/monarchy/ - monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

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


(used to delete files and postings)


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 2.0.

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

♔ Read a Book ♔ Peasant 05/01/2020 (Fri) 01:16:48 No. 22

Reading Thread.

Dante Alighieri
(171.41 KB 500x497 P_Aristotle_grey.png)


Anonymous Royalist Poem
(140.55 KB 509x719 aquinas-02.jpg)
(263.24 KB De Regno Aquinas.pdf)

Aquinas Political Writings:
(230.30 KB 994x1200 hpim0650-jpg.jpg)
(575.62 KB Herodotus-Debate.pdf)
(160.73 KB 830x1023 830px-Caesar.jpg)

Herodotus Debate on Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy.

Ancient Egyptian Texts:

The Digest of Justinan -

De Laudibus Legum Angliae.
(161.86 KB 594x800 Sir_John_Fortescue.jpg)
(1.43 MB 1920x3659 A-Getty-147863796_dolou4.jpg)

Richard II's Views on Kingship by Simon Walker

Adam Blackwood's works

(320.62 KB 357x500 212107.jpg)

King James VI & I

Political Works of King James I:
"If I were not a king, I would be a university man; and if it were so that I must be a prisoner, if I might have my wish, I would desire to have no other prison than that library"
- King James I

King James I and the Tinkler
(93.99 KB 344x485 God and King.jpg)

God and King: Patriarchalist Tract by Richard Mocket and commissioned by King James I:

Mad Monarchist on King Charles I:

A royalist carol :

Struggle for Sovereignty Vol 1. Royalist and Parliamentarian arguments

Enemy of Monarchy: Oliver Cromwell

The Power of English Kings, Robert Filmer

A memento, L'Estrange
(839.16 KB 995x826 leviathan.png)
(304.61 KB Hobbes-De Cive.pdf)
(955.30 KB Hobbes-Leviathan.pdf)
(44.76 KB 620x388 sacred-mysteries_2250010b.jpg)
(1.16 MB Hobbes_Works.pdf)
(970.32 KB Hobbes Rhetoric.pdf)
(4.04 MB 2343x3264 hobbes.jpg)
(107.29 KB Hobbes Heresies.pdf)

Homer's Odysses translated by Tho. Hobbes of Malmsbury:
(1.42 MB 616x1000 HobbesThomas1588-1679.png)

John Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh, royalist counterpart and opponent of Hobbes
(535.20 KB 1324x1500 DZIUTEtV4AAiIR-.jpg large.jpg)

Mad Monarchist Articles:
(719.26 KB 950x1448 Mongolia.jpg)

MM Yes I do!:

MM Great Christian Monarchs Not Long Ago:
(71.16 KB 512x457 ungern.jpg)

The Crimes of King George III:
(208.86 KB 620x580 MM_1.jpg)
(76.95 KB 800x960 DN6j28lU8AA1dh_.jpg large.jpg)
(140.55 KB 509x719 aquinas-02.jpg)
(236.86 KB 591x556 Aquinas-01.jpg)
>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
-I Peter 2:13-16
-I Samuel 12:13
-Proverbs 19:10
-Proverbs 17:26

2 Samuel 4:5-12 King James Version (KJV)
(81.82 KB 900x899 436.jpg)

2 Samuel 1 King James Version (KJV)
(29.68 KB 363x360 evola.jpg)
After what we have said, it is clear that we do not share at all the idea that monarchy at this point should be democratized, that the monarch should assume almost bourgeois features '€” '€œmust come down from the august heights of the past and present himself and act in a democratic way,'€ as Loewenstein claimed. That would simply destroy his dignity and his raison d'€™Ãªtre, as we indicated. The king of the north European countries who carries a valise, who goes shopping in the stores, who consents to letting radio or television display his well-behaved family life to the people including his tantrum-throwing children, or else the Royal House that is provided for the curiosity and gossip of the news magazines, and whatever else one thinks, might make people close to the king, including, in the end, a good-natured paternal appearance (if the father is conceived in a bland bourgeois form), all this cannot avoid damaging the very essence of the monarchy. The '€œMajesty'€ then really becomes an empty epithet of the ceremony.
If one is really a monarchist, one cannot concede that the monarchy becomes reduced to a simple decorative and representative institution, a kind of nice furniture or, according to the image mentioned by Loewenstein, something like the golden figure that was put on the bow of a galleon; the State, in concrete terms, would remain that of the republican parliamentary democracies, concerning the king only to countersign, as would a president of the republic, whatever the government and parliament decide.
The constitution and the law should not be made into fetishes. Constitution and law do not fall ready-made from heaven, they are historical formations and their intangibility is conditioned by the normal course of things. When this course fails, when faced with emergency situations, a higher power must assert itself positively.

The Meaning and Function of Monarchy - Julius Evola
(88.55 KB 437x550 Jean_Bodin.jpg)

Bodin's Six Books of Commonwealth:

/monarchy/ paranormal /x/ edition reads

French works.

Le despotisme de la Chine :

Tsar Ivan the Terrible correspondence.

Konstantin Pobedonostsev:

Liberty or Equality:

LEFTISM: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse:
(277.89 KB 1200x731 C-lJ1u1U0AAzGgn.jpg)
(46.02 KB 528x331 D0848.jpg)
(123.79 KB 1200x655 DbUI49yVAAEXdkL.jpg)


A Dashing Medievalist:

MM Articles semi-related:

Human Action
(180.48 KB 1223x753 D2vFuOoUkAAtvER.jpg large.jpg)
(363.10 KB 1258x1600 GK-Chesterton.jpg)

Europe and the Faith:

What was the Roman Empire?
(566.99 KB 800x800 leo-on-socialism.png)


Establishing Juche Outlook has an interesting phrase of 'One for All, All for One.' Alongside the cult of personality and 'Father Kim II Sung', DPRK despite its democratic and republican tradition shed interesting light on characteristics royalists might recognize.

A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru w/ foreword from Mises:

Gaius [or, Caius] Caesar (Caligula) sources:

(103.71 KB 1280x838 Hilaire_Belloc_01.jpg)
(62.73 KB 382x518 01.png)
(50.84 KB 561x404 02.png)

Shah of Iran
(178.94 KB 263x410 Edmund_Burke.png)

David Hume's History of England complete volumes:

(171.27 KB 1278x1600 Samuel-Johnson.jpg)

Samuel Johnson's Political Commentaries:

How to be an Indo-European King, The EpicRamayana:https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=D9E8B9BA21457A7C7AEC4F6420219397https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=54A8585A5A44BDB4F94799A62858010Chttps://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=F908378AC39CCE17BD021E2D36A441DE
(15.43 MB 640x360 Varg_Kingship.mp4)
(186.67 KB 500x723 p8ewoy9jAu1wzvt9qo2_500.jpg)

NRx blog pieces
(46.23 KB 400x400 000440.jpg)
(52.50 KB 636x504 Aristotle-on-whole.png)
(39.23 KB 789x274 Aristotle on royal virtue.png)

