/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

No more praise of presidents, prime ministers, and politicians. No more faceless clerks, statistics, and flow charts. No more ideology, nor -isms. No more partisanship. No more elections and political hampering.

No more "political activism". No more political conceit and revolutionary behavior. No more radicalism. No more recognizing republican governments. No more saying monarchies are "ceremonial". No more anti-authoritarian nonsense. No more totalitarianism.

No more political tricks.

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

>>3297

>being this much of a newfag

>not even an aristocrat

Daily reminder to give up that republican mentality.

These flags all look the same and are minimalist. The anarcho-capitalist flag is the same as the anarcho-syndicalist flag. It's political animalism, aka artificial tribalism at its finest; none of these flags represent anyone.

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

E m b r a c e C o u n t e r - R e v o l u t i o n

Which isn't to say, embrace a counter revolution, but to become counter-revolutionary means to abandon all idealism of revolution: no embracing revolutionary idealism, fraternity/equality/liberty

Partisanship and -ism ideology is another footstep towards REVOLUTION and not C O U N T E R - R E V O L U T I O N.

It isn't popular mandate, but divine mandate and authority, where sovereignty begins and ends. It is sheer hope and power that lifts up political entities. This is for their punishment or reward because sovereign rulers are receive power at their own risk. The popular mandate and political consent is consenting to obey and abide with justice, or else become vigilantes. The only rebellion is vigilante justice and every other form of assistance from that government is consent. Subconsciously recognizing these states – another form of consent without intending it. Receiving citizenship and receiving justice is consent. Social welfare and benefits from that political entity might as well become consent.

THE ONE PATH AWAY FROM CONSENT IS VIOLENCE; TAKE THE SWORD AND STRIKE YOUR OWN JUSTICE, PLEBIANS; HONOR ALL MEN AND OBEY THE KING

Because justice is supreme and nobody knows where the crown falls and nobody controls where it will fall. The monarchy is the most honest form of government and most natural because its leaders are born of it, The ideal is vassalship and loyalty to someone and not an ideal: absolute monarchy and the individual sovereign with a crown rather than an assembly made of a constitution. Vassalship because loyalty is direct and flexible. Between an individual and a society, loyalty is necessary to resolve conflict with a human character rather than an idealistic mandate. Even in constitutional governments of paper mandates, man break apart before their ideals. Only men with authority and responsibility stand with the spirit to take on this weight of leadership.

>liberty

As Charles Maurras explains, "Authority above and liberty below." The monarchy is no less authoritarian than most republican governments. However, the monarchy institutes the most basic and fundamental rights of hereditary inheritance and individual power.

Democracy and voting are fraudulent and corrupt. They rely on weakness and infidelity for power-laundering demagogues. If you truly care about power, and desire a change in society, your strength must reside somewhere else: No more courage to vote. It requires no courage.

MONARCHY IS AUTHORITARIAN

DEMOCRACY IS TOTALITARIAN

Pick your cards. I choose authority over totalitarianism. I choose independence over partisanship. I choose command and power over voting. I choose liberty from the whim of the masses and popular mandate. I choose to be anything other than partisan.

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

The waves of people clash. The partisans fight in the dog-pit of democratic means to reel people into ideology. Ideology demands inhuman standards for people. The ultimate tyranny is ideology. Ideology hurls waves and colliding movements, taking the sums of mobs of people and smashing them together in violence. Partisanship steals the individual from society, and partisanship steals the overall sense of social well being from the individual; he becomes a partisan and hates the rest of society that isn't incorporated to his partisan ideals. 50/50 resent each other as separate political groups. A people are very divided. Democracy demands total will over the minds of the public. Democracy demands one party to rule them all. Democracy calls you to the ballot to impotently whine and squeal. Democracy is out to consume hordes of people in its totalitarian motives.

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

NO MORE VOTING

NO MORE PARTISANSHP

NO MORE DEMOCRACY

NO MORE TOTALITARIANISM

NO MORE IDEOLOGIES

BECOME A MOVEMENT, NOT A PARTY

There is a difference. Don't settle for votes. Take action.

I am not against any cooperation and social organization. The problem with partisanship turns to the democratic ideology and insistence on voting. A monarchist partisan – a contradiction. Don't settle for less.

>>3258

Does that also include cancerous, reddit-tier "meme obsession" shitposting, who seem way more interested in being """edgy""" than having a little introspection? Because if so, half the board is full of republican scum.

>>3946

The other half of this board is quite retarded too, I'm afraid to say.

>>3987

Okay, we're retarded.

Could we stop thinking like republicans now?

STOP THINKING ON REPUBLICAN TERMS

Make monarchist terms.

To anarchists masquerading as "feudalists", my word of admonishment:

If you propose that 'monarchs got what they deserved' and ridicule 'Dei Gratia' authority as 'Reformist' and 'Enlightenment' thought, and you believe absolute monarchy is all about pulling a Napoleon I coronation where the monarch pulls the crown from the Pope, I only have to speak for myself and tell you to…

GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD, YOU ANARCHO-KIKES. DON'T CALL YOURSELF A MONARCHIST AND USE FRENCH REVOLUTION-STYLE RHETORIC EVER AGAIN. GET OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR CHECKS AND BALANCES CRAP IN THE VENEER OF VASSALSHIP. THAT'S NOT WHAT VASSALSHIP IS ABOUT. DEI GRATIA MONARCHY IS NOT CENTRALIZATION OR TOTALITARIAN RHETORIC. IT IS MERE SOVEREIGNTY, YOU FAGGOTS

>>4354

I must tell you, I have nothing but disdain for the political compass. It is a political animal toy. It has nothing to offer a monarchist and belongs to republicans only. It is a mere ideologue chart of nothingness. Political compass nonsense infuriates me.

>would make a great banner

Go take this to the King in the Court of /monarchy/.

I find a big frustration in thinking in terms of 'this variation of libertarian monarchy' or 'this fascist monarchy'. It is more focused on the terms excluding monarchy. We tend to undermine what a good monarchy is capable of. We've forgotten the virtue of chivalry, loyalty to someone, and actually making an impact other than voting. These are ideals that never will have a pure essence because ideas are remembered and forgotten. If you want a truly rigid structure, you need to stick with someone. Look at how other boards just vacillate and how people swap positions.

REGICIDE IS TABOO. PERIOD. ANYONE WHO THINKS LIKE A MONARCHIST WOULD GIVE A KNEEJERK REACTION TO REGICIDE

SOCIALISM IS GENERALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH MONARCHY

Egalitarian and anti-hierarchical, the socialist disdains a division in class and all social order coincidentally. They are a self-defeating animal; they choose their own utopian cause, only to aspire for justice and depart with their rampant abuse of authority. Often a totalitarian, the socialist is a partisan. Wants to become a social engineer. Doesn't respect authority and wants insurrection. They demand a society of wet-nurses and anti-patriarchal ideals of collectivizing the family. The suckle of the tit of socialist state and re-distributism. Impractical and binges on a world of market economies; cannot work and subsist with the people they claim to defend, the farmer and proletariat, and generally disregards them as men with families and hates this structure as the "bourgeois" family. They are an inherently violent ideology hinged on destroying the old order.

<what about corporatism?

I generally favor corporatism and cooperation between all levels of society where things cannot easily coexist.

Rousseau, a proto-socialist, and the ideal of human perfection and an apostate of the French Revolution and the 'General Will' has done much damage to the monarchist cause. A surge of violence and the Great Terror, dispatching lives and liberty, for an empty promise. And then the New World anthropology of uplifting the 'Noble Savage' and utterly scrapping the Old World in favor for an experimental state. This raised the ideological republicanism without classical roots, a breed of sheer ideology and emptiness, where traditional authority has no place.

<why proto-socialist?

The offspring of the French Revolution. Then the Bolshevik Revolution. Generally responsible for all the problems of the progressive filth. An eerie belief in human perfectibility and cosmopolitan universalism. The concept of the 'General Will' emancipated itself from the French Revolution and became the 'Proletariat' and the anthropology supported their revolutionary ideals.

Not until Maistre isn't labelled a proto-fascist

>>4746

Unbelief and Revolution, a Reformist view on the French Revolution and decline of absolutism, tackles the problem of ideology and belief in these ideological roots. It is basing a new slate for society. It is rooted in the same idea. While Reflections of a Russian Statesman clearly dictates the problem of Rousseau. Utopian and preaches human perfectibility.

READ LITERATURE

I think a good deal of fiction and classics are important.

Reading philosophy? Sure, that's good. But I think a better counter-balance to read literature.

Voting doesn't mean…

JACKSHIT

If you want to increase your status in society, you could do so much more than vote. You could have a stronger impact on people by doing so many other things. People think that putting women in higher offices or getting them Represented™ changes their entire status in society; this is wrong. Getting your "voice represented" doesn't change your social standing a bit… doesn't entail any success or movement…

VOTING IS A WEAKNESS

If it can convince you that you can't do better for yourself and your motives.

MAP YOUR SPHERE RATHER THAN YOUR POLITICAL COMPASS

Your rank and how much you actually matter isn't determined by voting. When politicians pander to the masses, they aren't making them any better off. It doesn't make you anymore special. It makes you a point in the ballot box. This whole view of representation of the people has lead to a collective guilt for nations and a weakness.

COMPASSFAGGOTRY

I hate political compasses.

EMPERORS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A CRUCIAL PART OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

Don't give me these ideologies, pan-European wishy-washy ultra-states, or utopianism. Empires are the foundation of our civilization.

STOP WITH THIS TRUE MONARCHIST™ CRAP

It's annoying me to DEATH with people bickering about 'true monarchist'. There are monarchies in all different kinds of stripes.

