/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8000

Files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

Captcha
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit.

Miku, Yotsuba P, and Royal themes added!

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Colonize Your Bookshelf Peasant 08/25/2020 (Tue) 01:41:16 No. 1713
https://www.zerothposition.com/2020/08/24/colonize-bookshelf-part-i/ Key: >The standard (liberal) account is that it was all “divine right of kings” this and “silk slipper on your neck” that from time immemorial until the stunning and brave Locke stood athwart history and yelled “Stop!” with such force that everyone (or at least everyone who counted) simply could no longer believe that kings should rule, and spontaneously decided to organize society on the basis of human rights, consent of the governed, and rule of law. But of course, the reality is somewhat different. Divine right of kings has never been standard operating procedure, and was in fact something quite new in Filmer’s time. Does this come as a surprise? Good thing you decided to colonize your bookshelf. >In ancient times God, king, and country were unified, and so sovereignty, such as it was, was clear and indivisible. The king was necessarily high priest, and so there could be no division between sacred and secular rulership, no “divine right” of kings any more than there is “wet water”—the kingship being a priestly office, no one ever thought to ask whether it was filled by divine favor. Later, with the advent of Christianity, came the first inkling of a sacred vs. secular in the form of Augustine’s “City of Man vs. City of God”. The Early Middle Ages, from the Byzantine Papacy through the Frankish period to about the 11th century, is the story of sacred and secular struggling for dominion one over the other. Catholics bring ruin of course.
evil papists amirite
>Byzantine Papacy is the heart of the ruin So! Are you an anabaptist or what?
>>1721 Divided power is bad.
>>1724 But a King by default spreads his power out, with him as the conductor of an orchestra, more-or-less.
(88.66 KB 450x509 Grace glare.jpg)
I'm no fan of papists myself. They're always whining about decadent kings and trying to shoehorn their Popes as ideal monarchs... occupying the seat of Roman Emperors. Them and trad clericalism, neither I could care about. Trads and their clergymen, bah. >>1725 A monarch makes one body of a body-politic. He is also the leader, and worth of a million men. He is the mind behind these creations. The monarch is the guide and unity of a state, the unify that destroys petty divisions that exist through partisan dogma. It takes one man to make one body, because it is through him that petty divisions are squabbled and pragmatic leadership is possible. No thanks to these political parties and their divisions, I say. A king unites his people, dissolves divisions, and makes them one flock behind one shepherd who leads them proactively. with his personal power. DISDAIN
(3.92 MB 3400x3082 grace-reprimands.png)
>>1724 For me, it comes down to the conviction that they are anti-royalist. They deny the place of a royal monarchy, vehemently dislike when KINGS or EMPERORS rule. These trads only have a place for their clergy, so they could virtue signal about how good they are. I hate them because they try to blot out the glory of kings with their praise of what is clerical. I don't only dislike that in tradcaths, but most trads in general.
(350.21 KB 1536x1536 yVZ3o-NE.jpg large.jpg)
It is true that the papists tried to make Popes supreme temporal and spiritual powers. A monarch as solely a high priest rather than the royal house or the imperial fighter or even the heroic kingship makes me dissatisfied. It is true that these sovereigns did play the role of high priest also, but it wasn't chiefly their own purpose. They were also protectors and definitely royal. There was more depth than this priestly class we see trads hoot as supreme.
>>1726 A king needs ministers and clergymen to actually carry out that great will, O Frederickus Rex. >>1727 >anti-Royalist Have you never heard of Christ the King? Noticing a lot of hemming and hawing without mentioning that.
(1.32 MB 1648x2056 grace muse.png)
>>1729 >Have you never heard of Christ the King? It is nothing to do with God. It is their praise the clergy rather than kings. It is the clergy rather than the glory of kings that I hate. What good is Christ the King if being king means little to do with anything? It is this diminished glory. >A king needs ministers and clergymen to actually carry out that great will, O Frederickus Rex. Oh, shut up. It is an ancient and epic kingship I praise. Filthy trads have to make a strawman about the "Enlightenment" to make themselves look better in comparison, a stupid foil. These arms and hands don't diminish the glory of kingship, that embodies the whole through one man. It is through a royal monarch that these men find their purpose.
>>1730 Which ancient and epic kingship? You're not being very specific, Freddie. And oh, you have much guilt in today's current affairs. If the Enlightenment had never happened, neither Louis nor Nicholas would have had to die. And you know that.