I'm choking on a dark purplepill
(21.72 KB 587x218 Aristotle-royalism01.png)
(48.69 KB 574x487 Aristotle-royalism02.png)
(12.47 KB 553x133 aristotle-royalism03.png)
(51.28 KB 487x350 Roman law.png)
A few things I'll point out with these screencaps in mind.
My opinion:
>God is a positive force in some ways, not only negative. But in order to understand this, I think you should understand the Royalist Argument in Aristotle's Politics… Aristotle's Politics is a fairly balanced book; it doesn't outright tell you, because Aristotle acts indifferent. Most rule-of-law conservatives just assume that Aristotle is with them, but even Aristotle gives some credit to the Royalist Argument that in some circumstances Wise Men/Kings should have power over law… For the royalist, the appeal to this principle is powerful in favour of the rule of sovereigns as much as the rule-of-law conservative appeals to the Laws'„¢–Royalists appeal to gods… because gods are an extension of the Royalist Argument of Wise Men… but gods are kings in heaven.
>Imo, to only favour the laws in spite of God seems to undermine God's love–the love of God is proactive… It's not only contained to laws, it reels back to God himself–mankind was made in his image. Part of the Love of God is not only adhering to the laws, but relates to how God loves you. God is a sovereign power–God is a sovereign, a king in heaven. I once heard that if you were to subject God strictly to the laws, God would be considered one of the greatest murderers. And if you took away the person of Christ, what would redeem you from the Law or even God's judgment?
>I always disliked rule-of-law conservatives strictly because for me–Monarchy isn't merely about being an Institution'„¢ or even just The Family'„¢–what is a family without the person of a father? The love of Monarchy for me is that it has a person–the love found in Monarchy correlates to this strongly.
Here are a few lines that should be pointed out in these screenshots.
The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole.
But HE who is not unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a BEAST or a GOD
And also,
And yet HE who first founded the state was the GREATEST of benefactors.
And finally,
But justice is the bond of men in states, for the ADMINISTRATION of justice, which is the DETERMINATION of what is just, is the principle of order in political society
These highlighted lines are incredibly important for the subject of monarchy on terms of the individual monarch. The Pharaoh was called the Great House, because HE was so pre-eminent in virtue and the whole body-politic was associated with him. It wasn't two bodies, but the WHOLE in this power, the monarch, rather than the part because the monarchy became so pre-eminent and GREAT. And that is why monarchs build palaces, and later capture the notion of the despotate (great house), because they were so pre-eminent and grand, so great in this strength and power, they could build entire cities with their monolithic glory.
Another lines relevant to monarchy, pro-monarchy particularly:
The '
At this point, I need to point out what Filmer calls the 'reservedness' of Aristotle. There is a lot of vacillation between both points of the argument.
Yes, it may be replied, but then on the other hand an individual will be better able to DELIBERATE in particular cases

The best man, then, must legislate, and laws must be passed, but these laws have no authority when they miss the mark, though in all other cases retaining their authority. But when the law cannot determine a point at all, or not well, should the ONE best man or should all decide?

Take notice, now, that Kingship is personal, and that the ADVOCATES OF ROYALTY that were mentioned earlier understood that in certain instances, NOT ALWAYS, a monarch should rule. These are the first harbingers of the absolutist principle.
Hence, absolute, meaning 'absolved' from the law to act. The only other notion of absolute is independent, but in most cases when people critique what they believe to be 'absolutism', they are actually just critiquing monarchy.
Regardless, Kingship -is- personal.
The Egyptian kings and Mesopotamian kings were called shepherds and sometimes their royal insignia was the tools of a shepherd. A shepherd guides his flock with his person. They follow him.

…A statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a GREAT Household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the RULES of the political science [code of conduct, perhaps], the citizens rule and are ruled IN TURN [term limits; taking their turn in being governed], then he is called a statesman.
This is semi-relevant:
I know this from experience, even with other royalists. You come across so much resistance to the idea of one man, a monarch, being the ruler and all this word clout only to come to the point that it has to be a god-king, or else they will never allow the personal qualities of kingship or tolerate the one-man aspect of monarchy with these aristocratic freemen and the multitude always making a fuss. I know from experience arguing with other royalists countless times, countless times pushing back and even reviling the notion of monarchy at its base core and meaning 'rule of one' because nothing short of a god-king will do for this world.
Remember this is because man independent or a baby in the woods will die. But here comes the UNLESS clause, that the first founders of these states were the greatest benefactors of mankind and that with his justice became almost god-like… Pay attention to when they say, that man separated must either be a -GOD- or a BEAST. And focus on how many times that when it comes to an exception to the royal rule, it must be that the king associates himself with a godly person. That is why you get God-Kings when there needs to be some kind of proactive monarchy, a divine monarchy, not only a sacred one, but divine and concerned with a great person to lead them…
(11.53 KB 580x148 Aristotle Zeus.png)

Do you think it is just a coincidence that Gods and Kings are consistently paralleled?

I can't help reading this screencap on royal virtue and the description of the one, pre-eminent man who doesn't take his goddamn turn and not think god-king.
(849.45 KB 604x720 Grace.png)

I need to write a small manifestation on a few problems I see in monarchist circles, sometimes particularly among tradists.
(31.68 KB 359x398 grace book.jpg)
Royal constitutionalism has the person of the royal, usually described as a master of ceremonies, but the constitutional role could vary in terms of power and prerogative. Master of ceremonies in that the royal guides the code of conduct of an oligarchy (parliament) with the personal aspect and rituals. In other words, demonstrates before a group how to perform and act in this code of conduct with actions, so they know to take their turns efficently.

This accusation on monarchy is really an oligarchist objection at heart. It's the belief that monarchy cannot benefit the common good, but only acts to enrich the monarch. A big misinterpretation, I believe, because they cut off/castrate the monarch, believe the monarch doing anything would be tyrannical, because a monarchy only works to benefit, not the common good, but the ruler.
But a monarchy can potentially act to benefit the common good. It doesn't have to be "mixed in" either to manifest this. A monarch, as one man, can do tons of acts as self-sacrifice and complete the common good.
Too many snarky royalists like to make this the case, it's sad, but true. I hate this assumption with a livid ire.
I think feudalism is just feudalism at the end of the day. Many people try to argue for oligarchy, but they call it feudalism,–but who says it's feudalism? Or, constitutionalism? Maybe the constitutionalist tradition in the Middle Ages. I need to point something out.
There's a difference between arguing for constitutionalism (the idea of the mixture) and specifically arguing for oligarchy (the few). Most people conflate the two because constitutional governments usually have oligarchy as the predominate form (the form that stands out the most of the mixture). For example, does anyone think it is a coincidence, that in the USA, the elite families like the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Trumps and other political dynasties take their TURNS in ruling the country? That is the staple of oligarchy–it doesn't matter if it is centeralized in a small room or spread out or decentralized in this question, but how they act as a whole dominion.
In oligarchies, probably a good example is Genoa, where the doge has term limits. In oligarchies or your general aristocratic estates, it is multiple families–but in monarchy, it is typically one royal family or established dynasty.
In an oligarchy, they try to prohibit one family from ruling, so they could take their turn as multiple families.
(3.04 MB 2392x4100 grace_tyrannophile.png)
I wouldn't hate on Medievalists/trads so much if I didn't get constantly annoyed with a couple things. It all started when a tradist got angry at my reading list for being 'too modern' and that's when I decided I stopped caring whether something is just old or just new.
I strongly dislike watching tradists writhe and squirm about muh modernity, twist and scream about how they're trapped, and go to this degree of self-hatred because they weren't born in the Middle Ages. That is ridiculous.
The Middle Ages wasn't a monarchist only haven. It had shreds of republican tradition and anti-monarchy sentiment like with all ages. Just because something is Medieval, or even old, doesn't mean it's pro-monarchy. Just because it is Medieval doesn't make it good on my terms. I would rather take an Enlightenment text that was pro-monarchy than a Medieval text with democratic vibes or one that is anti-monarchy and cries about tyranny.
You people were born in a post-1453 world. What some tradists do is they sometimes even take Enlightenment era stuff and call it Medieval. They take paintings from post-1453 and call them Medieval paintings. That shows what I despise in full throttle.
Medievalists think the world started in 476 AD. But what about the before 476 AD? The Medievalists are like a bratty younger brother crossing his arms and saying, "I'm the oldest!" They get annoyed at the 'Renaissance' for trying to revive Ancient/Classical themes. But shouldn't Medievalists be humbled with what is ancient? After all, it is older.
Tradists at the end of the day are conservatives. It doesn't matter what tradition they are preserving, what structure they are keeping–they just want those traditions. It could be the laws of today, all those regulations of the contemporary world, that become our new traditions and they would embrace this. The question of natural order and all are out of the picture.
(2.25 MB 2728x2624 LARP02.png)