>inb4 you do it too

They need to stop thinking like republicans. There's a difference between reminding people to stop thinking like republicans and retarded bickering with monarchists about which monarchy is the true form.

STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

And don't support royal houses like political parties.

I am mostly concerned with conduct.

>>5475

A monarchy, imo, is not the same authority as a republic. A monarchy relies on a spiritual foundation and doesn't par too well with political ideology. A republic relies on social contract, consent of the people, democracy, voting, and so on.

>so?

The pan-European ultra-state is a big oligarchic body that wants to consume the entire continent. Empires are different. You can have multiple empires on the European continent. Empires are an organic authority and republican ultra-states are built on ideologies, thin air – nothing concrete and cemented in blood and tradition like the rightful reign of Emperors.

>>5573

Life is made out to loyalty.

You need to be loyal to someone. Allegiance and loyalty are not about feelings. True loyalty is about doing things despite how you feel. Got that?

INSTEAD OF PLANNING A IDEAL SYSTEM THAT CAN BE REPLACED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, GIVE ME AN ORGANIC HIERARCHY AND AN AUTHORITY THAT WILL LAST 10,000 YEARS!

GIVE ME SOMETHING THAT LASTS

Monarchomachism does the institution of monarchy no favors. It is believed that a strong aristocracy with the hapless monarch, will bring an idyllic state for prosperity. Or that a powerful democracy, with the rule of the People and a constitutional assembly, will become a utopia. Republican solutions to monarchist problems. Different lenses applied to monarchy (like Federal vs. Confederation). This is not the doctrine of aristocrats nowadays. It is the doctrine of parliamentarians. It is often the aristocrats, as opposed to proponents of democracy, that fear tyrants because, in their hearts, they love oligarchy. Meanwhile, they fear populism and Caesarism, and in turn spurn all royal authority (that of monarchy) as being tyranny alone.

<what do you mean?

Give each snout a squeeze. Each snout squeals in their interest of their group without realizing it. Aristocrats will argue in the favor of aristocracy and cry tyrant. Democrats will argue in favor of democracy and cry tyrant. What is tyrant? To the modern audience, it's basically Hitler and the characteristics of populism COMBINED with the royal legitimacy of monarchy. There are ways to try and separate "tyrant" from "monarch", but inevitably it is meaningless because it is not the root of the problem. Those who cry "tyrant" are often trying to pawn another form of government as "the answer".

>what about actual injustice?

Injustice is not limited to monarchy. It goes between all forms of government when they are good and bad. It is a dynamic relationship, not static, when monarchy is automatically tyranny. There are other political zealots out there with an objective end to promote aristocratic principles, or democratic principles, over the ends of monarchy and obviously they'll be crybabies and find the worst word possible.

>what about aristocracy and monarchy together?

Monarchy and aristocracy are not to be opposed. It doesn't have to be the scenario of "Monarch vs nobles" to find equilibrium. I just don't understand why anyone in this political climate doesn't realize that "aristocracy" (not in terms of wealth, but the few) comes to mean another end that has become very ignoble today.

>>5989

>At the heels of this ephemeral and contradictory school come the Socialist schools, which, while granting all its principles, deny all its consequences. The Socialists take from the Liberal and Rationalist schools the negation

of human solidarity in the political and religious orders. Denying it in the religious order, they deny the transmission of the sin and the penalty, and, moreover, the sin and the penalty themselves; denying it in the political order, they take from the Socialist and Liberal school the principle of the equal aptitude of all men for the offices and dignities of the State; but, advancing further, they demonstrate to the Liberal school that this principle logically carries with it the suppression of hereditary monarchy, and this entails the suppression of all monarchy, which, if not hereditary, is a useless and embarrassing institution.

I look at the last line. Monarchy, if not hereditary, is an embarrassing institution because then it has no unique guiding principles than your average republic.

The roi fainéant, or "The Do-Nothing King" that these people want are more likely to be displaced or usurped than what we call "tyrants" in monarchy. While I mention this, it is important to remember that while monarchs can be displaced and new dynasties can come in, to never release legitimacy and succession as a proper principle of hereditary monarchy and the fact that it is not popular mandate that counts in these matters. It is important to preserve the dynastic line in monarchy and not weaken these foundations of monarchical civilization.

AVENGE HIM!

>>3503

Hey, I made that pic, glad to see it in the wild

>>6220

>But loyalty for loyalty's sake is meaningless.

I don't fancy the ideology of traitors. Loyalty is a the kind of love you show regardless of your disposition. That is how I measure loyalty. Rodents who snap out and bite away, because it goes against their conceit, don't compare in loyalty. Steadfast and chivalrous. These are all I concern about.

>I think you can make a number of economic arguments that a monarch who centralizes in a totalitarian fashion

I said what others consider centralization is sometimes a far cry away from what you consider central planning. Decentralized or centralized, I could care less. I don't see these governing bodies as a static.

>Would you be loyal to a weak-willed king

Depends. People throw the accusation "incompetent" around like candy. If the monarch needed help, ideally you should help him despite this weakness.

>a monarch who centralizes in a totalitarian fashion, in the way that commies do, is failing in his duty as a monarch to uphold the security and prosperity of his realm

Then there's the opposite argument. That a monarch who fails to do these things is weak-willed and incompetent. A monarch who isn't taking the center is not doing enough to protect the realm and take a strong-hand approach. You get this from both sides, really, who cannot choose whether they want some centralization or some decentralization. Only when they think it applies.

>So yes, it does matter, because if a monarch supports central planning he's no longer acting like a monarch.

I'm not content with this answer. I don't really support it central planning for monarchies because it leaves room for blame. But someone could easily say the opposite. What is inherent about monarchy that makes this necessary? I think ideally a monarch should be able to try anything if a monarch cannot help to see if it benefits. That is a good or a bad thing, but everything has consequences.

>plays beer pong with the royal crystalware, and generally makes a msot undignified ass of himself?

We all make undignified asses of ourselves sometimes. I understand you want everything that maybe, a person who is under a king doesn't consent to these habits and doesn't want to show loyalty; then he is not loyal. It is as cut as that. I see loyalty as how much you could stick with someone despite these drawbacks, not the other way around.

STORY TIME

>When it comes to Queen Elizabeth II there are many little things one could point to but my favorite was her interaction with a republican politician. There was a member of an incoming government who was an avowed republican and made it known publicly that he would not bow to the Queen. Everyone waited for the inevitable confrontation when all the new members would be introduced to the Queen. They were all gathered, the Queen entered the room and went down the line, each bowing his head as the Queen greeted him. All eyes were on the republican to see if he would make good on his promise. The Queen approached and he did not move but then Her Majesty mumbled something rather low and the man bent forward to put his ear a little closer to the royal person and said, “Pardon?” -at which point the Queen simply glided on to the next in line. Only then did the befuddled traitor realize what had just happened. His sovereign lady had just “tricked” him into bowing his head in spite of himself.

>>6220

In a hereditary monarchy, a monarch should be respected like people respect elders. A social norm. Like how bratty teenagers don't respect elders and don't reason why. There is a familial loyalty like between parent and children. Families ideally should be the ultimate social safety net because they should be the first you look to… despite how much of an ass you are. Parents might find their children to have many drawbacks, but it is almost natural for them to care for the young. Likewise with kings, I factor that a king should be respected like an elder/father, because a king is a king.

Regardless of whether you consent, your origin is with that king like an innate and natural bond. You could leave and be a disloyal. Suppose you were still born and raised there. Suppose this was your history and your culture. You never chose these to have these things, but they follow you like your name. There is no rootless people without someone to be loyal to. Like an immigrant moving to some foreign country juxtaposed to their own, no matter how much said person tries to integrate into that culture, their own culture and identity follows them with expectations.

With loyalty, you need to be humble and think, "Maybe I don't know what is best for the country. I am no ruler myself and never have ruled." Loyalty is what you measure in obedience, not blind, but despite how much these things go bad in consequence. You might see loyalty as blind, but it is something people need to rely on sometimes. Sometimes excessive loyalty is quote-on-quote blind and bad. I still consider upholding loyalty as the right thing to do.

All I am saying is it centralization vs decentralization is a stupid and unnecessary ideological barrier for monarchists to have. Hungry political carnivores will never be content no matter how much meat you throw on their plate.

>>6231

>is not in a favorable position.

When loyalty stands out, whether it's in the Charge of the Light Brigade or in holding onto someone, I think it matters most when the going is tough and a few people are standing out. I am talking about the kind of loyalty when nobody's trust is stacked against you, and you are desperate, and somebody needs to stand with your aid. There should be a strong sense of belonging with a sovereign despite these pitfalls. I am not talking about being loyal and disciplined despite grotesque odds and unkind factors. Like I said, when things are really bad and people are still there for you out of their duty and love.

>inspiration

This is not only inspiration, but belonging and commitment. A responsibility you have to someone. Obviously, not everyone is touched with a monarch's inspiration. Even when you disagree, I think as a show of loyalty, despite how you feel, is actually tested.

>>6234

>But again, loyalty must have foundation.

Opinion and politics is not a strong foundation either. These things change almost immediately, no less than a decade usually. I recommend reading this Mad Monarchist article to understand what I'm jiving at. On the topic of child monarchs.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/04/of-baby-kings-and-child-monarchs.html#comment-form

>The infant or child monarchs of history have long fascinated me, originally just because of the imagery of it and, in time, because of a deeper understanding of what was on display. Many of you will remember the colorful scene in the film “The Last Emperor” in which the 3-year-old child emperor is enthroned as the Son of Heaven and Lord of 10,000 Years. He scrambles down from the throne, plays with the lifting yellow canopy and then, whips crack and the master of ceremonies cries out as the ranks of mandarins kowtow to their new sovereign. I’m sure to most modern people the image of endless rows of aged men bowing before a child would be one of absurdity. However, although it is not ideal for a country to have an infant monarch (since they cannot fill their role at such a young age) I have nevertheless considered child royals to be a wonderful example of what is important about monarchy. With their tiny frame they convey the message that in a monarchy it is the institution, not the individual, which is most important. The Crown would just be an impractical piece of jewelry were it not for what it represents. It is not how old or how strong or how handsome a king is but what they embody which is special.

