous to those of the citizen, to possess in common an honorary and moral title, just as they can possess a title to property.

Towns and villages (or districts) will, as a result of a judicious series of liberating measures, become the masters of their own affairs to be managed as they think best, assuring their own internal law and order without state intervention, deciding all domestic matters or matters which affect any of their members, and being restrained in the exercise of this honest and reasonable liberty only be the common good and security of the realm…

>>8214

MAURRAS CONTINUED

No minister has the time to study the services he is supposed to direct. It is only by good luck if he knows what they are. And so the poor fellow leaves his head civil servants to decide everything. From time to time, upon the command of some parliamentary group, he pushes them around with ignorant and violent passion. Thus we pass from routine to revolution with no possible happy medium. Neither genuine, stable and personal control, nor dependable tradition. Neither does our administration make any progress: it is only too happy to avoid its own downfall.

For this unstable ministerial direction is, furthermore divided against itself to the point of madness. You do not even achieve unity of view in one minister. He has his political friends to satisfy, his adversaries to placate. Thus parliamentary maneuvers clash with his general policy aims; the latter is totally subordinated to the former. As most ministers are drawn from the shameful class which lives on public funds, just as they exist only by courtesy of the class of their vote-gathering pimps, the resources of the nation are put to the sack. Useless expenditure, electorally inspired, increases daily and the revenue declines for the same reasons. National defence, the industrial and commercial life of the nation, everything is sacrificed to the petty interests of the vote manufacturers…

Bismarck undoubtedly foresaw many of our present misfortunes when he did all he could to dedicate us to the republican system. Bismarck was not ignorant of the fact that the strength of a state presupposes unity of view and the spirit of continuity, cohesion and organization. As a republican regime is synonymous with the absence of a master will and continuity of thought at the center of power, he sensed the extent to which such a regime divides and condemns to perpetual upheaval any people that abandons itself to its tender mercies…

The French elector spends his time giving blank cheques to men he does not know, with no guarantee than the fine shades of meaning written into the election posters upon which the candidates publish their intentions. This system is an incentive, a stimulant, an imperative to the opposition parties (even the honest ones though it applies much more forcibly to the less honest) to provoke the greatest possible number of scandals and disasters in order to bring about as many changes as possible at each new election. In this way party interest replaces public interest. In this way France sinks into decay.

What becomes of a state in all this? It becomes a slave. The slave of parliament. The slave of the parliamentary parties, of electoral ideals. The slave of unforeseen events even, events which under such a regime unleash both panic and opinion changes, hence ministerial changes, changes of direction, events which are precisely those requiring for the public good the maximum possible of firmness, stability and self-control. At the very moment compels the foundation to be shaken; Varron is kicked out at the very moment when, however incompetent or unworthy he may be, he should have received from the state an overwhelming demonstration of confidence. Subject to these multiple forms of slavery within, the French state finds itself similarly enslaved in its external relations. Other states tolerate its apparent independence solely for the purpose of giving it the maximum opportunity to decline, to degenerate and to disintegrate on its own.

>>8215

MORE MAURRAS

Since the undersigned writers are prompted by their knowledge of political necessities which may have escaped the attention of political necessities which may have escaped the attention of their fellow citizens, and since they act as spokesmen and elders of their race, in the full exercise of the rights and duties conferred upon them by the present deplorable state of affairs;

Since they are fully aware of their obligation to minister and to watch over the common good;

Since the common good, precondition of every right, imposes upon all a fundamental obligation towards the national community;

Since the national community, the motherland, the state, are not associations stemming from the personal choice of their members, but the handiwork of nature and necessity;

Since the unity of France, furthermore, is not the product of a certain number of individuals living at one given moment and having in common certain ideas, certain passing fancies, but a certain number of families reaching out from age to age and having in common certain permanent interests: the land to be defended, the community of the race to be assured, a fund of moral and economic capital to be developed;

Since under the republican regime, the fatal absence of all permanent authority threatens and compromises these deep and constant interests which are the generating force of France's strength, of the decisions, ideas and sentiments appropriate to French;

The French citizen will hand over to the surviving branch of the House of Capet, by solemn and irrevocable covenant, the exercise of sovereignty. By this means, authority will be reconstituted at the head of the state. Central power will be freed from the rivalry of parties, assemblies and electoral caprice: the sovereignty will have a free reign. On his own responsibility, in the inseparable interests of his family and his people, the king, as sovereign, will reign and govern. Carefully weighed, legal and responsible, the royal arbitration of both him and his successors, will assure the unity, steadfastness and continuity of aims—always taking into consideration the help of competent persons sitting on committees and in local assemblies.

The part of the nation that works and produces will thus be in permanent touch with the political power. This political power as a specialized institution will be the master of its own special competences. Advice will be afforded to it, but its right to act will be unfettered. The throne's technical councils, these professional associations, can later on form the elements of some new senate; but apart from the fact that senates are historical creation and not improvised, it is perhaps better if the technical councils, which represent particular skills, are normally kept separate from one another so that each may fully exercise its respective authority: if the need arose, they could always be either assembled for some congress, or be drawn upon for the formation of various inter-professional commissions, the deliberations of which would be moderated, initiated and arbitrated by the king, in person or through his representatives.