To make it clear on why the Middle Ages weren't really monarchist-only, it was writers like Aquinas and Dante that started to re-introduce the word 'monarchy' to begin with, the idea of rule of one. Along with the re-introduction of certain texts. That was all much later in the Medieval period.
(6.13 MB 9085x4704 Grace Rita.jpg)
(2.65 MB 6724x3500 Hobbes on Tyrannophobia.jpg)
(4.06 MB 6724x4283 grace-despot.jpg)
(21.14 KB 775x142 Despotism02.png)
(20.72 KB 812x130 Despotism03.png)
(43.21 KB 640x155 Despotism01.jpg)

Meaning of Despotism:
(855.32 KB 1950x2154 ddvorg2.jpg)

By the way, on individualism, I think any sensible monarchist that knows that monarchy actually means 'rule of one' and read those screencaps above–they would understand, that the monarch is an individual, and that the question of individualism matters incredibly for monarchy. Part of the power of the monarch is an individual power, an undivided UNity, while every smack at 'The Individual' is also another potential smack at monarchy.
(12.55 KB 511x162 Filmer-on-council-many.png)
Here are two screencaps in response to that Aristotle screencap on democracy–Aristotle-royalism02.
It is a good democratic point, but Filmer and this Hobbes screencap make a case to counteract that point about many people bringing more food to the table.

The royal charter granted unto kings, by God himself :

The duty of inferiours towards their superiours, in five practical discourses:
(784.45 KB 1829x1242 Die_Gartenlaube_(1865)_b_3'€¦.jpg)

Youtube Videos on Monarchy:
(317.67 KB TsaristEconomy.pdf)

A little thing to inconvenience modern communists.

I like our domain's name
(734.19 KB 2071x3015 d2u2l6sk99x21.jpg)
(289.87 KB theogony.pdf)

For she accompanies and attends revered kings Whomever the daughters of mighty Zeus honor and see being born from kings nurtured by Zeus, upon his tongue they pour dew sweeter than honey and from his mouth flow soothing words. All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. He addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeasing the parties with soft words. As he walks in the marketplace, they glorify him as if a god with soothing deference, and he stands out in the gathering.
(242.46 KB 810x692 1578988815000.png)
(241.06 KB 786x657 Bossuet Quote.jpg)

Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture:
(42.97 KB 474x560 MM_p2.jpg)
(22.69 KB 293x431 mm_usedcar.jpg)
Monarchies are too expensive!
Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.

Hereditary monarchy just isn'€™t fair!
Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more '€œfair'€ than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.

Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?
The same question could be asked about republican leaders. However, rest assured, monarchs who are not capable of fulfilling their duties can be replaced and have been throughout history. Take two of the oldest and most stable monarchies; in Great Britain, when King George III became incapacitated the Prince of Wales was made regent and exercised his duties for him. Similarly, in Japan, when the Taisho Emperor was no longer able to fulfill his duties, the Crown Prince took over those duties for him as regent. On the other hand, even in the most successful republic in the world, the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached and neither one was actually removed from office.

Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It'€™s simply out of date!
Certainly monarchy is an ancient institution as it developed naturally from the dawn of time and the growth of human civilizations. However, democracy and republicanism is just as archaic. The Greek city-states of ancient times tried direct democracy and found it of very limited value, lasting only so long as people found out they could vote themselves the property of others. Republicanism was tried on a large-scale by the ancient Romans and yet they too found that it caused too many divisions, factions and civil wars before they decided a monarchy was preferable. The oldest republic in the world today was founded in 301 AD. How out of date is that?
From madmonarchist's 'myths' page.
Maistre on Monarchy how balances Democracy/Oligarchy
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'€¦.
>3. And this order of things appears still more perfect when it is remembered that the aristocracy of birth and office, already softened by the right belonging to every family to enjoy the same distinctions in its turn, is stripped of everything possibly offensive to the lower orders by the universal supremacy of the monarch, before whom no citizen is more powerful than another; the man in the street, who is insignificant when he measures himself against a great lord, measures the lord against the sovereign, and the title of subject which brings both of them under the same power and the same justice is a kind of equality that stills the inevitable pangs of self-esteem'€¦.
(1.38 MB 2736x3648 Gaius_Julius_Caesar-edit.jpg)
>>73 Herodotus Debate on Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy. w/ Roman equivalent "The family of my aunt Julia is descended by her mother from the kings, and on her father's side is akin to the immortal Gods; for the Marcii Reges (her mother's family name) go back to Ancus Marcius, and the Julii, the family of which ours is a branch, to Venus. Our stock therefore has at once the sanctity of kings, whose power is supreme among mortal men, and the claim to reverence which attaches to the Gods, who hold sway over kings themselves." -Julius Caesar
(171.58 KB 800x1144 WMR_HRP_3001883_f-800x1144.jpg)
>>92 Political Works of King James I: https://archive.org/details/politicalworksj00igoog/page/n18 King James I speech before parliament: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/james/1609speech.htm An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance by King James I: https://archive.org/details/apologieforoatho00jame/page/n3 His Maiesties poeticall exercises by King James I: https://books.google.com/books?id=6oQ8AAAAcAAJ&pg=PP3&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches by King James I: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0071%3Asection%3D6%3Asubsection%3D1 The Psalms of King David translated by King James I (later printed by King Charles I): https://books.google.com/books?as_brr=1&id=OKkLAAAAIAAJ&vid=OCLC02770485&dq=King+James+Poetical+Exercises&jtp=79#v=onepage&q=King%20James%20Poetical%20Exercises&f=false The Book of Lawful Sports by King James I/Charles I: https://web.archive.org/web/20041204142451/http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/17century/topic_3/sports.htm https://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur017.htm The Political Works of King James I: https://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01294377&id=nl8NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false King James I: https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjrome.htm More works of King James I: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/james/jamesbib.htm A collection of Jacobean content: https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm Counterblast to Tobacco – King James I http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/james1.html
>>93 "If I were not a king, I would be a university man; and if it were so that I must be a prisoner, if I might have my wish, I would desire to have no other prison than that library" - King James I King James I and the Tinkler http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/english/kingjame.htm
>>94 God and King: Patriarchalist Tract by Richard Mocket and commissioned by King James I: https://archive.org/details/godkingordialogu00mockuoft/page/n3
(140.77 KB 664x800 mw01218.jpg)
>>95 Mad Monarchist on King Charles I: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/01/trial-and-regicide-of-charles-i.html https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/01/king-charles-martyr.html https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/07/monarch-profile-king-charles-i-of.html https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/01/remember.html The English Civil Wars and Virginia https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/English_Civil_Wars_and_Virginia_The Poems dedicated to the Restoration http://cowley.lib.virginia.edu/MacKing/MacKing.all.html An elegy to King Charles I : http://anglicanhistory.org/charles/elegie_epitaph1661.html King Charles I Trial : https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A40615.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext;q1=Charles+--++I%2C+--++King+of+England%2C+1600-1649 Basilika the works of King Charles the martyr : with a collection of declarations, treaties, and other papers concerning the differences betwixt His said Majesty and his two houses of Parliament : with the history of his life : as also of his tryal and martyrdome. : https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A31771.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext;q1=Charles+--++I%2C+--++King+of+England%2C+1600-1649 Effata regalia. Aphorismes [brace] divine, moral, politick. Scattered in the books, speeches, letters, &c. of Charles the First, King of Great Brittain, &c. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A78780.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext;q1=Charles+--++I%2C+--++King+of+England%2C+1600-1649 King Charles his welcome home, or, A congratvlation of all his loving subiects in thankfulnesse to God for His Maiesties safe and happie returne from Scotland, 1641 by Iohn Bond : https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A28663.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext;q1=Charles+--++I%2C+--++King+of+England%2C+1600-1649
(1.20 MB 3000x2504 patriarcha.jpg)
>>109 The Power of English Kings, Robert Filmer https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A41311.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext The Free-holders Grand Inquest, Robert Filmer https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A41303.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext Observations concerning the original forms of government, Robert Filmer https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A41307.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
>>118 Homer's Odysses translated by Tho. Hobbes of Malmsbury: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A44271.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext Eight bookes of the Peloponnesian Warre Hobbes' translation: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A13759.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
(121.19 KB 509x419 Kingdom_of_France.jpg)
>>122 MM Yes I do!: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/10/mad-rant-yes-i-do.html MM Kings & Constitutions: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/08/kings-and-constitutions.html MM Myth of the Cure-All Constitution: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-myth-of-cure-all-constitution.html Madalogue on the Nature of Monarchy: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/02/madalogue-on-nature-of-monarchy.html MM Mad Rant: 'Theoretical Monarchists' https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/06/mad-rant-theoretical-monarchists.html MM On Legitimacy of Monarchs: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/05/on-legitimacy-of-monarchs.html MM Thoughts on Unity: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/01/some-thoughts-on-subject-of-unity.html MM Popular Sovereign vs Popular Sovereignty: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/11/popular-sovereignty-vs-popular-sovereign.html MM Divine Rights of Kings: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-divine-right-of-kings.html MM Abortion & Why the Monarch is not the Messiah: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/01/abortion-and-why-monarch-is-not-messiah.html MM Beware Democracy: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/07/beware-democracy.html MM Complaining about Colonialism: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-complaining-about-colonialism.html MM Sovereignty & Morality: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/07/sovereignty-and-morality.html MM What does 'Tolerance' mean?: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/08/mad-analysis-what-does-tolerance-mean.html MM Canada's Foreign Queen: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/05/mad-rant-canadas-foreign-queen.html MM Christ & Emperor Tiberius: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/09/christ-and-emperor-tiberius.html MM The Tiburtine Sybil & Imperial Prophecy: https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-tiburtine-sybil-imperial-prophecy.html
(141.79 KB 502x498 Archbisop_John_Healy_of_Tuam.jpg)
>>125 >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