>A child monarch cannot defeat challengers in single combat. He cannot lead troops into battle and win victories for his country. He cannot balance a budget (of course, neither can most adult politicians these days either) but a child monarch can represent the faith of a people in their monarchy, the strength of the institution that allows a helpless babe to sit in the highest seat of the land as well as being a hope for the future. In much popular fiction and other parts of the media, child monarchs or young royals are often depicted as, basically, spoiled brats; haughty, conceited and condescending. However, in reality, there is something very humbling about the image of a baby king because it illustrates quite vividly that a monarch is chosen by birth, by legitimate hereditary right and not because he was the fastest or the strongest or the most popular. There is a feeling of great nobility or perhaps chivalry that accompanies the image of a child king who is protected by older, adult men and who stand guard over their tiny sovereign with all the seriousness and dignity of an adult king because age or physical strength does not matter. What matters is that he is the king -and that is it.

LAWS DO NOT DISCIPLINE MEN

LAWS ONLY NEED DEFINITION SINCE NOT ALL CAN BE GOOD

For this exact reason, the discipline of monarchs should never be a constitution or public assembly or even aristocrats. The discipline of monarchs is to seek something higher than laws and find the goodwill of the spirit. Only virtue will inspire good deeds. Since there is no temporal power higher to discipline the monarchy in humility, it needs spirit to discipline and guide them like all men.

>what about laws?

Laws do not inspire good, but they can prevent evil. There needs to be a strength living without laws, but willpower and people who choose to do better with or without laws.

The quality of mercy is not strained.

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:

It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

'Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes

The thronèd monarch better than his crown.

His scepter shows the force of temporal power,

The attribute to awe and majesty

Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;

But mercy is above this sceptered sway.

It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings;

It is an attribute to God Himself;

And earthly power doth then show likest God's

When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,

Though justice be thy plea, consider this:

That in the course of justice none of us

Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,

And that same prayer doth teach us all to render

The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much

To mitigate the justice of thy plea,

Which, if thou follow, this strict court of Venice

Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant

there.

REPUBLICAN HOUR(Theodore Roosevelt Foreward/to Herman Bernstein)

https://archive.org/stream/willynickycorres00bern#page/n5/mode/2up

To all who are working to make the world safe for democracy and for durable, righteous peace, this volume sincerely dedicated.

HERMAN BERNSTEIN

My dear Mr. Bernstein,

I congratulate you on the noteworthy service you have rendered by the discovery and publication of these letters. They illuminate, with a glare like a flashlight, the dark places of diplomacy of despots; they show what diplomacy in autocratic nations really is, and what it has done and sought to do, right up to the present time. The whole world ought now to understand that the despotism of Germany was one of plot and intrigue no less than ruthless brutality and barbarism, and that with a cynically complete absence of all sense of international morality and good faith sought to bend to its purpose of evil the poor feeble puppet who at the moment embodied the despotism of Russia. These letters should be made familiar to all civilized peoples.

They show the folly of the men who would have us believe that any permanent escape from anarchy in Russia can come from the re-establishment of the autocracy, which was itself the primes cause of that anarchy—for the governmental condition was so intolerable that they put a premium on the production of lawless violence in the ranks of the lovers of liberty and justice and fair play to all.

They show, furthermore, the wicked folly of all who would now treat with the German despotism for a negotiated peace, a peace without victory, a peace into which the wrong-doer and the wronged would enter on equal terms. This war was made by the militaristic and capitalistic autocracy of Germany, and it was acquiesced in and even promoted by the German socialistic party, which thereby proved itself traitorous to the workingmen and farmers of the world. With these documents before them, no Americans who hereafter directly or indirectly support the Prussianized Germany of the Hohenzollerns can claim to stand in good faith for human rights, for equal justice, and for the liberty of small well-behaved nations.

Let me repeat, my dear sir, that in publishing these letters you have rendered a signal service to this nation and to all mankind.

Very Sincerely yours,

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

There are certain things you should never do.

The story of Abraham and Isaac demonstrates compliance with God, but also the truth that nobody should have to sacrifice their own family. If a monarch asks anyone to do anything unnatural and cruel, they have no obligation to do it. With monarchs ruling by the grace of God, then it is also understood in the same instance.

CHARLES MAURRAS ON DECENTRALIZATION

Il faut bien remarquer, la duree de l'ancien regime etait due a la decentralisation: la feodalite, les communes ensuite, puis les corporations religieuses, ouvrieres et autres, les universites, les parlements etaient autant d'organismes qui s'interposaient entre le pourvoir central et l'individu et prenaient leur part de responsabilite et de liberte

Aux communes les affaires proprement communales, les provinciales aux provinces; et que les organes superieurs de la nation, degages de tout office parasitaire, president avec plus d'esprit de suite et vigueur a la destinee nationale

Le principe de la Monarchie nationale comporte en effet les deux plus fecondes forces de la vie politique essentielle, particulierement necessaires dans le monde moderne: l'unite de commandement et le respect profond de la variete et de l'orginalite des energies ainsi commandees. Disons pour etre net: autorite puissante et decentralisation genereus

MONGREL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

>It should be noted that the duration of the old regime was due to decentralization: the feudalite, then the communes, then the religious corporations, workers and others, the universities, the parliaments were so many organizations that interposed between the central filling and the individual and taking their share of responsibility and freedom

>To the communes the affairs properly communal, the provincials to the provinces; and that the higher organs of the nation, freed from any parasitic office, president with more spirit of continuation and vigor to the national destiny

>The principle of the National Monarchy comprises the two most important forces of essential political life, particularly necessary in the modern world: the unity of command and the profound respect for the variety and orginality of the energies thus commanded. Let's say to be clear: powerful authority and decentralization generous

ABSOLUTISM IS NOT LAWLESSNESS

>Therefore O kings! Exercise your power boldly, for it is divine and beneficial to humanity, but exercise it with humility. It is given to you from without. Ultimately it leaves you frail; it leaves you mortal; it leaves you sinners and demands from you a greater final reckoning before God. . . . 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.

<“It is one thing for a government to be absolute, and another for it to be arbitrary. It is absolute with respect to constraint - there being no power capable of forcing the sovereign, who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary, for besides the fact that everything is subject to the judgment of God (which is also true of those governments we have just called arbitrary), there are also [constitutional] laws in empires, so that whatever is done against them is null in a legal sense [nul de droit]: and there is always an opportunity for redress, either on other occasions or in other times. Such that each person remains the legitimate possessor of his goods: no one being able to believe that he can possess anything with security to the prejudice of the laws - whose vigilance and action against injustices and acts of violence is deathless, as we have explained more fully elsewhere. This is what is called legitimate government, by its very nature the opposite of arbitrary government.”

I only bring it up because it's a common assumption. I don't think there is any absolutist theorist who aims towards dismantling propriety or having a lawless state. As Filmer said in Patriarcha, royal authority is natural law. It references constitutional laws (meaning the various legal entities in a sovereign realm) and contending forces. As someone who defends an absolutist stance, that is the case.

>"Without this absolute authority, he [the King] can neither do good nor suppress evil: his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him; and, in fine, the sole defense of individuals against the public power, must be their innocence. This doctrine is in conformity with the saying of St Paul: "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good." (Rom. 13:3)

>Bossuet's Properties of royal authority

<first, royal authority is sacred;

<Secondly, it is paternal;

<Thirdly, it is absolute;

<Fourthly, it is SUBJECT TO REASON.

>All of this must be established, in order, in the following articles

Remember the fourth characteristic. It is subject to reason. If a monarch suggests that killing himself will not actually end up in suicide, but does it and it ends up with him killing himself anyway – it is evident that royal authority is subject to reason and whatever a monarch does with consequences. This is my response to wild hypothetical scenarios of those who fear kings abusing power, like bazooking a school bus full of children or something wild. which makes me sympathize with the ancaps on this board suddenly

ON AUTOCRACY

>Autocracy must be authoritarian, but not totalitarian. It mustn't seek to be all doing, but all the more powerful. The more an autocrat controls in daily life, the more impractical it is for the sake of Autocracy. It is a lot easier being an autocrat when you aren't controlling everything. This is essential for a healthy autocracy. You need a brilliant scale of command, but not a hand in everything.

>Autocrats need an esteemed mantle and proud monarchy, but they cannot – and will not – survive in an economy where every industrial endeavor is regulated and centrally planned. There needs to be co-ordination from autocracy, but not control since one will cannot penetrate so much. When autocratic regimes control the food supply and industry, it puts more pressure on the autocrat to be the best autocrat possible. It must be understood that nobody is capable of having the best government all the time. People are not as brilliant and grand administers as we believe, even in aristocracy… We need an autocracy where even an idiot could possibly rule the country.

>There needs to be strong hierarchical nature to autocracy. There needs to be distribution and room between the mantle of autocracy and the lowest person in this sphere of sovereignty. I don't agree with the conception of "The State" and "The People". There is only hierarchy and the constituents of the governing class throughout polity from the family, the city, and the powers that be.

>If an autocrat takes influence in all things, he must have magnitude to rule in every capacity. This is not possible. If you support autocracy, my opinion is making it possible for an autocrat to rule without requiring this scale of operations and a hallmark of intellect. Market economies have made autocracy more doable with the dispersed autonomy.