Any possible encroachment by local assemblies or professional bodies upon the royal prerogative of the sovereign will be made impossible, or at least be quashed with extreme severity, by the sanctions determined by the laws of the kingdom. Similarly any citizen who suffers injury by the subordinate authorities, will be able, as appeal of last resort, to invoke the authority of the prince as supreme arbiter and high judge of his case. His role will be to decide between conflicting opinions, to act as conciliator and moderator between the parties. He will not, however, interfere in their affairs except as a last resort and upon the express appeal of the interested parties, for there will be more important considerations to which he will have to direct his attention.

>>8216

MAURRAS END

The sovereignty will have many advisers but henceforth one single master.

Thus in the new kingdom of France, in conformity with national tradition, will be recounciled that authority and those liberties which are both of equal necessity…

We have republican government and autocratic administration: the public good requires that this paradoxical situation be reversed.

The administration should be republican, because it should serve the public; the government should be autocratic because it has to govern it. What is important to the life of the taxpayer is liberty; what is important to the political life of the nation is authority, the precondition of the spirit of continuity, decision, and responsibility.

The ridiculous republic, one and indivisible, that we know so well, will no longer be the prey of ten thousand invisible, uncontrollable little oligarchs; instead thousands of little republics of every sort, 'domestic' republics like families, 'local' republics like towns and provinces, 'intellectual' and 'professional' republics like associations, will freely administer their own affairs, guaranteed, coordinated, and directed as whole by one sole power which is permanent, that is to say personal and hereditary and an interest in the preservation and development of France.

It is to be noted that such a state, so powerful in its proper function of government, will be extremely feeble from the point of view of acting against the interests of the citizen. Whereas the citizen of the French Republic is left only with his own meagre individual powers to protect him against the mighty republican machine, the citizen of the new kingdom of France will find himself a member of all kinds of strong and free communities (family, town, province, professional organization, etc) which will deploy their strength to protect him from any injustice.

The guarantees made to citizens in the republican system are entirely theoretical. They are, in fact, derived from a theory (the rights of man) which leads to the repudiation of the state's prerogatives. In practice these guarantees entirely disappear. Respecting the paramount prerogatives of the sovereign, monarchist theory confers upon the citizen practical guarantees of fact: not only are they theoretically inviolable, they are in practice very difficult to violate.

Liberty is a right under the republic, but only a right: under the sovereignty of the royal throne liberties will relate to actual practice—certain, real, tangible, matters of fact.

From this royal authority, thus placed at the apex of the whole structure of civil liberties, will of necessity flow greater freedom for the individual and greater strength for the nation.

CRIKEY!

WHO LET THE POLITICAL ANIMALS OUT?

Call animal control!

CALL THE ZOOKEEPER!

Political ANIMALS on our /monarchy/ must be detained!

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

POLITICAL COMPASSES AND POLITICAL TESTS

IDEOLOGICAL REPUBLICAN TOYS

POLITICAL ANIMALISM

STOP THINKING LIKE POLITICAL ANIMALS

>>8250

The Tsar wants them all rounded up and sent to Siberia.

Vocab list updated/revised.

A vocabulary for everyone!

I LOVE DESPOTISM

Let's keep this up until everyone thinks this board is an Orwellian dystopia.

EXCERPTS FROM DANTE'S 'DE MONARCHICA'

>If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others; in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern according to the Philosopher when he says, “Every household is ruled by its eldest.”

>Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father. As “Man and the sun generate man,” according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits. Now, human reason apprehends most clearly through philosophy that the entire heaven in all its parts, its movements, and its motors, is controlled by a single motion, the primum mobile, and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when in all its movements and motors it is controlled by one prince as by one mover, by one law as by one motion. On this account it is manifestly essential for the well-being of the world that there should exist a Monarchy of unified Principality, which men call the Empire. This truth Boethius sighed for in the words, “O race of men how blessed, did the love which rules the heavens rule like your minds!”

>Wherever strife is a possibility, in that place must be judgment; otherwise imperfection would exist without its perfecting agent. This could not be, for God and Nature are not wanting in necessary things. It is self-evident that between any two princes, neither of whom owes allegiance to the other, controversy may arise either by their own fault or by the fault of their subjects. For such, judgment is necessary. And inasmuch as one owing no allegiance to the other can recognize no authority in him (for an equal cannot control an equal), there must be a third prince with more ample jurisdiction, who may govern both within the circle of his right. This prince will be or will not be a Monarch. If he is, our purpose is fulfilled; if not, he will again have a coequal beyond the circle of his jurisdiction, and again a third prince will be required. And thus either the process be carried to infinity, which is impossible, or that primal and highest judge will be reached, by whose judgments all disputes are settled mediately or or immediately. And this judge will be Monarch, or Emperor. Monarchy is therefore indispensable to the world, and this truth the Philosopher saw when he said, “Things have no desire to be wrongly ordered; inasmuch as a multitude of Princedoms is wrong, let there be one Prince.”