>>126 2 Samuel 4:5-12 King James Version (KJV) 5 And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon. 6 And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped. 7 For when they came into the house, he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night. 8 And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which sought thy life; and the Lord hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed. 9 And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, 10 When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings: 11 How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? shall I not therefore now require his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth? 12 And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron
(81.82 KB 900x899 436.jpg)
>>127 2 Samuel 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag; 2 It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance. 3 And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped. 4 And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also. 5 And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead? 6 And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. 7 And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. 8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. 10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. 11 Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: 12 And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword. 13 And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite. 14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed? 15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died. 16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed. 17 And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son
(50.63 KB 850x400 julius-evola-47-56-45.jpg)
>>129 The Meaning and Function of Monarchy - Julius Evola http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=6548
>>131 /monarchy/ paranormal /x/ edition reads Bodin Demonomanie: https://archive.org/details/BodinDemonomanieBNF1587/page/n4/mode/2up Sinistrari's Demoniality; or, Incubi and succubi https://archive.org/details/demonialityorinc00sinirich/page/n6/mode/2up Pseudomonarchia Daemonum by Johann Weyer http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/weyer.htm
(206.01 KB 683x557 Ivan playing chess.jpg)
>>197 A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru w/ foreword from Mises: https://cdn.mises.org/A%20Socialist%20Empire%20The%20Incas%20of%20Peru_3.pdf
>>209 AMERICAN LOYALIST WORKS : Letters of a Westchester Farmer : http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/seabury/farmer/ HE TRUE INTEREST OF AMERICA IMPARTIALLY STATED, IN CERTAIN STICTURES ON A PAMPHLET INTITLED COMMON SENSE. BY AN AMERICAN. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;cc=evans;rgn=main;view=text;idno=N11718.0001.001 History of Origin – C. Stedman (American Loyalist): https://archive.org/details/historyoforiginp02stediala/page/n7
>>240 The royal charter granted unto kings, by God himself : https://archive.org/details/roygran00bayl/page/n7/mode/2up
>>241 The duty of inferiours towards their superiours, in five practical discourses: https://archive.org/details/dutyofinferiours00nichuoft/page/n3/mode/2up England's beauty in seeing King Charles the Second restored to majesty: https://archive.org/details/england00reev/page/n3/mode/2up
(110.87 KB 671x620 EOGtk14WoAE2Dka.jpg)
>>249 Youtube Videos on Monarchy: The Superiority of Monarchy https://youtu.be/PzAtszsW7WU Democracy, Monarchy & Catholicism: A Scholarly Analysis https://youtu.be/Ac1d0E1bLgg Basic Concepts of Absolutism https://youtu.be/1wsZ4cJBDpY On Monarchism & Democracy https://youtu.be/BKtXU8n7aXc Democracy the God that Failed https://youtu.be/k12teOokSqM H.S.H. Prince Hans-Adam II – The State in the Third Millennium https://youtu.be/8AXBX3e1T64 Thomas Hobbes Arguments for Monarchy https://youtu.be/vlnNsLj8-LY Monarchy 2 https://youtu.be/N_1dZqhiaIw Why I'm a Monarchist https://youtu.be/YxertU2shnE
(2.12 MB 1800x3750 Jupiter_Smyrna_Louvre_Ma13.jpg)
>>796 For she accompanies and attends revered kings Whomever the daughters of mighty Zeus honor and see being born from kings nurtured by Zeus, upon his tongue they pour dew sweeter than honey and from his mouth flow soothing words. All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. He addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeasing the parties with soft words. As he walks in the marketplace, they glorify him as if a god with soothing deference, and he stands out in the gathering. Such is the sacred bounty of the Muses to men. From the Muses and far-shooting Apollo are singers and guitar-players across the earth,but kings are from Zeus. Dio Chrysostom discourses: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/1*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/2*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/3*.html http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/4*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/56*.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dio_Chrysostom/Discourses/62*.html Homer The Iliad https://www.gutenberg.org/files/6130/old/6130-pdf.pdf Odyssey https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3160/3160-h/3160-h.htm Homeric Hymns https://www.platonic-philosophy.org/files/Homeric%20Hymns.pdf CYROPAEDIA Xenophon https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2085/2085-h/2085-h.htm
(241.06 KB 786x657 Bossuet Quote.jpg)
>>798 Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Bossuet--Politics.pdf Maurras: http://maurras.net/textes/ Bossuet on Monarchy 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.” 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
(2.25 MB 3192x3000 grace_blush.png)
>>226 The ADVOCATES OF ROYALTY maintain that laws speak only in general terms, and cannot provide for circumstances; and that for any science to abide by written rules is absurd. In EGYPT the physician is allowed to alter his treatment after the fourth day, but if sooner, he takes the risk. Hence it is clear that a government acting according to written laws is plainly not the best'
(2.22 MB 3312x3000 grace_angry.png)
>>229 Do you think it is just a coincidence that Gods and Kings are consistently paralleled? And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus 'father of the gods and men,' because he was KING of them all. That's no coincidence. But also, Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be like their own. Although Aristotle says in this line, There he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid GOD and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast Although this is stated, those advocates of royalty, who bid man should rule, also understand that gods are kings in heaven. A god is a person, not a law, and kingship is personal. And yet a god is so pre-eminent on behalf of the whole, that they almost consider it like a law. But in truth, a god is personified with an image, and a law is frozen reason, while a god has determination and personal wisdom. That's why kings, as the rule of men, are able to deliberate–they are able to weigh justice, wherefore laws are frozen reason and cannot move, speak, or deliberate, men are able. However, it is not that men should rule completely without laws either. This echoes back to the question of the individual so pre-eminent that he must be a BEAST or a GOD. I think that royalists appeal to gods, not merely the rule of law, because kingship is personal and because gods are kings in heaven as has been said. Aristotle gives the 'rule of law' side the royalist winning answer, because gods are an extension of the royalist argument that men should rule also.
>>230 I can't help reading this screencap on royal virtue and the description of the one, pre-eminent man who doesn't take his goddamn turn and not think god-king. >>For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all statees, whether aristocratical, or oligarchical, or again democratical, are accustomed to put forward (for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although NOT the -same excellence-), but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would NOT be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed. The WHOLE is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in relation of the whole to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. Greek kings would claim they descended from Hercules to justify their personal rule as men. There is something divine about the personal power of kings. It is much better, imo, than just being the regular ordinance of the law. It isn't just a faceless institution.