>My last word on autocracy is there should be authority everywhere, but a succession of authority in rank and influence. Fathers over children. Teachers over student. Emperor over subjects. All bound in the unity of sovereignty, not mere statehood.

Sovereignty, not statehood.

Every sense of propriety should be secured. No sense of "his" or "our" or "mine" should be frowned upon. I denounce nationalization as a go-to solution due to the need for autonomy in autocracy. As for the People and nationalization of certain territories, goodbye popular sovereignty.

"Sovereignty" and "propriety" for their emphasis on WHOLESOMENESS. Being a whole is important to me.

I reinforce this attitude towards collectivism and individualism. These are two forces taking apart from a wholesomeness. Western Civilization embraces both, and the individual finds peace with society (the collective) in that he has a family to retreat to. Each family has a first and last name. The first name is the individualist name, and the last name is the collective name for the wider heritage. Monarchy reverberates here: the benefit of all must be understood. Monarchy is about not the minority or the majority, but what is good for all.

Not society at the cost of the individual, but also not the individual at the cost of society.

Monarchy is the only force that can inspire all.

It must also be understood: The Rich and the Poor both grapple in aristocracy and democracy. When it comes to social contract, it is inherently plutocracy without monarchy; because the rich ultimately rule over the poor, and the poor seek democracy over the rich. What percentage of the rich and poor is considered in aristocracy and democracy, counting the few and the many… Voting is ultimately a competition between these two forces, but the rich win in influence and the poor are always ruled over in the end no matter what. Plutocratic ideologies focus and intensify with elections and politics.

>>6566

>All monarchs are subjects of the supreme monarch no matter if they like it or not

Nobody denies this;

neither did I imply otherwise.

In fact, I re-affirmed it.

>Let every soul be in subjection to the higher power; for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained by God. Therefore, he that resisteth that power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that withstand shall receive to themselves damnation.

-Romans 13:1-2

>Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, or for the praise for them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as servants of God.

-I Peter 2:13-16

>Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen and whom ye have desired! And behold the Lord hath set a king over you.

-I Samuel 12:13

>Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.

-Proverbs 19:10

>Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.

-Proverbs 17:26

>The author of all things not having judged it appropriate to subjugate man to beings of a superior nature, and man left to be governed by his fellows, it is clear that what is good in man must govern what is evil. Man, like all thinking beings, is tertiary in his nature. This nature possesses an understanding that learns, a reason or a Logos that compares and judges, and a love or a will that decides and acts. Although man is weakened in his first two faculties, he is only really wounded in the third, and even here the blow that he received did not deprive him of his original qualities. He wills the evil, but he would will the good. He acts against himself; he turns on himself; he grovels painfully like a reptile whose back has been broken.

PATRIARCHA; CHAPTER III: Positive Laws do not infringe the Natural and Fatherly Power of Kings

<HItherto I have endeavoured to shew the Natural Institution of Regal Authority, and to free it from Subjection to an Arbitrary Election of the People: It is necessary also to enquire whether Humane Laws have a Superiority over Princes; because those that maintain the Acquisition of Royal Jurisdiction from the People, do subject the Exercise of it to Positive Laws. But in this also they err; for as Kingly Power is by the Law of God, so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it.

<The Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will; not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants. There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy [[79]] for being unjustly Governed; and yet for all this, every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family; but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general Ground, That the safety of the Kingdom be his Chief Law: He must remember, That the Profit of every Man in particular, and of all together in general, is not always one and the same; and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private; And that the force of Laws must not be so great as natural Equity it self, which cannot fully be comprised in any Laws whatsoever, but is to be left to the Religious Atchievement of those who know how to manage the Affairs of State, and wisely to Ballance the particular Profit with the Counterpoize of the Publick, according to the infinite variety of Times, Places, Persons; a Proof unanswerable, for the superiority of Princes above Laws, is this, That there were Kings long before there were any Laws: For a long time the Word of a King was the only Law; and if Practice (as saith Sir Walter Raleigh) declare the Greatness of Authority, even the best [[80]] Kings of Judah and Israel were not tied to any Law; but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest Matters.

STUDY ON SOVEREIGNTY

>by Joseph de Maistre

It is said that the people are sovereign; but over whom? - over themselves, apparently. The people are thus subject. There is surely something equivocal if not erroneous here, for the people which command are not the people which obey. It is enough, then, to put the general proposition, "The people are sovereign," to feel that it needs an exegesis.

This exegesis will not be long in coming, at least in the French system. The people, it will be said, exercise their sovereignty by means of their representatives. This begins to make sense. The people are a sovereign which cannot exercise sovereignty….

There has been much heated discussion on whether sovereignty comes from God or from men, but I do not know if anyone has noticed that both propositions can be true.

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.

Every theist would no doubt agree that whoever breaks the laws sets his face against the divine will and renders himself guilty before God, although he is breaking only human ordinances, for it is God who has made man sociable; and since he has willed society, he has willed also the sovereignty and laws without which there would be no society.

Thus laws come from God in the sense that he wills that there should be laws and that they should be obeyed. Yet these laws come also from men in that they are made by men.

In the same way, sovereignty comes from God, since he is the author of all things except evil, and is in particular the author of society, which could not exist without sovereignty.

However, this same sovereignty comes also from men in a certain sense, that is to say insofar as particular forms of government are established and declared by human consent.

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….

Aristotle on Royal Authority

The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus ‘father of Gods and men,’ because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son.

I understand some people appreciate legal equality and fancy themselves aristocrats… but…

KINGS ARE NOT YOUR EQUALS

With this said, I don't think anyone has the right to judge their sovereigns. As Maistre explains, no bother someone would kill Nero, but no right to judge Nero as they were a superior. Many people fancy themselves superior. Many think they have power in this circumstance. Many believe that they are noble and they have this power.

You have no power here.

>>6575

Even foreign monarchs receive this power.

>O thou king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty and glory and honor.

-Daniel 5:18

You don't kill royalty based on virtue signalling.

You don't assume doctrines of rebellion.

>>6575

Follow the example of St. Thomas More.

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS

by Mad Monarchist

>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.

>For one thing, one cannot help but take special notice that this was the seventh covenant between God and man, since the number seven has always had a special significance, the number of perfection. The seventh day was the day God rested and commanded to be kept holy, there were the seven eyes of God, the seven feast days of God, seven blessings, seven dispensations, in the Christian world there are seven sacraments, seven cardinal virtues and seven deadly sins, the seventh angel announcing the apocalypse and being the last to punish the world which ended with seven plagues. The Bible is literally riddled with the number seven and it seems only natural that the seventh covenant would stand out even if simply for being the seventh. However, it must also be said that, this was according to the list I learned in school. Some number the covenants differently, so you may take or leave that as you please. What is also interesting and unique about the seventh covenant was that it was the only covenant with man that God made unconditionally. Every other covenant or agreement between God and man followed the pattern of doing something in return for something else. So, God would tell man, if you do this and refrain from doing that, I will do this for you. The seventh covenant was different. There were no conditions, simply a promise from God to King David.

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-divine-right-of-kings.html

>That the princes of Israel, heads of the house of their fathers, who were the princes of the tribes, and were over them that were numbered, offered

-Numbers 7:2

A monarchomachist is not my kind of monarchist.

Monarchomachists belong with a different throng. The monarchomachist menace is another beast. The monarchomachist doesn't understand the nuances of defending the essential principle of monarchy. Besides the appeals to all authority and restraint, defending monarchy is also about another integrity. This is from the point of view of the monarchy. A deep-seated understanding that monarchy is the rule of one over the many and few and a different kind of power balance.

Joseph de Maistre defined monarchy as a centralized aristocracy, but Maistre understood the nuances of monarchical government and proceeded to argue on the basis of monarchy. In the Study on Sovereignty, Maistre his points and balanced the few and the many (aristocracy and democracy) from the perspective of monarchy. This matter of perspective is very important for whether you argue from aristocracy, democracy, or monarchy's favor. Here are those arguments favoring monarchy:

>Now, it is one of the greatest advantages of monarchical government that in it the aristocracy loses, as much as the nature of things allows, all those features offensive to the lower classes. It is important to understand the reasons for this.

>1. This kind of aristocracy is legal; it is an integral part of government, everyone knows this, and it does not waken in anyone's mind the idea of usurpation and injustice. In republics, on the other hand, the distinction between persons exists as much as in monarchies, but it is harder and more offensive because it is not the work of the law and because popular opinion regards it as a continual rebellion against the principle of equality admitted by the constitution….

>2. Once the influence of a hereditary aristocracy becomes inevitable (and the experience of every age leaves no doubt on this point), the best course to deprive this influence of the elements that rub against the pride of the lower classes is to remove all insurmountable barriers between the families within the state and to allow none of them to be humiliated by a distinction that they can never enjoy.

>Now this is precisely the case in a monarchy resting on good laws. There is no family that the merit of its head cannot raise from the second to the first rank….

PARTISANSHIP IS THE ENEMY OF ALL TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY

Politics will always divide a nation. Families divide under partisanship. People divide into factions. Kings no longer reign, but political partisans. Only a culture will unite a people towards their common identity. The name of partisan belongs to communists and the totalitarian crowd, who seek the total sum of the people's mind and consent. A monarchist partisan will always be a contradiction. Becoming a partisan is the mastery of being a political carnivore.

BEWARE OF PARTISANSHIP

A monarchist partisan is an inherent contradiction.

It just doesn't work. You don't go out like a political playboy and recruit people to become "royalists". This is not the royalist spirit. The partisan ideal is the opposite of the monarchist's aim to restore order.

Monarchy and royal authority is all about the household.