>>8425

CONTINUED

>Justice is preeminent only under a Monarch; therefore, that the world may be disposed for the best, there is needed a Monarchy, or Empire…. From our exposition we may proceed to argue thus: Justice is most effective in the world when present in the most willing and powerful man; only a Monarch is such a man; therefore Justice subsisting in a sole Monarch is the most effective in the world.

>Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean, there is nothing for a Monarch to desire… Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude toward Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in hum can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective.

>If the principle of freedom is explained, it will be apparent that the human race is ordered for the best when it is most free. Observe, then, those words which are on the lips of many but in the minds of few, that the most basic principle of our freedom is freedom of will…

>With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gos. If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book, concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for its own sake and not for the sake of another is free. For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake; only if a Monarch rules can the crooked policies be straightened, namely democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies which force mankind into slavery, as sees who goes among them, and under which kings, aristocrats called the best men, and zealots of popular liberty play at politics. For since a Monarch loves men greatly, a point already touched upon, he desires all men to do good, which cannot be among players at crooked policies… Upright governments have liberty as their aim, that men may live for themselves; not citizens for the sake of the consuls, nor a people for a king, but conversely, consuls for the sake of citizens, and a king for his people. As governments are not all established for the sake of laws, but laws for governments, so those living under the laws are not ordered for the sake of the legislator, but rather he for them… Wherefore it is also evident that although consul or king may be lord of others with respect to means of governing, they are servants with respect to the end of governing; and without doubt the Monarch must be held the chief servant of all. Now it becomes clear that a Monarch is conditioned in the making of laws by his previously determined end. Therefore the human race existing under a Monarch is best ordered, and from this it follows that a Monarchy is essential to the well-being of the world.

>>8426

LAST STOP

>But it must be noted well that when we assert that the human race is capable of being ruled by one supreme Prince, it is not to be understood that the petty decisions of every municipality can issue from him directly, for municipal laws do fail at times and have need of regulation… Nations, kingdoms, and cities have individual conditions which must be governed by different laws. For a law is a directive principle of life… But rather let it be understood that the human race will be governed by him in general matters pertaining to all peoples, and through him will be guided to peace by a government common to all. And this rule, or law, individual principles should receive from him, just as for any operative conclusion the practical intellect receives the major premise from the speculative intellect, adds thereto the minor premise peculiarly its own, and draws the conclusion for the particular operation. This government common to all not only may proceed from one; it must do so, that all confusion be removed from principles of universal import. Moses himself wrote in the law that he had done this; for when he had taken the chiefs of the children of Israel, he relinquished to them minor decisions, always reserving for himself those more important and larger application; and in their tribes the chiefs made use of those of larger application accordingly as they might be applied to each tribe.

>Therefore it is better that the human race should be ruled by one than by more, and that the one should be the Monarch who is a unique Prince. And if it is better, it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And inasmuch as between two things, that which is better will likewise best, between this rule by “one” and this rule by “more”, rule by “one” is acceptable to God not only in comparative but in the superlative degree. Wherefore the human race is ordered for the best when ruled by one sovereign.

>Therefore it is established that every good thing is good because it subsists in unity. As concord is a good thing itself, it must subsist in some unity as its proper root, and this proper root must appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord. Now concord is the uniform movement of many wills; and unity of will, which we mean by uniform movement, is the root of concord, or rather concord itself. For just as we should call many clods concordant because all descend together toward the centre, and many flames concordant because they ascend together to the circumference, as if they did this voluntarily, so we call many men concordant because they move together by their volition to one end formally present in their wills…. All concord depends upon unity in wills; mankind is at its best in concord of a certain king. For just as one man at his best in body and spirit is a concord of a certain kind, and as a household, a city, and a kingdom is likewise a concord, so it is with mankind in its totality. Therefore the human race for its best disposition is dependent on unity in wills. But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity.

>Methinks I have no approached close enough the goal I had set myself, for I have taken the kernels of truth from the husks of falsehood, in that question which asked whether the office of Monarchy was essential to the welfare of the world, and in the next which made inquiry whether the Roman people rightfully appropriated the Empire, and in the last which sought whether the authority of the Monarch derived from God, immediately, or from some other. But the truth of this final question must not be restricted to mean that the Roman Prince shall not be subject in some degree to the Roman Pontiff, for felicity that is mortal is ordered in a measure after felicity that is immortal. Wherefore let Caesar honor Peter as a first-born son should honor his father, so that, refulgent with the light of paternal grace, he may illumine with greater radiance the earthly sphere over which he has been set by Him who alone is the Ruler of all things spiritual and temporal.

>>8425

*De Monarchia

>>8547

Don't care about the People™.

There, I said it. I am despotic and cruel overlord of the masses, the chief bringer of misery and oppression; I am the noble tyrant.

And my Pharaoh's heart is hardened.

>>8553

THE PHARAOH'S HEART HARDENED

>>8559

There will a time where the People™ will beg for despotism and I won't have to even lift a finger.