(2.54 MB 3225x3082 Grace repulsed!.png)
(21.06 MB 544x304 Ramses The Greatest Hero.mp4)
>>1731 Literally any ancient monarchy. I would gladly take Frederick the Great or any Enlightenment monarch too.
It is all about their local priest and Veggie Tales for them. The priestly character they value more. The trads value this because it makes them seem like godly men if they extol priests. "Well, what about Christ the King" rather than "Christ the Priest" or "Christ the Pope", if that's the case. The way you talk about kings seems like Christ the King is an insult to Christ.
>>1732 >>1730 >>1728 >>1727 >>1726 Reminder: any attempt to be monarchist without acknowledging earthly kings as mere servants of the King of Kings Christ, and his one, true Apostolic Catholic and Orthodox Church will only result in brain damage, and, even worse, avatarfagging. Imagine calling divine revelation petty and divisive, so the answer is to just blindly follow a kang. Why not just become Muslim then lmao.
(209.93 KB 1323x2048 EUxAoIvXQAIGR.jpg)
>>1735 >Why not just become Muslim then lmao. It's a compliment to a trad because they would be more clerical by their opinion.
reminder that King Frederick would have you executed
>>1736 As much as I enjoy having an inbred monkey dancing for our amusement in the court, the rate at which reading this post kills braincells outweighs the possible amusement. YOU ARE HEREBY BANISHED FROM THE REALM FOR FOUR-AND-TWENTY HOURS. YOU SHALL NOT RETURN NOT HAVING TAKEN YOUR REQUIRED DOSAGE OF RITALIN
>>1736 >trad You keep trying to make that into the next nigger or fag, and it's not working. >>1732 I notice that you deflected around the deaths of actual Kings and Emperors by revolution. You can't do that forever. Even as much as you despise Christianity despite having a background with it in the past, I'm sure; did daddy drag you to church one time too many?, they were yet kings and emperors. Your're not just retarded, you're also dishonest.
>>1732 As much as I do support the monarchy as a system, there are some monarchs that did more harm than good for the cause of that system. Frederick "the Great" was one such man.
(139.49 KB 1024x1366 Grace alternative outfit test.jpg)
(492.31 KB 1500x2250 Statue-Augustus.jpg)
>>1744 The whole idea of "monarchy as an institution" is mostly what I'm complaining about. I wouldn't be making this case about Frederick the Great if it wasn't for trads throwing it in my lap and pulling me into their zeitgeist bullshit. I hate their zeitgeist bullshit. I would rather not listen to the trad babble about the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment dialectic or how the modern world is burning his skin off. It's like generational meme or "decade" culture on steroids. >>1737 At the end of the day, I am clearly stating, because you trads leave me no other option, that I prefer this Augustus with the imperial armor and want this out of monarchy more than Augustus draped in solitude for priestly robes. I will viciously contest your tradism and desire to put priests on the pedestal rather than this or listen to trads bemoan about kings. I posted that video of Ramses II, the Battle of Kadesh, and the warrior monarch. I will kick dirt in your face. When it comes down to me and trads, if they're going to make me choose, I am kicking dirt in their face. I want the epic, warrior Augustus dawned in armor more than the priestly, solitude Augustus. >>1713 I somewhat disagree with OP, and I don't think Augustus is any less august when he dawns the imperial armor rather than the priestly robes. I think that the majesty of monarchy is the personal character, the pre-eminent man, because that is the supernatural belief inherent in monarchy. It isn't just that they take an institutional office. And while it is true that kings in the Spartan oligarchy also had a spiritual power, they were also warriors and I'm not really with the trads on their priest fetish--it isn't my taste. >>1725 My main problem with this is that first it seems like a parliamentarian image. Second, it treats monarchy more like a part in relation to the whole rather than the whole in relation to the part... denying the pre-eminence and glory in monarchy, the supernatural characteristic, the majesty, the unity, the belief in leadership; almost none of you believe in leadership, or look at it with contempt. >>1738 Sick of your three-fold complaint about the usual Charles-Louis-Nicholas ordeal and especially the way you badmouth it too, anti-royalist. I'm not sucking up to you no matter how much you give me that tit-for-tat attitude about what the monarch owes you. I want to be around monarchists who have the view of monarchy in mind, support it, and see the monarch as something innovative and useful today. I am not a fan of the so-called limited royalism. I don't like the powerless, shelved off royals you trads like, because you feel it divides the church or the clergy. I would say that it is better to have one day as a lion rather than a thousand years as sheep. I'm not surprised there is contempt for limited royalism today. At some point, while you could say that retain royal status, they cease to be monarchs. If you really want to brag about limited monarchy, you get a leader with term limits like a President. >>1735 >Imagine calling divine revelation petty and divisive I complained about political parties in that instance, but since trads really try to make themselves seem cool in comparison to "muh enlightenment" I really do go out of my way to contrast and ask them whether they too are content with viewing monarchy as solely a high priest and not emperor in majestic armor. No matter how "trad" you people paint it, I don't like it. I am tired of dealing a rivalry with anarchists each day, and "anarcho-monarchism" isn't what I really like either. The word "anarchy" makes me vomit. I hate coming to this board and sensing the ideological bitterness, and the contempt between us. I hate my own petty grievances and frustration with you peasants. Monarchy, one body, and one head... Anarchy, the headless body. I'm hitting the road and leaving this board.