No statemanship takes a solemn look towards order like a hereditary monarch, who is not a partisan and stolid statesman – bother even an idealist – but a sovereign of his nation. The royal family, juxtaposed to portraits of ideological statesman, is an attack on this partisanship and individualist statemanship. Monarchs who rule with their royal blood and their opposition to all partisan ideals.

The closest thing to a partisanship I admired was Action Francaise. As a predecessor to fascist movements, which took partisanship to the streets and outside of the political administration, it is understood that a movement is the only means of uniting a people, but never will partisanship unite; politics will always divide, and only a common culture could unify. People are not meant to be turned into voting blocs and be called anything like a native "royalist" who isn't a militant partisan. This belongs to the dangerous ideologues like the partisan Bolsheviks and other communist blocs. A monarchist should strive to not become a partisan; the only social co-ordination on a mass political scale I approve of – I call a movement, and a movement towards a goal and not a voting ballot, but an actual reform and action for the rest of society. A partisan is a political carnivore at the highest level and only adheres to political parties and ideologies, but no room for people.

When a partisan has no room for people, it is clearly understood. Examine their symbols; big stars and blank colors, with no coat of arms and no household behind their flag and nobody to truly represent them as a nation. Political carnivores wouldn't understand with their political compasses and partisan politics, that monarchy stands as an affront to this social engineering scheme and this anti-monarchical game called partisanship that seeks to turn ordinary people away from their roots, their profession, and their own livelihood – for the ideology of death. Political partisans are the enemy of all traditional authority and should not be tolerated.

REVOLUTIONARIES SEEK TO DESTROY ORDER

REACTIONARIES RESTORE ORDER

A revolutionary doesn't just say, "Let's kill the king and call it a day." No, they want to export the revolution in all facets of life. Killing royalty is the beginning, but not the end of a revolution. The revolutionaries will dismantle the wider social order. They will seek to begin social engineering and revamp the economy. The revolutionary appetite doesn't stop there.

You might wonder, what does the reactionary cause fight for? The monarchist doesn't fight for Revolution, – no, for Restoration of order in all of society where revolutionaries destroyed order. There is revolution and restoration. The forces of counter-revolutionary activity are all about reversing the destruction of revolutions and returning to a better social order.

Peter Oliver grappled with the concept of Lockian justified rebellion. This same attitude is why I'm skeptical towards any pride in revolutionary ideology. It is easy to justify destroying order, but hard to conserve it. The call to kill tyrants comes from the revolutionary flock and those who themselves want their own power. In short, never trust a revolutionary.

Especially, a monarchomachist.

Being counter-revolutionary today is being a radical. A revolution begins where it ends. Wind the clock forward and take the revolution to its end. This is counter-revolution and the resurgence of order.

SCHOPENHAUER ON MONARCHY

There be other names of Government, in the Histories, and books of Policy, as Tyranny, and Oligarchy; But they are not the names of the other Formes of Government, but of the same Formes misliked. For they that are discontented under Monarchy, call it Tyranny, and they that are displeased with Aristocracy, called it Oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a Democracy, call it Anarchy

Can we please stop making ourselves look like faggots with the gay twink like anime pictures and shit please?

>>3258

Old /pol/.

>>6773

>typical liberal response: "Please don't hurt me great one, I promise to stop being degenerate!"

I wish that was the treatment I get.

>>6749

Lowres version in case the other one was too large.

I AM GETTING SICK OF THE ABSOLUTIST/CONSTITUTIONALIST DIVIDE

TRY BEING A PAN-MONARCHIST

If there is unity on this board, it is with Tsar Nicholas II. Let us unite in memory of Tsardom and Fatherland.

>>6838

It's difficult because I'm adjusting the file size by rendering it at different window scaling. So, I'm basically just guessing which scaling would give me a file size below 16MB (and I didn't know that 16MB was the size limit).

Anyways, I tried fixing up the part around de Maistre and cramming in more of the…actually rather impressive amount of OC we have on this goddam board.

>>6848

>russia go forth

BASED

This is some good shit.

To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty

by Phillis Wheatly (to King George III)

YOUR subjects hope, dread Sire—

The crown upon your brows may flourish long,

And that your arm may in your God be strong!

O may your sceptre num’rous nations sway,

And all with love and readiness obey! 5

But how shall we the British king reward!

Rule thou in peace, our father, and our lord!

Midst the remembrance of thy favours past,

The meanest peasants most admire the last. 1

May George, belov’d by all the nations round, 10

Live with heav’ns choicest constant blessings crown’d!

Great God, direct, and guard him from on high,

And from his head let ev’ry evil fly!

And may each clime with equal gladness see

A monarch’s smile can set his subjects free!

>>6749

Oh, that's the issue you have, you twat? It's only the androgynous males? Not the stupid fucking reddit normalfaggot forced "memes", like the one you posted? They think it's called "expand dong" because that's the first of its kind that they know of. No doubt someone edited this to make it more like that, and quite frankly, I'm curious as to the origins of this one.

"That file already exists, fuck chodemokey!" Image in question >>2925

Every time you see, for example, "Nazbol gang", that's from reddit.

<unironically being a monarcuck

CRINGE AND BLUEPILLED.

This is going to sound fedora-tier, but…

I DON'T LIKE SHEEPLE

>>7277

Believe what you want to believe in, anon.

I'm not here to oppress you in any way, shape, or form.

Monarchy is the only effective non-partisan government I'm aware of.

Other monarchists like partisanship, and I despise partisanship.

This tyrant needs to abdicate for a little break.

The scuffle on this board is killing me.

Thank goodness GoT is ending.

This might be an unpopular opinion on this board, but I always despised GoT for bringing us noble house roleplayers, aristolarpers, and general promoters of monarchomachism with the realist flare like this is their little game. I don't really watch television these days. I never watched the show. I just know where these people come from.

Every decent person I know prefers Tolkien and LOTR anyways.

>>7436

>standing on Tolkien's shoulders while writing incestuous rape fantasies.

That's the thing about realism. It tries too hard to be real. Almost like it's this twisted parody of reality.

HAPPY OAK APPLE DAY

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

If anyone wants to know why absolutists are so prevalent in monarchist circles, it is because some of you people are plain boring. Let's face it. Nobody is getting their rocks off about the next constitution or the moderate Jeb! candidate to represent™ you. I will never forget how these people were so butthurt that Grace Chan didn't carry around a constitution to represent them.

This comes packed with a sincere apology to the Austrian schoolers, who constantly get hit in the crossfire with lukewarm centrists.

There are some people who seek to become aristocrats in spirit.

But why spot there? Not when you can become a monarch in spirit.

Monarchical will always be an upper notch slightly above in the social order.

I am the eternal pharaoh, here to oppress and enslave you.

THIRD ROME

You guys, in your callous disregard for every political truism I've been told to hold dear, have made me much more critical of what my values are. Thank you for that. I'm going to do my best to understand monarchism and whether or not I end up agreeing with it I really appreciate you guys, you seem like the real deal.

If you constantly get mad at everyone for for not calling you 'count', 'baron', 'sir', 'earl', 'lord'. or 'duke', you might be an aristolarp.

If you're on the /monarchy/ board but you won't shut up about the Republic of Venice and Novgorod, you might be an aristolarp.

If you hate all other empires except the Holy Roman Empire, you might be an aristolarp.

If the name 'Ivan the Terrible' gets your panties in a bunch, you might be an aristolarp.

If your obituary reads 'killed in a duel', you might be an aristolarp.

If fascists, nazis, and socialists are too extreme but republicans are okay, you might be an aristolarp.

If Franco is too extreme but José Antonio Primo de Rivera gets a free pass for being a nobleman, you might be an aristolarp.

If you're more Brutus and Cassius and your motto is sic semper tyrannis, you might be an aristolarp.

If you're a 'liberal traditionalist', you might be an aristolarp.

How I feel towards this board sometimes.

>>7585

"Patrifamilias ius vitae et necis in liber os esto"

>>7626

Patria potestas doctrine, I guess.

I hope you mean, by this phrase, that the monarch gets to punish misbehaving children such as aristocrats

>>7628

Absolutely, revolution and regicide should carry the same gravitas as patricide. Still, even a young Zeus had to depose a tyrannical father.

>>7629

>Still, even a young Zeus had to depose a tyrannical father.

You have my respect, but easy on that monarchomachist stuff. It is forbidden. This tyrant won't have it.

Generally, the new and old will contend, but Zeus established his own household and his own kingdom.

Also, I have a neutral view on such things a tyranny; probably the most abused term in history

>>7631

>probably the most abused term in history

Agreed, although Kronos definitely qualifies. Although it might help to mythologically illustrate the differences between totalitarian (Titanic) and authoritarian (Olympian) sovereignty.

TSAR ALEXANDER III'S MANIFESTO 1881

We proclaim this to all Our faithful subjects: God in His ineffable

judgment has deemed it proper to culminate the glorious reign of Our

beloved father with a martyr's death, and to lay the Holy duty of

Autocratic Rule on us.

Submitting to the will of Providence and the Law on the inheritance of

Sovereignty, We assume this burden in a terrible hour of universal

popular grief and terror, averring before the countenance of the Most Highthat, imparting this Authority to Us in so difficult and troublesome a time,He will not withhold his All-powerful help from us. We also aver that the fervid prayers of the pious people, which is celebrated in all the world for its love and devotion to its Sovereigns, will draw Divine blessing down upon Us and upon the labor of governing that lies before Us.

Our father reposing in God, having assumed from God the Autocratic

power for the benefit of the people in his stewardship, remained

faithful even unto death. It was not so much by stern orders as by

goodness and kindness, which are also attributes of power, that He

carried out the greatest undertaking of His reign–the emancipation of

the enserfed peasants. In this he was able to elicit the cooperation

of the noble [serf-] holders themselves, who always quick to the

summons of the good and honorable. He established Justice in the

Realm and, having made his subjects without exception free for all

time, He summoned them to take charge of local administration and

public works. May His memory be blessed through the ages!