>>231 I need to write a small manifestation on a few problems I see in monarchist circles, sometimes particularly among tradists. THE QUESTION OF INDIVIDUALISM VS COLLECTIVISM It isn't about collectivism, nor individualism, but the whole. Being anti-individualist is likewise as unhealthy as being anti-collectivist. For example, imagine a whole hand, now imagine that hand without an individual thumb–but then imagine that hand without a collective of fingers. It is the whole body, body-politic, in this frame of mind. Monarchs don't seek to only become the head, but a manifestation of the whole body when they are pre-eminent on behalf of all. This is what makes me annoyed with the two bodies doctrine. But also what makes me annoyed with tradists who stress collectivism only (i.e. class, family). They narrow it down to the collective, but they ignore that the whole and even an individual also matter. ABSOLUTISM QUESTION Countless times, what people critique as 'absolutism' is actually criticism of Monarchy itself. The true meaning of absolutism is the general principle that men should rule, and that in certain circumstances the monarch should be absolved, or be recognized for an independent power–but what I see most often are actually just swipes at monarchy conceptually rather than just absolutism. CLARIFICATION Royalism, I think, is what most people associate with monarchy, sometimes royal monarchy. Royalism is understanding that there is a king w/ household structure. But onto Monarchy Monarchy, I repeat, MONarchy, is specifically the Rule of One in contrast to Oligarchy/Aristocracy and Polity/Democracy. When it is royal, it is royal monarchy. When it is imperial, it is imperial monarchy. I think monarchy and royalism go together like peanut butter and jelly, but there's a slight difference there and I think they are pretty much the same. The only distinction set, the Roman Empire could be said to have been an anti-royal imperial monarchy, because it abandoned the kingship of the past and later adopted a monarchical structure with the Roman Emperors. But imo, monarchy is inclined to become royal, because royalism enables monarchy to be so pre-eminent and preserve itself best… Constitutionalism I think constitutionalism isn't just a legal monarchy like some people say it is. It is part of the republican tradition. But constitutionalism is actually the belief in a mixed government specifically, (monarchy, oligarchy, polity/democracy together) and when it is democratic in a sense, it is called political dominion (hence, polity. What people call constitutional monarchy is better called royal constitutionalism, because it isn't about just monarchy, but the mixture–monarchy, oligarchy, polity–that's why constitutionalists are sometimes actually making the case that their preference isn't really much for monarchy and they call it vile names, like a dictatorship, tyranny, or something to express how much they hate the monarchical idea and only tolerate it mixed in–but these constitutionalists just like a little bit of monarchy (or, more monarchy when it isn't invested in a royal). You could be a royal constitutionalist with a preference more for democracy, for instance, and really hate monarchy, then.
>>234 To make it clear on why the Middle Ages weren't really monarchist-only, it was writers like Aquinas and Dante that started to re-introduce the word 'monarchy' to begin with, the idea of rule of one. Along with the re-introduction of certain texts. That was all much later in the Medieval period. It was an innovation for its time, and our notion of royal monarchy itself became an innovation. That is the way of the universe. Sometimes traditions are actually old innovations, and sometimes innovations are revived traditions. The last thing I want to say about royal constitutionalism is that it's just constitutionalism w/ the royal, that is, kingship w/ household structure. A common constitutionalist talking point is the royal isn't part of a party structure and can be above politics, but that's because royals rule with dominion of the household as patriarchs/matriarchs, or despots as we call them.
>>236 Meaning of Despotism: https://books.google.com/books?id=c_J5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=root+despot+house+greek&source=bl&ots=-87-7gwF-Y&sig=ACfU3U3m4q_QJO_o8eDn9M8cM1rN7OxEdA&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC-6KdyqboAhUBCc0KHacFBgs4ChDoATABegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=root%20despot%20house%20greek&f=false >>237 I am not just saying that 'monarchy is individualism', but I have to point out this minefield, and also the contradiction of being an anti-individualist monarchist. But I think of the Juche cope, when they spoke of leadership. They call it a collectivist principle, but it is likewise individualist. Juche actually makes great strides towards reconciling these two forces. … So, anyone who actually cares about monarchy and thinks monarchy is ideal, they should and probably would be careful about what they have to say about 'Individualism'.
(30.70 KB 724x965 index.png)
>>224 I'm choking on a dark purplepill People accuse the likes of me and other monarchistx for advocating a 'divine right' and godly monarchy, too absurd for the CY+5. But the truth of the matter is the People won't accept monarchy, or even tolerate monarchy, if it is anything short of a god-king, demi-god, or heroic-style kingship The people say that is impractical, but they indirectly make this the case. They might talk about "meritocracy", but the true spirit of their words is they want a god-king. They practically do. What Aristotle says about royal virtue and the pre-eminent monarch who is so grand, even exceeding your standard aristocratic virtue, that he becomes supreme–that is basically what people will tolerate and nothing short of this view when it comes to monarchy. It's not our fault, but what the people demand. It leaves an anon like me with no choice other than to make monarchy divine and heroic, extolling its personal qualities and making a fuss about the relationship between gods and kings. People have great expectations and are always ungrateful. We all know the consequences of kingship when you really get it and what is due to a royal monarch. These people say they don't want it, but they indirectly basically say they do want an almost divine monarchy. The nobility and aristocratics will always shout, "Why should I accept this king?" With indignation if it isn't that pre-eminent and godly. The vast majority will also show disrespect and not accept it if it is short of a god-king. They will toss off the head of the body before accepting anything lower than this. THE ART OF MONARCHY The Art of Monarchy is really about how monarchy takes the role of a god. Whether it be indirectly or directly asserted. That is what monarchy is about… whether it claims to be godly, demi-god like in a supernatural fashion, or by the end of a divine power–I think there are a lot of uncomfortable hoops monarchists should leap through in order to understand monarchy. Like how monarchy could be applied in many places where there is the rule of one–that is an uncomfortable worldview to adapt–but the understanding is worth it after going through ugly places. For me this trend started with monarchy and despotism–people make a fuss about our negative conventions about despotism–but when you understand despotism, the ugly truth comes out.
(415.22 KB 600x748 tennyson.jpg)
>>22 Didn't see it posted anywhere else in this thread, so here's the full version of the chart.
>>976 That one is far too big. I planned on making a condensed version someday w/ some books trimmed out and others kept.
>>977 That's fair. I haven't looked through all the titles listed but there are definitely some that could be cut (a few are just short articles rather than full books).
We need to get our reading list re-pinned.
Is there a more modern translation of Leviathan anywhere?
>>1252 There are other books out there much harder to read with much more obstacles. Suck it up, you peasant. You might be able to find a cleaner version online, idk.
(73.84 KB 1294x436 random notes.png)
(104.37 KB 575x463 Schopenhauer-on-monarchy.png)
(3.85 MB 7645x4329 grace patriarcha.jpg)
(1.19 MB 1280x1110 Grace Muse of Monarchy.png)
We are overdue for a new reading list. I think for the next reading list edition... I will simply toss out the clutter books/shock value ones. Too many irrelevant books in the last edition. Those books will be getting scrapped.
(46.23 KB 326x223 claude.jpg)
(162.38 KB 568x578 S3.png)
Tyranny memelord reporting in. I have read through these and I pick and choose. Certain parts I disagree with like the "pyramids of Giza" to make everyone poor--imo, this is a reflection of household rule and that is only one way of observing it as a political dynamic.
(444.94 KB 800x1064 800px-Naram-Sin_portrait.jpg)
(4.02 MB 640x360 Code Geass R2 LELOUCH.mp4)
Lord of the Four Corners was a title of great prestige claimed by powerful monarchs in ancient Mesopotamia. Though the term "four corners of the world" does refer to specific geographical places within and near Mesopotamia itself, these places were at the time the title was first used thought to represent locations near the actual edges of the world and as such, the title should be interpreted as something equivalent to "Lord of all the known world", a claim to universal rule over the entire world and everything within it. Hammurabi (r. 1810–1750 BC) – referred to as the "king who made the four corners of the Earth obedient" This early empire-building was encouraged as the most powerful monarchs were often rewarded with the most prestigious titles, such as the title of lugal (literally "big man" but often interpreted as "king" King was simply "big man" or big guy. The household rule is something else overlooked... they sometimes call it despotism (they're right), but the name Lord of the Four Corners for universal and pre-eminent rule was based on household rule too... like one great household, as a house has four corners like a pyramid. The Japanese had Hakkō ichiu, meaning Eight Corners under One Roof, all the world under one roof.
(683.35 KB 1670x1085 Eight Corners, One Roof.jpg)
(286.21 KB 1240x570 HakkoIchiu10sen.jpg)
(350.99 KB 1536x1386 Heiwadai_tower.jpg)