>>1745 >tradstradtrads You're in a monarchy server, you colossal faggot, and you think you can rag on tradition unmolested?
>>1735 What if you're not a Christian though?
>>1914 There's an easy way to remedy that.
>>1931 So just like that Muslim being converted to Orthodoxy in Greece by an Orthodox chad?
>>1941 I wonder if a muslim swallowing his pride would be easier than an anon doing the same. Why is that?
https://www.zerothposition.com/2020/09/07/colonize-bookshelf-part-iii/ >However, Stoddard also underlines some of the deepest errors of the Third Reich, errors which one will not find in contemporary histories, errors which were far deeper than the strategic ones that doomed it, and which are of far greater import. Dictatorship—Filmer would call it monarchy—is the mark of a healthy society, but there are some things into which the absolute sovereign ought not to intrude, for both his own good and that of his people. In discussing the educational system, Stoddard explains that the Hitler Youth demanded of its members strict loyalty to the state above loyalty to the family, subverting fatherly power by encouraging children to disobey their parents. This caused the traditional patriarch of the German family to object to the claims of the Hitler Youth on the home even when they might be in sympathy with the regime. Often children denounced their own parents to the authorities, leading to many personal tragedies. This underlines the main failure of Nazism, which is also where it fundamentally dovetails with left-wing socialism: its commitment to creating a (National) Socialist Man. In ignoring man-as-he-is—or more properly, the Teuton-as-he-is—National Socialism unmoors itself from anything like blut und boden. >There is more. The Reich repeated the civilization-destroying error of the Greek tyrant Cleisthenes.[12] Stoddard writes, >“The Federal States have been abolished. In their place are Gauen, or provinces, which designedly cut across State lines with the avowed intention of making the inhabitants forget their historic local attachments. That was what the French revolutionists did when they abolished the provinces of royal France and cut the country up into Departments. This was done so arbitrarily that the French Departments have never developed much vitality. The Nazis claim that they have avoided this mistake by laying out each Province as a logical region based on a combination of history, geography, economics, culture, and common sense.”[13] >The problem here is not the top-down social ontology, but the deliberate sabotage of localism. If the aim is to weld the people into an organic whole, destroying local, historical consciousness is not the way to do it. This error was not isolated; as Stoddard details, what was done here with political borders was also done with law. This innovation and experiment in such ancient institutions as the family, law, and historic local identities characterizes the fatal flaw in National Socialist ideology: it placed modernism, development, and the principles of the Enlightenment above the archaic Aryan spirit at the core of its ideology, a spirit which it misunderstood.