The base and wicked murder of a Russian Sovereign by unworthy

monsters from the people, done in the very midst of that faithful

people, who were ready to lay down their lives for Him–this is a

terrible and shameful matter, unheard of in Russia, which has

darkened Our entire land with grief and terror. But in the midst of

Our great grief, the voice of God orders Us courageously to undertake, in deference to Divine intention, the task of ruling, with faith in the strength and rightness [istina] of autocratic power. We are summoned to reaffirm that Power and preserve it for the benefit of the people from any encroachment.

Courage to the hearts, now overcome by confusion and terror, of our

faithful subjects, who all love the Fatherland and have from

generation to generation been devoted to the Hereditary Tsarist

Power! Under its shelter and in unbroken union with it, Our land has

more than once experienced great tumults and passed, with faith in

the God who ordains its fate, through grievous experiences and

misfortunes and on to new power and glory.

Dedicating ourself to Our great Service, we appeal to Our faithful

subjects to serve Us and the State truly and faithfully, so that the foul

treason which shames the Russian land may be uprooted, faith and

morality be reaffirmed, children be reared rightly, falsehood and

spoliation be exterminated, and order and justice be imparted to the

activities of the institutions given to Russia by her Benefactor, Our

Beloved Father.

Alexander

St. Petersburg, 29 April 1881

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_France

Because I have been bullied by electoral monarchists…

If anyone doubts the hereditary principle of monarchy, look at the line of the House of Capet, especially starting with King Philip II of France. It is a rigid line of primogeniture.

A VINDICATION OF HOBBES

There are enough people who are critical of the man. From neoabsolutists and others, they have their problems with Hobbes sorted out in terms of liberal ontology and 'negative freedom'. He is the modern political theorist and it isn't surprising to find postmodernists disagree or even the soul-seeker trads trying to uncover a better link with the pre-modern world. My purpose is to speak for what is useful in all ages. There are useful arguments from Hobbes. Things I don't shy away from utilizing despite the bad rep.

#1. Hobbes reveals the namecalling of the political arena. Here is a political theorist who understood the essential conflict of interest between parties and their useless, divisive attitudes. Like other absolutists, Hobbes was fixated on the three essential forms of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. What was understood was that the negative forms were probably the forms misliked from the namecallers. This is obvious, and it makes sense from Hobbesian pov because Hobbes knew how people develop and appetite for things and aversion for others. Every goddamn day this point is vindicated for Hobbes time and time again. For those who dislike MONARCHY, they call it TYRANNY; for those who dislike ARISTOCRACY, they call it OLIGARCHY; for those who dislike DEMOCRACY, they call it ANARCHY. People think of negative forms as fixed, but the truly this reflects the nature of political struggle in the political arena. This is like a tug-o-war more than what's true for what form of government. Maybe there are excessive qualities, but it doesn't deny the principle of struggle and political animals. As far as I'm concerned, I also got over the 'muh tyranny' thing like the beginning of the OP. It is easy to misunderstand what this point essentially grapples with. Muh tyranny seems to be the perfect word for people who like oligarchy and anarchy. Your true colors are exposed depending on how you balance these the two others.

#2. Hobbesian Commonwealth was truer to the roots of political foundations. It was closer to the essential core of what politics associated with. Not too many people today understand 'body politic' and its origins in the classical political scheme. Today people focus on the political compass, think they are either 'statists' or 'anarchists', and decide to neglect authority or liberty or embrace being a total 'statist' or a total 'anarchist'. Hobbes was closer, maybe from his influence of Aristotle, to regarding the political world as dealing with the whole of 'the City' and not neglecting people as part of this framework. It isn't only concerned with 'The State' and what the People do in political society. This distinction is poor for understanding what politics essentially is. It deals with both, and both are inherently tied together and not alien to one another. There is ruler and ruled, but even the rulers still consist with body politic and neither is it only resigned to this station.

#3. Hobbes was a monarchist. That is all I care about in the end. He vindicates monarchy and understands the essence of monarchy. Sure, a social contract theorist, but a useful one. Hobbes rejected justified rebellion that revolutionary socialists and pro-liberty people like to tout with sic semper tyrannis. He didn't think a monarchy was anymore anti-liberty than other forms, only depending on their laws. Hobbes also turned the tables on the other monarchomachists who despised monarchy and vindicated 'The People' against monarchy. By simply making it put that the King is 'The People'.

>and other social contract theorists?

I really can't imagine. You've got John Locke and the whole foundation of his political philosophy is expressed in contarian attitudes towards Robert Filmer. Where does this stand? Oh, he says it clear – "Honor thy Father AND Mother". In a proto-feminist way, Locke expressed his views on a kind of marriage between the individual and state in terms of civil society. He objected to Filmer and used 'the Mother' to handle Patriarchalists and described it as a voluntary compact for the mother to marry the father as a means of explaining how people join with states. However, Hobbes (unlike Locke) rejected that the majority matter, only the entire whole for him.

POLITICAL COMPASSES ARE A SHAM

Legit a facebook-tier IQ test for political animals and that goes for every political test I see that 'maps your autism'. These political compasses are made for and by republicans. They are trapped in the liberal individualist dichotomy of 'authority vs. liberty' and a warped worldview of contemporary politics. If your understanding of politics is only based on contemporary politics about what donald DRUMPF or BERNIE is doing and what 'conservative' parties or 'progressive liberal' parties are doing either, – you're a moron. Political ANIMAL.

Debunking the entire political compass means rejecting these revisionist terms like 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' as if they were just interchangeable anyways. It means rejecting liberty and authority as juxtaposed. Why? Because without any authority, you would have NO liberty. You must assert your own authority in daily life. The biggest problem with anarchists is only seeing authority in the State and not in daily life. They reject the authority of the family or any other social institution. The word 'authority' is wrongly vilified because authority means author and your own autonomy and livelihood. It means your heritage and your status. It means your world in comparison to others as man is social and lives for well ordered, authoritarian civilization. Life is authoritarian. Get with the times.

The natural authority of fathers meant also unison composition with mothers. The reason Aristotle focused on families as a component of state was because families governed in society in their own micro-fashion. Once it is taken for individual and separate, it cannot match any healthy public standard. Too often the individual destroys society, or society destroys the individual. This is why Aristotle said that unity exists for the whole and not partiality. But this is also why – although stating that the 'state' in his convention pre-exists the family and individual – was ultimately also balanced when the basic unit of this state was the family. Hence that Belloc quote concisely wrapping these forms together and explaining that the state exists for the family. There is nothing wrong with a composition of families and individuals together, but it must also be balanced upon something that can appreciate the right of the individual and collective. This only bridge between respecting the right and dignity of individual and larger collective was only found in the familial structure. People have a first name and a last name for themselves as individuals and then for their heritage.

>>7846

Here is where it is clarified that households are compositions of a state and also expressed that property originates as part of this social order.

>>7847

If you read M*istre you would see his firmest statement against Rousseau is that Man exists for civilization and wasn't pre-societal. This is where it aligns with Aristotle who said that this state came before even the family and individual because man exists for civilization. It is ingrained in his nature and if you dropped an individual baby in the forest – without parents to nurture it – this child would die. Imagine the Adam and Eve story and God who was sovereign over the Universe, broke apart and created two from a whole and structured sexuality on its fertility. This was united back with sovereignty under ceremonial Christian marriage, which was union back with Christ and back into a whole. The golden ring that a bride wears resembles this union of souls in co-ordination with sovereignty. As a chunk was taken out of the ribs, now it is restored.

>>7843

People will be confused that I appeal to Hobbes while bashing on the State of Nature, but it's really to explain that I value Hobbes for certain points he made regardless.

As for the Lockean perspective, I wanted to make a point clear that people don't often pay attention to and it's basically his assertion of the mother in this patriarchal order. But since man is the dominant member of the household, I think that is silly. It is admirable that Locke glorifies marriage as a consensual and natural bond, but men are clearly the gender that rule in human society for most civilizations and a patriarchal order doesn't necessarily exclude a mother from governing over children as every king has their consort. For Locke – his feminist argument was the basis of his objection to Filmer and patriarchalism that the father ruled AND the mother. My opinion is this doesn't impact the natural power of fathers neither does it discredit the wisdom of Filmer.

>>7843

Hobbes simply tries to justify a strong sovereign power, his arguments could be used for a strong republican regime or a strong anything. He's an Enlightenment thinker and I don't recommend using his arguments.

Medievalists understand that the justification for a monarchy comes from God and from God's creation, the family. The family in a natural setting is a monarchy, it is ruled by a benevolent father in a no-nonsense manner.

Hobbes certainly makes some good points. A sovereign power is certainly preferable to civil war and anarchy. But it is paradoxical for us as monarchists to defend a republican power, be it strong, weak, or in between. That is simply will to power nonsense. A republic has no legitimacy. It's ministers are accountable to voters, not to God, and hence it is an abomination.

>>7870

>He's an Enlightenment thinker and I don't recommend using his arguments.

Here's the thing.

I'm pretty indifferent what era they come from or how they're tangentially related to said political thought. I'm more about dicing up and picking apart what I think appeals to me, or maybe reversing a few republican arguments like 'What about the People!'. My firm opinion is there's no way to free the mind from these influences, as many people speak as if they were a 'Medieval man', Nobody today knows the virtue of the Middle Ages. Neither did the men of the Middle Ages know they were understood in as 'Medieval' as historiography makes it out.

Overall, I appreciate your post regardless. Those are just the specific things I borrow/like from Hobbes.

