Overall I agree w/ Hobbes' assessment in Behemoth: the people are left apathetic and indifferent at best, or opposed at worst. >The people in general were so ignorant of their duty >What necessity there was of King or Commonwealth >King was just another rich guy & oppressor, etc ... The late Stuarts Charles I & James II reveal the shortcomings of this sect. Each party had their eyes on Christ's Kingdom & fought for it, but lacked vital care of Charles I's Kingdom. Showing Christ is King doesn't come to mean King is King, so a disconnect w/ the public & king. If only the public cared for their earthly king as Christ himself. Nevertheless, w/ martyrdom, they do This is why I say monarchies need their own mythos, their own cult of personality, & to charm the people w/ their own persona, cultivate a familial loyalty to them in particular

This sect will say it is a kind of secularism to advance the politics of Monarchy, to not only stress the social kingship of Christ, but to also actually form a political bond is no better than a secular Dictator. Which might sound firm, but not really so if you consider it. ... First, for all that is said about Dictators, the communist leaders are received like prophets. While royalty are perceived to be dim-witted, corrupt like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, or hoary-faced eunuchs stuck to the age-old Victorian machinery of constitutional monarchism. ... 2nd, there's little rebound in this glory. Except for humiliation rituals & martyrdom / sainthood. As preeminence of the king is taboo, & divine right is shunned by partisans of High Church, to the effect royalty are not only inferiours to the clergy, but to the whole kingdom. The marks of monarchy preeminence are not there. >Totally disposable & encouraged to get killed in martyrdom. >Loyalty is thin like a thread & mostly diverted to the Church (which is divided). >No divine sanction / little political support. What this sect offers is very lameduck. ... 3rd, if my earlier gripe might be dismissed b/c of Low Church: Poland, Europe's most Catholic country, in 2016 declared Christ as King of Poland, but this ceremony wasn't followed by making any other King of Poland or restoring a dynasty there. Which goes to show why I disagree.

I say >>7988 in the spirit of Homer and the Herodotus Debate: Let there be one ruler, one king. That must be said for Monarchy. It needs to be politically understood; paying heed to High Church, but none of political content of Monarchy, severely neglects it as a form of State.

I call for the return of the Imperial Cult. This is what is longed for in Monarchy to unite the subjects with their Monarch (which has resurfaced with the cult of personality in other regimes).

3 Great Monarchist Monarchs of the West: Caligula, K. James VI & I, Louis XIV. They lived & breathed Monarchy, & if Western Monarchy were built on the foundation of their style of Royalism then Monarchy in the West would have style & majesty and a sincere royalism in political life.

2 quotes + the anecdotes of Caligula's rule are why I consider him a monarchist monarch. My belief is Caligula understood the qualities of a pre-eminent Monarch & that his claim of being a god alludes to this (*which was not as unusual for the time as some might think). The Imperial Cult & the succession of Roman Emperors - & that after Caligula other Roman Emperors claimed divinity (Domitian, Aurelian, & Diocletian, etc.) Aristotle & Plato also basically asserted this idea for a pre-eminent Monarchy, which Caligula's shepherd quote alludes to.

You have to consider that Aristotle demanded that for a monarch to rule the City (basically, the minimal requirement to actually be a ruling Monarch) -- that Monarch must be a demigod among men. >"Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men." - Aristotle, Politics ... Hobbes understood. Aristotle's Politics & Plato's Laws touch on this notion of monarchical pre-eminence, & I think Hobbes as well as Caligula were keenly aware of this. As Hobbes calls his Leviathan >that Mortal God, to which we owe under the Immortal God, our peace & defence. In that case, might people fault Thomas Hobbes and Caligula for meeting the standard which the Ancients of Antiquity made for a pre-eminent Monarchy? They set the bar, & those two sought to meet that great height of which the bar was set. I wouldn't. --Caligula was educated.

The trident ♆ is now a Caligulan symbol I adopt. I considered a horse for Incitatus, but Caligula's life is more notable for his clash w/ Neptune. Crossing the Bay of Baiae, his war w/ Neptune & Britannia & collecting the seashells, the Nemi ships, etc. So the trident ♆ will be a symbol to be a Caligulan.

The trident ♆ will be a symbol of Caligula & what it means to be Caligulan.

What is your controversial opinion? Absolutism is the only monarchist policy; mixed constitutionalism is faux monarchy. Detractors like De Tocqueville & De Jouvenel repeat age-old adages of Aristotle & mislead monarchists. Monarchy inevitably embraces a unitary or corporatist mode of politics (true to its form). ... Traditionalists who deny any political Monarchy its token of preeminence & the marks thereof -- deny that Monarchy. If on pretext of the Church / Christianity or Christ's Kingdom, this solely affirms Christ the King, but ultimately fails that political Monarchy. ... The hearts of subjects must be tied w/ their political King & they must be in awe of -that- King in particular and -his- story and -his- life. They must be a family not only within the Church, but likewise within the State. I see a pervading apathy no matter the piety of the people, even anti-royalism at times, so I'm of Hobbes' opinion that you ought to galvanize the subjects around their Monarchy proactively and I'm not rest assured it will come in due time indirectly by the esteem of High Church.