>Hakkō ichiu (八紘一宇, "eight crown cords, one roof" i.e. "all the world under one roof") or Hakkō iu (八紘爲宇, Shinjitai: 八紘為宇) was a Japanese political slogan meaning the divine right of the Empire of Japan to "unify the eight corners of the world." It was prominent from the Second Sino-Japanese War to World War II, popularized in a speech by Prime Minister of Japan Fumimaro Konoe on January 8, 1940. >The term was coined early in the 20th century by Nichiren Buddhist activist and nationalist Tanaka Chigaku, who cobbled it from parts of a statement attributed in the chronicle Nihon Shoki to legendary first Emperor Jimmu at the time of his ascension. >The Emperor's full statement reads: "Hakkō wo ooute ie to nasan" (八紘を掩うて宇と為さん, or in the original kanbun: 掩八紘而爲宇), and means: "I shall cover the eight directions and make them my abode". The term hakkō (八紘), meaning "eight crown cords" ("crown cords" being the hanging decorations of the benkan (冕冠), a traditional Chinese-styled crown), was a metaphor for happō (八方) or "eight directions".
(1.35 MB 1600x1600 history of monarchy.png)
(82.16 KB 451x457 kings of monarchy.png)
(109.06 KB 505x529 Ages of Monarchy.jpg)
Anyone have a copy of The Royal Touch?
>>1599 Could you be more specific on the title, there are several titles that include The Royal Touch.
>>1635 Marc Bloch.
>>1637 I couldn't find it online and the places that have it on sale apparently don't ship it to the country where I live, I'm sorry.
Notable Greek Tyrants: Pheidon Cleobulus Peisistratos (Athens; Zeus Olympus) Cypselus (1st tyrant of Corinth) Periander (one of the 7 sages; tyrant of Corinth) Polycrates (Samos; enlightened tyrant and warrior) Miltiades the Younger -(Thracian Chersonese) Nicocreon of Salamis in Cyprus Strattis of Chios Nabis of Sparta Orthagora of Sicyon Theron of Acragas Panaetius tyrant of Leontini
>>1663 Well, I got a copy, but the file limit is too damn huge to post here. Anyone got anything on the Black Legend?
>>1380 Which ones should be added to the reading list? >>1671 Only books I found about Spain's Black Legend are from Maria
>>1950 Maria?
Faith in democracy has been shattered over the last decade or so. I would like to investigate the doctrines of monarchy but my book backlog is already huge and these lists are too overwhelming. If you could recommend me two or three that you consider somewhat more important to get my toes wet, which would they be?
>>1973 Mainly American democracy, which is a completely obsoleted method that hasn't been changed in hundreds of years which actively discourages accurate representation. Democracy can only succeed in a nation where a basic foundation of scientific method and media analysis (understanding bias, misleading/decontextualization of statistics/etc) are properly taught to the public. Otherwise, the demos can largely be manipulated to vote against their interest, making the system worthless.
https://twitter.com/real_thomas777/status/1313470094245322758 >PHILOSOPHICAL Heritage of the Radical >Right: >-Aristotle >-Fichte >-Hegel >-Schopenhauer >-DeMaistre >-Sorel >-Carlyle >-Heidegger >-Wolfgang Smith
>>2108 nice list
(5.32 MB 2500x3550 monarchia read list Finished.png)
I made one last edit.
>>2111 Any removals you would like to explain?
>>2120 No removals, only additions. (romaboo books added as a small tribute to Dovahhatty). Cassius Dio's ROman History talks about monarchy in Book XLIV. The fascist books were removed because they didn't seem to delve into the subject of monarchy enough for my tastes. Other books removed for aforementioned reason. Controversial shock value books removed likewise. Many books that were in the original list were clutter drawn from other "reactionary or /pol/" readling lists and later removed.
>>2120 Evola books and other things were removed, but I kept Evola in and put in his work "Meaning and Function of Monarchy".
(238.72 KB 934x482 Cassius Dio.png)
Plato confirms monarchs are lifelong rulers.
Diocletian also started a Dominate and his title "Dominus". Domos was a Greek root word for "House". The word "despot" has its roots in this meaning, "domos" and "posis" (husband)--despot translates to "lord of the house". Housemaster. Aristotle on kingly rule being household rule^ The word "Pharaoh" literally translates to "Great House" also. Royal rule is household rule... Ramssess II built a city called "Pi-Ramssess" meaning "House fo Ramssess" A good example of royal rule being household rule is a bee hive, the structure itself is a great household.
(182.66 KB 580x879 Caesar refuses crown.jpg)
(19.75 KB 529x187 Aristotle 4 kinds royalty.png)
Dictators confirmed as a monarchy. Kaiser/Tsar come from the name of a literal Dictator Julius Caesar.
(40.37 KB 333x500 51Ak6Q-COmL.jpg)
(245.93 KB 343x513 1604566131396.png)
(22.23 KB 265x342 Grace smile side.jpg)
(23.62 KB 259x358 Grace smile.jpg)
>King Alfred's Translation of Pastoral Care https://archive.org/details/kingalfredswest00sweegoog/page/n7/mode/2up Another link on John of Salisbury and the insufferable monarchomachism: http://www.davekopel.org/Misc/Mags/Policraticus.htm
(75.30 KB 704x328 monarchy notes.png)
(5.32 MB 2500x3550 monarchia read list Finished.png)
(666.28 KB 800x1900 Core Monarchy Reads.jpg)
(80.70 KB 350x565 Duty 02.jpg)
(159.79 KB 682x588 Duty 01.jpg)
(184.29 KB 688x579 Duty 03.jpg)
(171.88 KB 662x579 Duty 04.jpg)
(239.27 KB 800x606 800wm.jpg)
Dante Alighieri's Political Letters 5 - 7: Link: http://www.danteonline.it/english/opere.asp?idope=7&idlang=UK Go to Epistle V, VI, & VII Read Dante's De Monarchia for more.
(88.19 KB 700x286 osiris-weighing.jpg)
(121.42 KB 635x359 New_Science.jpg)
(121.16 KB 1136x564 BzSj6Q_K.jpg medium.jpg)
In monarchy, the power of Life and Death is in the hands of the Monarch. The absolutists and Jean Bodin saw this as the ultimate mark of sovereignty and the foundation for sovereign rule. There were various marks for Sovereignty in Jean Bodin, that sovereignty is perpetual (for example, a temporary dictator wouldn't be sovereign, but the people who appointed said dictator for a term) and absolute (absolved; sovereign immunity). It was the highest command and ultimate voice of authority resonating from the person of the monarch. There were marks of sovereignty in Jean Bodin's theory, that said, #1. Make laws #2. Declare war or peace #3. Appoint magistrates #4. Pardon / give amnesty / appeal #5. Coin money (for Hobbes, taxation included, although Bodin was careful about this) #6. Receive homage from subordinates / vassals. And minor marks like having a particular title or seal just for royal use. However, Jean Bodin stressed that sovereignty was ultimately a uniquely monarchy thing, that it was unique to monarchy. While Hobbes ascribed sovereignty to the People and made all forms of government sovereign like monarchy. But many absolutists agreed, that the Power of Life and Death belonged to the Monarch in Monarchy, that the Power of Life and Death was the ultimate mark of Sovereignty, derived from the Roman Twelve Tablets given to Roman patriarchs, but also ascertained in religion (Judgement Day -- what Hobbes called eternal life and eternal death) and the reward of eternal heavenly bliss and the punishment of eternal torture, derived from that power of Life and Death...
>>2406 Hobbes called the power of life and death crucial for the maintenance of Justice.
(79.38 KB 1009x492 Bodin sovereignty chapter.png)
(15.48 KB 1147x210 Sovereignty Ulpian.png)
>>2406 Jean Bodin's theory of sovereignty had those marks of sovereignty, and the greatest power to command. It was derived from majesty, and defined here.
(122.10 KB 1021x648 Bodin against mixed forms govt.png)
(23.63 KB 1028x138 Bodin HRE mixed.png)
>>2408 Jean Bodin also carried on another defining trait of 1500s absolutism, denying the mixed forms of government--although, there would be a form/method distinction, that a sovereign monarch could govern democratically/oligarchically, but the focus was on having distinct forms of governments. Bodin considered Venice and the HRE to be oligarchies. He also used Herodotus as support for distinguishing three forms of government.
>>2409 Would you consider it accurate to say that Bodin is like a pure monarchist Aristotle?
>>2481 I wouldn't consider Aristotle a pure monarchist. But Bodin simply states that there are 3 forms of government and denies the mixed constitution. That was the minority opinion throughout human history, but he backs himself up with Herodotus a little. You have constitutionalism & then you have Monarchy. Constitutionalism is the hybridization of government. Monarchy is form of government called 'the rule of one'. Constitutionalists consider Monarchy more like a Part in relation to the Whole, imo. It's simply the case that Monarchy is part of the mixed constitution. Both absolutist & constitutionalist refer to Monarchy no less, the same Monarchy, when they discuss Monarchy--it's just that the constitutionalist considers Monarchy in the context of the mixed constitution & likes to backup the folly of monarchy w/ the benefits of the other forms, while the absolutist would talk about monarchy monarchy. It's really redundant to say, "pure monarchist" or "monarchy monarchy"--heck, even "constitutional" or "absolute" monarchy--there is simply Monarchy.