DO NOT APPEAL TO WHAT WE CALL ANCIENT, WHAT WE CALL MEDIEVAL, WHAT WE CALL RENAISSANCE, WHAT WE CALL ENLIGHTENMENT, WHAT WE CALL MODERN, WHAT WE CALL POSTMODERN – APPEAL TO WHAT IS ETERNAL

TRADITION IS A FORM OF WISDOM

It is wisdom of ancestors. From grandfather, to father, to son; tradition is the wisdom of the ages!

HOWEVER, TRADITION FOR THE SAKE OF ONLY TRADITION IS FOLLY

>He certainly made good points.

Good for you, sheeple.

>but his proof is based in all these enlightenment abstractions

I already stated in the post that – yes, Hobbes is a modern political theorist. I get it. This whole muh enlightenment thing was already addressed and I said I'd talk about Hobbes despite this. It's not that I disregard the Middle Ages, but monarchy doesn't only exist for the Middle Ages. It was there in the ancient times and the great after years ahead.

>Hobbes doesn't give the reader any reason why the sovereign needs to be a single person even. So he's not even strictly a monarchist.

Goddamnit. There are so many points from Hobbes, I wouldn't know where to begin. You're just taking advantage of the fact that Hobbes decided to be relatively impartial in his works for the sake of argument.

>pic related from De Cive, Chapter X

There is a whole chapter dedicated to outlining reasons for supporting monarchy: why monarchical nepotism isn't as bad as democratic demagoguery; why there is no more liberty in republics than in monarchies; why monarchy is most absolute. Hobbes even confesses in a statement in the beginning that he dedicated the chapter for his pro-monarchy statements. This is only a small slew of stuff I can pick from. There are also instances where Hobbes laments how unfairly ancient writers discredited monarchy as an evil form of government and expresses the 'tyrannophobia' phenomenon with monarchy from pro-republic authors. It's probably the biggest reason I sympathize with Hobbes alone. I face the 'muh tyranny' stuff everyday.

>Monarchy is correct because it's not an ideology, it's personal.

You know what – cool, that's a good statement for you. I agree; my biggest annoyance is when people associate personal rule and autocracy with tyranny by itself as if no monarchy can benefit the common good. I get this all the time – 'the ruler in interest of the self or the common good' and otherwise that just isn't true. Sharing power equally is not how it works and it doesn't benefit anyone no matter how equal that power is spread. That's just a catchphrase for oligarchists, tbh.

THE VIRTUES OF MONARCHY CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD BY ARISTOCRATS OF THE SOUL; LIKEWISE CANNOT THE MONARCHIST UNDERSTAND THE ARISTOCRAT OR THE COMMON FOLK

Aristocrats of the soul see monarchy and believe only aristocracy has the virtues. What an aristocrat of the soul fails to understand is that even the many ordinary people have their own simple, practical virtues and even strength in many numbers. An aristocrat regards this as vulgar, but even the vulgar and humble have their benefits. The aristocrat of the soul calls this 'herd mentality' and 'slave morality'. When an aristocrat sees monarchy, the aristocrat doesn't understand the strength that one person has above few and many. For example, it takes one person to do what few and many cannot. It always takes leadership and one man to lead the pack. These are strengths of monarchy that the aristocrats seek to standardize and BRING DOWN to THEIR level. The aristocrat in spirit sees monarchy and wants to regulate what is monarchical to aristocratic standards only for aristocratic virtues and not for the power of one sovereign.

This is the case with divine right and the sacred nature of monarchy – a virtue that aristocrats as a few cannot understand. The benefit of a monarchical power is that a single man – as Aristotle said – needs extraordinary virtue above the aristocracy to have legitimate power, and the aristocrats of the soul sense this as a threat to their oligarchy on virtue. Monarchy always associated with religion for its piety and virtue to have legitimacy, but also as virtue and strength that few and many misunderstand. The second reason is that the discipline of one man is not the same discipline as few and many. A single man doesn't require the co-ordination a mob needs, or that a few men need in civil chat… for the discipline and temperance in his life. A man needs to look no higher than God for strength and power as to discipline him since no sovereign is as essentially singled as a monarch. To relate this back – monarchy needs extraordinary virtue/intelligence to peak near legitimacy, and this is always challenged by the few and many in different ways; the few seek to capitalize upon being more meritocratic while the many pull us down with the 'we're all human' gig. And a single man has to find self-discipline to truly domesticate his soul. Religion brings the central themes of culture and self-discipline, often corresponding to the common good. What is the common good? What is good for one, few, and many, not just the majority. The problem is power is never equally shared between one, few, and many. A great misconception with the statement that 'it's the self-interest or the common good' is that it ignores how one can benefit few and many with greater unity in a leadership and also that personal rule is not always self-interest only.

>>7890

Oligarchists believe that they don't have self-interest for their groups, but time and time again partisanship divides a country into useless partisan squabbles for the sake of party politics. What stops them? Frankly, few things discipline an animal like man. The whole question of what 'prevents' is really what disciplines.

NOTHING can build a perfect form of government that avoids all imperfections. And I doubt that an oligarchy, even if they imposed a mixed system with a constitution like constitutional monarchists believe, would find that perfect equalibrium where everyone is peacefully self-sacrificing for the common good. That is an impractical thought. It is often that a mixed form pretty much literally confuses the interests of the political domain rather than resolve them and it becomes an oligarchy with a tiny bit of monarchy and democracy or excessively democratic with little to none of the monarchy. Everyday a prerogative is stripped in the constitutional system, even that which is traditional in it.

>What PREVENTS it from being self-interest only?

It is hard to say that man lives for the self only, because the self extends itself to its community as a whole very often. Also, Hobbes makes it a point that the self-interest could even benefit the whole (rather contrary to Aristotle) with greater defense. I only told you what helps to discipline an effectively ruling monarchy. Look >>6570 here and you see that government alone cannot govern because it needs a higher good and discipline from what is virtuous and noble. A good monarch is frankly not always a reality and that is why you don't get straight and simple 'good' and 'bad' monarchs all the time. A monarch can uphold laws, but sometimes the laws are inherently oppressive. Truly, an oligarchy depends on rigid standards for rigid meritocracy. Fairness and equanimity is a state of mind reached through self-discipline.

>>7896

>Each other. It's not great but it's a better guarantee than leaving it all to one guy and just trusting him not to fuck everyone.

Yeah, nobody denies peers and peer influence. Those are barriers, but not self-discipline. Read >>6441 and look for yourself.

>Yes, and monarchs aren't exempt from this

Duuuuh. For monarchs in particular, they need to rely on what disciplines an individual apart from his self-interest and that is self-discipline (which is sometimes part of self-interest, btw).

> When things don't all rest on one man, he alone cannot completely ruin things.

By principle of being one, but not all doing, sure. I'm not looking for a great AI robot that automates and controls everything.

EVERY MONARCHY HAS A LITTLE BIT OF TYRANNY WITHIN IT

You don't get the good without the bad. There is no perfect system. You sometimes get the bad. But if you want monarchy, that's what you get. I never said that monarchy would be perfect. I'm only an advocate for it, ffs. Sometimes, a monarch indulges his self-interest, but it doesn't necessarily only come at the cost of all. A little bit of indulgence doesn't hurt anyone. Even the excessive regimes that do come aren't all pitch black bad, but neither are good idealized regimes always good. The nature of politics is a tug-o-war between imperfect factions.

>>7901

>Liberals fear the concentration of power in a single man primarily because they themselves never had real father figures (I'm totally serious here).

Here's the thing about liberals – they all go nuts as if I want a communist, totalitarian monster of statism. I'm not looking for a monarch that has the power and will to nationalize every automotive industry. I'm not looking for their horror stories of Stalin that threatens the perfect world of parliamentarian, suit-wearing goodie good guys who need to protect FREEDOM and LIBERTY from tyrants. For an absolute monarchy, yeah, it has its officials and maybe a bit of bureaucracy. Obviously, a king has more officals with the entire realm. However, my opinion has always been that the government of one man is smaller due to the nature of its oneness seeing how one man cannot possibily be all-doing and neither can it function like a Stalinization program. I keep hearing that the 'Tsars lead to centralization in Russia and blah, blah, blah – they created the Soviet Union." This really sounds like bickering about unitary vs federal vs confederate systems that liberals idealize to divide power.

>because they never had real father figures

That's an odd example, imo.

However, restraining power isn't done – the power that restrains is the power greater and dividing power into fewer or many capacities doesn't make it smaller. The feudalist (not medievalist, btw; not all Medieval systems were feudal) sees feudalism as a confederate model pretty much. Look at the world today and the non-monarchical governments are divided between a few representatives, separated, and regulated via constitutions – yet they all have become very powerful. The nature of power is not just restrained. However, monarchy does achieve a balance between few and many, even when it is at the top of the pyramid; others seek to make fewer the level of the pyramid, or deconstruct the pyramid for the many.

>It's a bit difficult to take this board seriously when it feels like a /b/ thread sometimes.

I come from /b/.

>>7907

If I was a libtard right now, I would pick on you for muh daddy issues.

Anyhow, there is a coalition between the libtard trad and ancaps. I'm glad you're on my side, anon.

I TOLD YOU THOSE ANIMALS COULDN'T BE TRUSTED

Animefag tried to befriend them, and look what they've done to him

But now I say it's time to rescue our courageous monarchist.

At daybreak, we ATTACK!

What can you expect

From filthy little libtards?

Their whole disgusting ideology is like a curse

Their skin's a hellish red

They're only good when dead

They're vermin, as I said

And WORSE

THEY'RE ANIMALS, ANIMALS!!

Barely even human

ANIMALS, ANIMALS!