Roman Empire under Caligula.

Antoine-Augustin Parmentier popularized the potato with the French. This man lived and breathed potatoes.

Republican cautionary tales / moral stories: Emperor Commodous is the only Roman Emperor who really tops the infamy of Caligula or Nero. His life story is another Roman historical wives' tale about the dangers of Monarchy, like Caligula's life, but hereditary monarchy in particular. Yes, that is what I call them: republican cautionary tales / moral stories. That is the tone I perceive and the way republicans use some of the stories of the Roman Emperors (esp. Gaius Caligula & Commodus). IMHO, it is the same thing w/ Absolutism & France; The Tocquevillist accounts of absolute monarchy & the perils of centralization are the republican cautionary tales / moral stories of our day, admonishing us to mind our Aristotle. (Except also told by other monarchists today).

It is the ultra-clericals who deemed political life the secular domain & the bastion of the Church the spiritual domain; the lay people & all offices of the State, the families & every other profession. Not the Enlightenment. Not Rousseau. Not Modernity. Don't forget that. Rightwingers are caught up in pop politics and all the sensationalism, blissfully unaware. They aren't trained to see their country, their inheritance, & other lay people as secular & the clergy / New Jerusalem as spiritual... or faced with the absurdity of condemning the former. This conundrum isn't apparent when the Media & leftists fuss about Christian Nationalism with only a few fringe outliers of the religious right condemning Christian Nationalism. Or are aware of the true extent of the political domain and why alienating it is bollocks. My pet peeve about the Right: The lurid anti-politics within from the religious right & right libertarians gives rightwingers a renegade spirit opposed to the integrity of political states. Fascists were the only group who prioritized political integrity & aren't anarchists... Albeit even fascists these days are drinking the pastoralist kool-aid & being corrupted by the Traditionalists to imbibe in their anti-politics (whereas Fascism was once a visionary proponent of High Politics).

Imho, what Rousseau is alluding to with total political unity between spiritual and political as an ideal looks like Italian Fascism's Actual Idealism or North Korea Juche. Where the integrity of politics is well aligned to its ideal and fashioned keenly, pervading it rather than holding it in contempt; where the media and state are aligned, etc, without any bite of conscience against it for the sake of another place. The advantage of these political ideologies is they have taken the culture of High Church without any playing chicken about bringing society to the behest, High Politics has tailored them keenly together not only in parish grounds but entirely throughout the polity, bolstering political life throughout. I see the influence of Rousseau in both the far left & far right in this respect. I'll leave it to the audience to discern whether Rousseau's appeal to total political unity with spiritual / political ideal has come to fruition or even surpassed the traditionalists as far as instilling civic virtue / molding the public is concerned. Pics related is the legacy of Rousseau.

Rousseau, for instance, accuses Christianity of separating Church and State: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf Rousseau's criticism of Christianity >You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’ >My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods >This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels. >However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest. >Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or restore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state. >Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same. >The philosopher Hobbes is the only Christian writer who has seen the evil and seen how to remedy it, and has dared to propose bring the two heads of the eagle together again, restoring the total political unity without which no state or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that Christianity's domineering spirit is incompatible with his system, and that the priest's side of the divide would always be stronger than the state's. What has drawn down hatred on his political theory is not so much what is false and terrible in it as what is just and true… >But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit. >Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world. >But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic–those terms are mutually exclusive.