>>2484 Those are just adjectives-- Even absolutists themselves should understand that their doctrine is on 3 forms of govt, and that absolute is really just an adjective rather than this wholly distinct set of Monarchy... For absolutists... there is simply Monarchy. For Bodin, there was the subset of royal monarchy, lordly (or despotic) monarchy, or tyrannical monarchy--but they were all monarchy no less. And that tyrannical, lordly, or despotic, could be applied to each form of the 3 governments--monarchy, oligarchy, democracy. Hobbes simply dropped the idea of king vs tyrant altogether as namecalling hysteria. Kinda like how people would talk about unfair portrayals of certain world leaders / heavily biased accounts... But >>2481 I think Bodin is what you would call a pure monarchist. He supported his royal monarchy, but Bodin was also said to be fairly constitutionalist--that's because Bodin, unlike other absolutists, didn't quarrel with the advisory body of parliament/senate/councils as much as the other absolutists. There was also the government/method distinction for his theory, that made the case that you could have a sovereign, distinct of government like Monarchy, but it could be governed more democratically/oligarchically occasionally. Bodin makes the case with Dictators, that certain Dictators wouldn't be sovereign monarchs, but limited authority figures who are appointed by a sovereign--for Rome, I think, that would be the example.
(46.23 KB 400x400 000440.jpg)
I find that most people are simping for whatever adjective they place behind the word Monarchy rather than Monarchy itself. There's no feudal monarchy as this whole other laid out form of monarchy.Whatever X Monarchy as this completely new form of government. Anarcho-monarchy is just this weird madeup name--it's usually often the case people are shilling for the adjective they put behind Monarchy rather than the monarchist case.
>>2488 Well, we've been stuck with the watered down "constitutional" kind for years, so people feel more inclined to clarify. >>2486 What made him get along with the advisory so much easier?
(111.06 KB 462x652 throne another.jpg)
(21.31 KB 981x122 Cyropedia Wisdom 01.png)
(12.96 KB 965x96 Cyropedia Wisdom 02.png)
(8.31 KB 976x37 Cyropedia Wisdom 03.png)
(19.67 KB 962x113 Cyropedia Wisdom 04.png)
>>2493 >What made him get along with the advisory so much easier? Bodin takes Augustus & Henry VIII & makes the case that assemblies magnify the majesty in monarchy, to see whole courts of people bowing to and surrounding a sovereign royal monarch... He makes the case that a senate is good for advisory council and wisdom. I am guessing, with the "more food to the table" argument + what Filmer says about how a monarch w/ a good advisory board is preferable because the monarch has the determination & deliberation to make choices, while the council augments wisdom... I think part of it was Bodin's own bias. But I think the context of the English Civil War & those royalists made them aggressive to parliamentarian sovereignty--I somewhat agree that putting too much emphasis on the wisdom & clarity of assemblies is bad for monarchy... Part of the problem is nobody regards any royal monarchy as a source of wisdom, which greatly undermines Monarchy itself and whether they will look up to it or comply with it. The Monarch sits on his throne, positions his throne, as a place to be sit where people could see the Monarch as a source of wisdom. The Monarch would want to be regarded like a teacher.
>we've been stuck with the watered down "constitutional" kind for years There's no constitutional kind. I guess, it's constitutionalism, nonetheless, w/ the addition of a royal family, that is what most people see. But constitutionalism like that is not so different from constitutionalism in non-royal states, except for the fact that there isn't a royal family... I personally view royalism as a softer alignment compared to Monarchy--the saying "let there be one lord, one king" is another radical step, but to have multiple kings & them taking turns is not so much monarchy. I don't view constitutionalism as simply having what a piece of paper. I think the meat of constitutionalism is the mixed state, hybridization--it isn't so much about the form of monarchy, no more than what you will about democracy or oligarchy. The term "monarchist" isn't fairly constitutionalist, because that could be interpreted as denying the mixed constitution & the Whole... and could be accused of taking partiality. I would think royalist is a more inoffensive word b/c there isn't as much stress on the form of government over other forms, whereas I think the term monarchist has more of an edge.
(13.52 KB 339x319 illiad zeus king rage.png)
Pro-Monarchy takes compared to Oligarchy & Democracy Quite a number of /monarchy/ posters have professed they explicitly like Oligarchy (the Few) better than Monarchy (Rule of One). Remember, that by Oligarchy, it is meant the rule of a few, not confused with Plutocracy (rule of the wealthy). Also, Aristocracy (Rule of the Best) could be used explicitly for Monarchy rather than Oligarchy--seeing the Monarch as the sole Aristocrat, the very Best Man. "Darius was the third to declare his opinion. 'Methinks,' said he, 'Megabyzus speaks rightly concerning democracy, but not so concerning oligarchy. For the choice lying between these three, and each of them, democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy being supposed to be the best of its kind, I hold that Monarchy is by far the most excellent. Nothing can be found better than the rule of the one best man; his judgment being like to himself, he will govern the multitude with perfect wisdom, and best conceal plans made for the defeat of enemies." -Darius (Herodotus) in the Herodotus Debate What most people talk about with Aristocracy, they mean the Nobility. However, Aristocracy implies the rule of the best. The best man in Monarchy is Aristocracy, not simply the Nobility that every venerates as Aristocracy, but the Monarch as the very best!
(87.38 KB 1022x613 Bodin criticize Oligarchy.png)
(78.96 KB 1047x474 Bodin criticize Oligarchy 2.png)
(94.95 KB 1030x571 Bodin criticize Oligarchy 3.png)
(73.54 KB 1040x396 Bodin criticize Oligarchy 4.png)
>>2589 More screencaps related
>>2590 Here it is said, that an assembly could increase the majesty of a monarch. & Power of Life & Death
(114.68 KB 789x557 ortho 03.png)
(87.69 KB 760x447 ortho 05.png)
(2.28 MB 5979x3118 Bossuet Part 7.jpg)
Remember, Monarchy is more than the "Institution". Royal rule is personal. The rule of any Royal is like a shepherd who guides his flock through his person. It is not the pomp that makes majesty in Monarchy, but it is all expressed with the royal person and the image of God in the King. "I do not call majesty that pomp which surrounds kings or that exterior magnificence which dazzles the vulgar. That is but the reflection of majesty and not majesty itself. Majesty is the image of the grandeur of God in the prince... God is infinite, God is all. The prince, as prince, is not regarded as a private person: he is a public personage, all the state is in him; the will of all the people is included in his. As all perfection and all strength are united in God, so all the power of individuals is united in the PERSON of the Prince. What grandeur that a single man should embody so much!" -Bossuet "When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman." -Aristotle (although he says this is mistaken that paragraph, yet re-affirms this principle in his discussion on royal virtue later) "For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed (like an institutional system; monarchy is personal)/ The whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to a part." -Aristotle on royal virtue (confirming that a king is a personal ruler, where he says that he shouldn't take his turn in being governed--that implies personal rule, as the statesman was the one who took his turn in being governed, whereas the royal rule was personal rule and lifelong). The royal rule is a personal rule, and that's why they say "Cult of Personality" with certain people. It is true, that the personal rule is powerful in Monarchy and should be realized... In Monarchy, homage is paid to the Person of the Prince and realized there rather than simply the Crown that was created to be worn by a person's head--that is not the way of Monarchy--to simply view it as yet another institutional cumbucket that gets swapped in and swapped out rather than the graceful and personal reign of a royal monarch. The royal in Monarchy only wears a crown for a brief moment in their reign, and for the rest of the royal rule, you are left with their royal person. Remember this. Certain royals don't even wear crowns as often either... and it is an appearance that always changes... to confuse majesty with these simple objects and not recognize personal majesty is a big mistake. It is always the personal rule that guides in Monarchy. Julius Caesar's very name, as a pre-eminent person for the Romans, was later adopted through Emperors as a title, but the heart of it was that the Person of Caesar mattered. It wasn't just that it was a title. It matters very much that the personal name of Caesar came to later to be associated with Czar and Kaiser. And Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, despite resigning many times from the institutional office, still was regarded with high majesty from his people despite taking many different cases and abdicating--because the truth was that the royal rule was personal rather than institutional. They followed him despite this abdication and still revered Prince Sihanouk with this personal majesty... When the government is personal, the ruler is a king. Always remember this, royalists. That is the heart and soul of Royal Monarchy, and what gives life to the Royal Monarchy is the Royal Person.
Six Books of Commonwealth (long version) in PDF

Quick Reply

no cookies?