DRIVE THEM FROM OUR SHORE

They're not like you and me

Which means they must be evil

We must sound the drums of war

>>7913

No, I really mean that self-discipline is a fundamental core to the essential monarchy. It is how every individual needs self-discipline and subordination between peers. However, the king is the ultimate insubordinate. It might not be reliable, but that's not what prevents it. Things like the rule of law can prevent evil, but they cannot discipline men and truly it is discipline that overall changes the moral character for good leadership. When a man is in a position of the highest and isn't really subordinated among peers, they must look to a higher power. To prevent evil, there are barriers such as peers and self-defense mechanism. I'm not encouraging a monarch to do whatever he wants, but most of those with power also have to learn this constraint as Bossuet explains.

All power isn't really concentrated in one man, but one man is exalted above others in a system. The liberal outlook between the peril of THE STATE and oppression is one thing, but truly no man really has the power to do whatever he wants, even a monarch. They are subject to reason. As for it being divided, it doesn't reduce if they sit at the helm of a nation.

>This can be seen as far back as feudalism. The monarch reigned, but regardless of what kingdom you were looking at, the nobles had a level of power that the King could not simply discount.

I'm really tired of the antagonistic feudal narrative that liberals peddle of the do-nothing king and nobles who really runned the show. Mostly because it lacks integrity and respect for the monarchy and also ignores clashes between nobles and king like the Barons War. Powers don't need to be standardized to constrain each other. A monarch has the institution of the Church and even his own aristocracy even in an absolutist regime – as well as the common people.

>>7916

>But it's generally better if they are.

People hate pointless political squabbling as it is between political parties, and that's only contained in governmental bodies. I'm sure nobody appreciates more pointless squabbles between a king and a flock of nobles. Establishment politics is bad enough as it is.

>but I'm pretty sure one of the defining features of absolute monarchy is the nobility having virtually no power

They are subordinate to their ruler, but nobility had their own rights and even privileges over the common folk. No power to pointlessly divide armies and confront the Tsar all the time. As part of the landed gentry and aristocracy, they do have political influence. Politics isn't all about what happens with the ruler, but also his powerful subjects. When a liberal spots influence beyond their notion of the state, they simply call it a 'deep state'. Really, those are just people with power/influence outside of the known sphere of sovereignty.

>Yes, but it would be better if the common people had effective recourse beyond basically sabotaging their economy and armed rebellion.

Muh economics. It's not like every absolute monarchy is a totalitarian state. Life under the Tsar meant you'd have private railways and even the Tsar's own railroad plans. There was every sense of propriety, both for the Tsar and the subjects. Also, there's petitions and honestly although maybe we're going to single out absolute monarchy as unitary – there were such things as local governments alongside the monarchy.

>>7883

Let me simplify this message.

#1. Aristotle makes the case that for monarchical rule (rule of one) it must be extraordinary virtuous. Ever since then, this has always been the first subject of attack for monarchomachists like John Milton (for example) to disregard the character of monarchy.

#2. Divine Right and traditional rights (like inheriting the name of Caesar who was deified; see names like Tsar or Kaiser) were the monarchs legitimacy over aristocracy and democracy. In the secularized sense, Hobbes said, 'The People' invested in the Monarch as a kind of 'leviathan' that cannot be pulled down by aristolarps/democracy advocates because 'he is the People™'. This is part of the 'extraordinary virtue part' to allow a succession of monarchs.

CHECKPOINT:

I'm focusing on what is unique for the one, not the few or many, in terms of refining it. The rule of many takes hold of simple truth and strength in numbers, the rule of few capitalizes on refined knowledge/skilled labor and virtues above the herd mentality, but monarchy must obtain the status of philosopher kings. This is no standard for every monarch, and I don't see it fit to dethrone/or call for elections (not an electoral monarchist).

#3. There is a reason why monarchy is often tied with religion/church because the force of religion does for monarchy TWO important things: first, religion provides extraordinary virtue to educate the individual (for what is true for a monarch is true for ALL individuals; hint, hint, another argument for monarchy is UNITY of ALL). Secondly, ONE man requires a bit of self-discipline to compensate for self-interest and it is found in faith and subordination to a moral order such as God being the ultimate sovereign above kings. Subordination between peers provides discipline like a teacher and student. Humility is important. For the rule of one, it must be associated with a religious power because the central theme is quite often humility, self-discipline, and moral character (all virtues for a monarch to be just).

I am not looking for a way to create the most stunted government out there. (That's not my objective; that's a liberal objective to eliminate oppression). I am talking about an effective monarch.

Try to imagine building character for a mob, a seated noble council, or a single man and you find that a mob needs passion to guide their feelings (emotion isn't a bad thing; it truly moves people), a council needs rules/regulations to conduct, and a single man needs to find a moral character to be an overall decent human being. Go back to >>6242 and you see that a monarchy really must capture a spiritual power first rather than be subordinated to an aristocracy.

A dictator (as the word implies to speak) already implies a consensual relationship brought directly to The People that 'representatives' claim to represent and talks with them. The relationship of a dictator with these men is that the Dictator dictates to the masses and they listen. This is seen as terrible from the aristocratic essence, because it is wild, passionate, and outside legal boundaries (which as seen as a foothold of reason), but passion and reason wage war. This is the monarchical principle taking a democratic edge. I look at democracy as much as aristocracy (a tool for the monarch to appeal to when necessary, but not the end). My personal opinion is that I would rather take even a dictatorship as an ideal over the parliamentarian sovereignty or even the aristocratic ideal. Not that I am fooled by the democratic strength, but the principle of unity and action is pretty great and is a monarchical one.

You folks might wonder why I'm so harsh on parliamentarian sovereignty. The case is my ultimate sympathies don't start with the French Revolution, but the English Civil War. My opinion is that the English Civil War brought us the offspring of the liberalist ideology in its realized form between King and Parliament. Then you get the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The American Revolution. THEN the French Revolution. We didn't see the anti-monarchist elements pop up until John Milton and Algernon Sidney. Then you get John Locke and the Whigs. That's for anyone listening. Don't expect me to sympathize with what's bad for parliamentarian sovereignty or what is threatening parliamentarian values.

This dictator restored monarchy in Spain.

What have liberalists done for the monarchist cause?

OATH OF THE OPRICHNIKI

I swear to be true to the Lord, Grand Prince, and his realm, to the young Grand Princes, and to the Grand Princess, and not to maintain silence about any evil that I may know or have heard or may hear which is being contemplated against the Tsar, his realms, the young princes or the Tsaritsa. I swear also not to eat or drink with the zemshchina, and not to have anything in common with them. On this I kiss the cross.

>>7927

>>7926

Is it me, or are shoulderpads on uniforms hot? I can't imagine a military uniform without shoulderpads.

>>7962

>That's why I say he (Franco) should have given the throne

I hear this all the time from fascists, but they don't understand how this thing works. If you want a continuation of Franco's autocracy, Franco could have made his own heir. That's how hereditary monarchy works. If you give it to a different person, you get a different system.

> J*an Carlos could have made something but he chose to go full cuck instead.

Contentious issue. I know what you're talking about.

>should have given the throne to the Habsburgs or Romanovs or maybe even Hohenzollerns.

Nothing to do now. Spain has a monarchy. You'll have to pick on the people surrounding the monarchy that push it into the bad administration. There's much to hate about the status quo all over the world, I know.

>I'm pretty sure the British monarchy's days are numbered, and they can't do anything about it.

Here's the thing. Things are terrible the way they are now, I would agree. A hereditary monarchist ought to have some faith in the system itself more than anything: that means have hope for a day that an heir will arrive, or that the right time will arrive. A hereditary monarchy is like a plant that needs good soil for its heirs.

>>7967

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on this board that wants autocracy, but that's a melancholic thought.

>>7963

>they dont' understand how this thing works

Franco was the temporary regent. There was no heir apparent, and he did offer it to Otto von Habsburg but he refused.

>ought to have faith in the system

but puppet monarchy is not the system we are advocating for …

>>7978

>Franco was the temporary regent.

I know he would have been illegitimate, but still.

>he did offer it to Otto von Habsburg but he refused.

Good. Spain is a Bourbon neighborhood, NIGGA.

>but puppet monarchy is not the system we are advocating for …

I like your enthusiasm, kid, but do you know how often you get a shot at this monarchy thing? You can't just get another monarchy to replace it in this day and age. Having a monarchy is a miracle and it's all we've got left.

>>7980

>b*urbonfags should kill themselves

Okay, I'll admit that the Habsburgs had some good monarchs in Spain. With that said, I don't think it would have gone either way even if Otto von Habsburg accepted to become King of Spain. It's more of a domino effect with the way the world was going post-WW2.

Now quit your bullying. It's not like I'm happy about liberal democracy either.

>>7981

Yeah, that's true. I have nothing against the royalty of humble origins. On the other hand, I can appreciate a few royal houses. I'm not the only one here who does it, mind you. Falangist anon practically heckled me into it.

>>7982

yeah, we're basically on the same team. I was bantzing you anyways …

and I only have huge problems with the B*urbons, since it seems like wherever they went they fucked shit up. I much prefer the other, more stable houses that actually had good monarchs during and after the Renaissance.

Daily reminder that Karl V was the last Habsburg monarch worth its money.

>>7986

mfw every good monarch carries around a baton.

Just look at North Korea.

Next time you get a dictatorship, make an heir for the dictator and you find an extension of his person. Kim II Sung figured this out. The hereditary principle simply works. You get preservation as a benefit. It helps with stability. It brings a rigid structure and that's partially why DPRK remained the way it is for so long with maybe a few newer innovations at a pace.

Give it to a different person and you get a different system.

Grooming a selective heir is best when you start with relatives. Selection process from the leader is really a hit or miss game. Partially with Juan Carlos you should look at his father and his manifestos. Franco was like an artificial father.

>>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.