https://www.zerothposition.com/2020/09/14/colonize-bookshelf-part-iv/ >More importantly, The Ancient City resurrects the spirit of the Aryans, and revives their praxis. This is Coulanges’ greatest legacy: it reminds us of things we have long ago forgotten. The cult of the ancestors is the ultimate particularist, traditionalist, patriarchal religion. We carry in us the imprint of this archaic religion and cannot escape it. Like looking at the image of a long dead ancestor for the first time, we see family resemblances so deep that they may have even been invisible. We can see the source of our Faustianism: the ancestor cult, along with primogeniture and inalienable property, effectively guaranteed rampant colonialism among the younger branches of the paternal line. This religion is at the root of our modern political categories, such as “tyranny,” a Greek idea whose deep history I have sketched out in an article for The American Sun. The Aryans have even bequeathed to us our notions of class: we have never fully escaped the trifunctionalism (priest/warrior/producer) that Dumézil identified as peculiarly Aryan. After thousands of years this caste structure was obliterated by Christianity, but reared its head again, almost as a sort of inescapable racial memory, in the Three Estates of the medieval world. This religion can even shed light on our Christian past: it is Aryan man’s need for a concrete god, a flesh and blood man, an immanent, reified deity that ensured Christ’s appeal to him where the abstract Yahweh proved alien and remote.
>>2005 >aryans What?
(132.02 KB 736x736 zlokot.jpg)
>>2005 >the spirit of the Aryans
>>2011 >muh blood
>>2013 The Aryan Invasion happened and blood outweighs muh ideals/institutions.
(13.76 KB 255x247 loser pepe.jpg)
>>2013 >h-hey our nation is filled with niggers and mutts but at least we have a BASTE monarchy, right?
>>2018 The Roman Empire itself consisted of different races as did many other successful kingdoms, and Dunbar’s number proves that you don’t give two shits about anyone outside your own town and social circle anyway. So long as my people are healthy and prosperous why would I give a shit that some niggers hundreds of miles away are technically labeled part of my “country”? Blood IS important, that’s why you’re retarded for caring about blood that has nothing to do with you. >muh mutts Statistically speaking that has always been a nonissue for the populace. Now go back to /fascist/ and quit shitting up the other boards.
>>2019 >The Roman Empire itself consisted of different races They collapsed into civil wars repeatedly. Also: https://archive.vn/aUQUr >rest Non-Whites don't think that way.
>>2020 Why are you here?
>>2019 >Dunbar’s number proves that you don’t give two shits about anyone outside your own town and social circle anyway You’re retarded if you don’t think that stuff that happens on the other side of a modern nation isn’t felt in one’s own town and social circles even due to the Internet, television, social media, etc. You’re living in the past. >So long as my people are healthy and prosperous why would I give a shit that some niggers hundreds of miles away are technically labeled part of my “country”? Because you live in a modern world where people can fly to the other side of the planet within a day and go anywhere in a country rapidly on car or by train. This isn’t the Middle Ages. People move around if they are explicitly prevented from doing so. >Blood IS important, that’s why you’re retarded for caring about blood that has nothing to do with you. Blood IS important, and we should care about keeping foreign blood far, far away from the blood of our own peoples and take any measures necessary to ensure that this foreign people does not effect us and / or lead to our mongrelization. Territorially separation is 100% necessary. Why do you long for muds to be incorporated into your empire anyway?
Why are you here? What's the point? This isn't the place for your "concern."
>>2023 >can't even take some light debate Wew
>>2046 At least post on /fur/. That board could use some life.
I suppose the thread is about explaining how a functioning monarchy works now, as opposed to the fanciful dreams of neopagans?
>>2032 Using modern comparsion and statues is literally retarded.
>>2097 Tell us more on how modern Italians have nothing to do with the Romans even after genetic studies.
>>2098 >He trusts (((academia))) Sure I'll also believe them when finally confirm that Italians were nigger after all! I wonder if you idiots are going to also believe the big bang theory next, but I suppose you'll believe anything that supports your retarded view, such as mix racing makes up genetically stronger.
>>2100 You can either accept that there's an objective reality or you don't.
>>2101 >You can either accept that there's an objective reality or you don't. You sound like a redditor, the fact that you're willing to accept anything from the jew David Reich or any of the other faggots who determine our DNA is likely the case that you are. >>>/reddit/
>>2106 >We Wuz Kangz Are you an Amerimutt?
>>2110 >Muh we wuz kangz >Still has brought zero augments >Excusing to believe in (((academia))) unless it fits an christcuck viewpoint Can't wait for you faggots to start becoming the equivalent of plebbit science and admit you're all Blacked.com subscribers.
>>2013 >Blood doesn't matter Except it does matter, almost every monarchy has had made this of importance since early antiquity to the medieval age. Is r/monarchy just a bunch of liberals who just think having a king is cool?


Quick Reply
Extra
Delete
Report

no cookies?