I feel so demoralized with Christian monarchy. High Church sentiment in e-monarchist circles has left these monarchists content with the most bland porridge and deterioration of /monarchy/ so long as a pinch of High Church culture is there. They are content with multi-party democracy and mixed constitutionalism for the sake of ceremonies; they don't really care about the integrity of monarchical form even. What /leftypol/ tends to see as aloof, stolid and vapid in monarchy & for the rest uninspiring in monarchs such as Nicholas II – to be honest, a lot of characteristics people lament in Western monarchy is oft rooted in Christian High Church culture. It seems ineffective compared to modern political ideologies like Communism or Fascism, hasn't motivated the public or the monarchs themselves to uphold their own monarchies. Everything in /monarchy/ that is politically motivated or capable of competing in this field just gets hooted down by high church traditionalists and everyone is for mixed constitutionalism and apathetic. What is there to show for it? Look >>7990 as I say here – each party had their eyes on Christ's Kingdom and fought for it, but lacked vital care for this kingdom. Most High Church traditionalists even detest the so-called divine right of kings anyways, but have only insisted upon the inferiority of monarchy to the clergy and their kingdom – denying them the mark of pre-eminence anyhow – and made these rulers completely disposable, and taught these rulers to be content to surrender their kingdoms and get themselves killed in martyrdom, and for the public left them apathetic to the fate of their royalty and placed all the effects of the imperial cult / cult of personality in the Church with little rebound to the State, so as Rousseau says failing to bind the hearts of the subjects to their political king. & while Christendom carries with it the spirit of unity in places where the denomination is united, like Russia or Spain, carries with it the most severe spirit of disunity in countries divided on the denomination. It has left us content with eunuchs and taught subjects to perceive their rulers like Gollum or for low church a Nebuchadnezzar – while communists receive their leaders like prophets. It is so bad I've come to say that communists are far better suited to be monarchists than high church traditionalists: monarchists should feel humbled and ashamed to be surpassed this way by /leftypol/.

I'll say it right away: I'm not an Evola / Guénon fag. I feel esoteric autism is overrated on /pol/ & /lit/. It's the only thing chvds care about these days. I've always found NRx / Spengler tier people to be apathetic to what I want with /monarchy/. It is not really a shared vision with that ilk. That Evola INVOLUTION image is another example of my frustration with them: they rank absolute monarchy in 2nd tier for bs reasons… I feel irked Evola has the mind to chide constitutional monarchy but doesn't endorse absolute monarchy: I assume Evola has Toquevillist / "aristocratic" reservations about absolute /monarchy/ ok. I don't like how in his book he dismissed absolutism. I also hate how neofascist chuds online have totally forsaken fascism for traditionalism, abandoning actual idealism and everything underpinning the fascist ideology and failing to address critical problems here. I fear they will fall into the very same apathy high church traditionalism has. E-chuds just chase pop politics and listen to the latest e-celeb and e-peen fads and gossip about the news like a bunch of hens. Lastly, I don't want to return to the state of pre-Reformation, medievalist royalty: my sentiments mirror Hobbes that the mood back then was a mood of apathy and like Rousseau says the hearts of subjects weren't firmly connected to their political king, people were too indifferent and didn't care for the political aspect enough. Thomas Hobbes / The people in general were so ignorant >Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty >or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth >King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to I don't like that traditionalists have for the most part shilled mixed constitutionalism with high church characteristics; all this has left me deeply disappointed.

I see a pervading apathy no matter the piety of the people, even anti-royalism at times, so I'm of Hobbes' opinion that you ought to galvanize the subjects around their Monarchy proactively and I'm not rest assured it will come in due time indirectly by the esteem of High Church. Xenophon's Cyropaedia / Never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the field: >But never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the field: if that were so, the same men would be loyal to all alike, even as all natural objects are the same to all mankind. No, every leader must win his own followers for himself.

The Pre-eminence of King Charles II: >His comely presence, meekness, majesty, >Do Adamantine lustre far out-vie; >If to be highly born it is great bliss, >What Prince for Birth may you compare with his? ... >Behold your King then thousands more tall >In Grace, Power, Virtues, higher than you all >When Kingship, Persons, Virtues thus you see >All meet in one, happy's that Monarchy >Not Solomon in Glory may compare - P. Dormer's Monarchia Triumphans, 1666. THE GREAT FOUNDER / PRE-EMINENT MONARCHY As explained by Aristotle in Politics >Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… 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 unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature. <& yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors! >But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … 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 the relation of the Whole [the State] 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! Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch: >1. Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States >2. It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person >3. [We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed >4. He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part >5. He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience >6. Is like a demigod among men Aristotle went on to say. >Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares. >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 the relation of the whole to the 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. >Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law). Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the kings of the East. – >Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed Thomas Hobbes, I think, refers to it as a state of awe <Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24" (There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24) <and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required (besides Covenant) to make their Agreement constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit. <Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all. Hobbes calls his Leviathan a mortal god -- responding to the criteria of Aristotle on a pre-eminent monarch and earlier Plato in Laws (as Caligula referred to with his shepherd quote).

[Expand Post]

... Nonetheless, these qualities of a pre-eminent Monarchy is what Absolutism stands for in the present day: this is what Mixed Constitutionalism rejects & what Absolute Monarchy upholds. So those people who dismiss absolute monarchy for being a 1600s innovation should take account of this and the criteria against mixed constitutionalism...

>>8033 Note that a mark of pre-eminence in Monarchy accompanies being the founder of states: That is why some monarchs name cities after themselves -- to lend unto themselves the mark of pre-eminence spoken of here. Examples like: - Ramses and the city of Pi-Ramses - Alexander the Great and Alexandria - Romulus and Rome - Constantine and Constantinople - Emp Peter I and St. Petersburg / Petrograd - Lenin and Leningrad - Papa Doc and Duvalierville Being the founder of a city automatically puts a ruler on par with the whole city (as the founding father) and gives them the relationship of the whole (the entire city / state) to the part that was described.

It should never be taken for granted with monarchical pre-eminence... Where we see Thomas Hobbes was a materialist and yet firmly established the ground of monarchical pre-eminence or sovereignty in his political works... whereas the partisans of High Church today (esp. the tradcaths) detest nothing more than the Divine Right of Kings or any notion lending pre-eminence to a monarch ruler and are some of the loudest, most dogged supporters of mixed constitutionalism... and where kings by their monarchist supporters today are seen as simply another nobleman or one among equals... whereas communists receive their leaders like prophets... This should go to show not to take it for granted by even the supposed supporters themselves and what philosophies they prescribe to or even the generic appearance of royalty and the clothes they wear. You'll find yourself surprised and it isn't always what you'd think.

The majority of the e-monarchist community is mislead to be opposed to unitary / corporatist policy. Instead, they prefer political pluralism / mixed constitutionalism… Too many of the leading voices in the community are telling their followers to embrace the Hydra (political pluralism / mixed constitutionalism). To reject a unitary policy of monarchy & the notion of monarchical pre-eminence (which is clearly represented by absolute monarchy). Unitary / corporatist policy is ugly to royalists because of the one party state: Leninism / Fascism / Nazism. This is the grossest misjudgement of our day. It is Monarchy that ultimately must be aligned with unitary mode of policy – to strive to bring polity under one ruler.

While Aristotle denied the ground of a pre-eminent monarchy & is the grandfather of mixed constitutionalist notions of State: I always love these quotes & sharing them from Aristotle.

Hobbes' Behemoth recounts the history and causes of the English Civil Wars. He starts BEHEMOTH (the anti-Leviathan) in recounting the factions involved. Hobbes' pessimism is my pessimism. The seducers were of diverse sorts... 1st faction: The Presbyterians >One sort were ministers; ministers, as they called themselves, of Christ; and sometimes, in their sermons to the people, God's ambassadors; pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his parish, and their assembly the whole nation. 2nd faction: The Papists / Catholics >Secondly, there were a very great number, though not comparable to the other, which notwithstanding that the Pope's power in England, both temporal and ecclesiastical, had been by Act of Parliament abolished, did still retain a belief that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the vicar of Christ, and, in the right of Christ, to be the governor of all Christian people. And these were known by the name of Papists; as the ministers I mentioned before, were commonly called Presbyterians. 3rd faction: Fifth monarchy men & other low church protestants >Thirdly, there were not a few, who in the beginning of the troubles were not only discovered, but shortly after declared themselves for a liberty in religion, and those of different opinions one from another. Some of them because they would have all congregations free and independent upon one another, were called Independents. Others that held baptism to infants, and such understood not into what they are baptized, to be ineffectual, were called therefore Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ's kingdom was at this time to begin upon the earth, were called Fifth-monarchy-men; besides diverse other sects, as Quakers, Adamites, etc, whose names and peculiar doctrines I do not well remember. And these were the enemies which arose against his Majesty from the private interpretation of the Scripture, exposed to every man's scanning in his mother-tongue. 4th faction: The Intellectuals / School-men / Educated Elite & Parliamentarians >Fourthly, there were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth having read the books written by famous men of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths concerning their polity and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by that glorious name of Liberty, and monarchy disgraced by the name of Tyranny; they became thereby in love with their forms of government. And out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons, or if they were not the greatest part, yet by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest. 5th faction: Londoners & Other Urbanites >Fifthly, the city of London and other great towns of trade, having in admiration the prosperity of the Low Countries after they had revolted from their monarch, the King of Spain, were inclined to think that the like change of government here, would to them produce the like prosperity. 6th faction: The Grifters / Lumpenproles >Sixthly, there were a very great number that had either wasted their fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good parts they thought were in themselves; and more there were, that had able bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their bread. These longed for a war, and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had the greatest plenty of money. Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant & didn't care >Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty, as that not one perhaps of ten thousand knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth, for which he was to part with his money against his will; but thought of himself to be so much master of whatsoever he possessed, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to, with the help of riches; they had no rule of equity, but precdents and custom; and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament, that was most averse to the granting of subsidies or other public payments. Thomas Hobbes adequately sums up his own pessimism with a remark which sums up my own feelings as well towards the monarchist community <In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government. ... >In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government, so as they need not have taken arms for it. For I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.

>He had risen to this high point of glory not by the choice of some prince, but by courage and by victories, which are the choice and the votes of Heaven Itself when It has resolved to subordinate the other powers to a single one. -Louis XIV