The supposed Anti-Nation of Traditionalism at the root is metamorphosed Anti-Politics, born from the ultra-clericals contempt for Political Authority & priority of Stately affair, marked by temporal (secular / political) vs spiritual domain, & dividing itself in partiality. It is not Anti-Nationalism, but Anti-Politics. This is the heart of the issue, & the zeal that ultra-clericals / traditionalists / anarkiddies wield against states & Political Authority. Hence I reject their Anti-Politics & longing to the Political well being beneath them. As for regionalists, they aren't looking at the Political with the same contempt as the ultra-clerical and traditionalist... or even the anarchist... they're a confused kind of mixed constitutionalist, the takes the pluralism of Aristotle's constitution and treats regions like estates in the City -- the thing about regionalists is they are merely micro-nationalists. I dub them anti-politicals in contrast to the term "anti-clericals" made for radicals who oppose the Church. It is the same business for them, but they're opposed to the State and of political unity. It is the ultimate folly of most Christian conservatives in finally opposing Church and State, the ultimate imperfection of partiality to the detriment of social cohesion.

>>7644 Ultimately, it is a synagogue mentality, like the Nationalists view with contempt in the Jews, for Christians to retreat to the bosom of the Church and view the bonds of State & Political benefit with a contempt.

In short, finally opposing State and Church, Sword and Crosier, by rivaling these ends, and making our political integrity and unity of families which forms the Political to be a cheap "secularism" for which they dub it w/ stern contempt as worldliness.

State Corporatism is a unitary politics with the State as one personhood, a living organism, a higher personality and being; not to be confused with a collection of private corporations. The ideology of State Corporatism traces its lineage back to Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan, and the formation of one-party States and Fascism. In Plato's Republic is State Corporatism: >That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity. In Hobbes' Leviathan is State Corporatism: >And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is "One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.” In Italian Fascism is State Corporatism: Gentile >It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person. Giuseppe Bottai >However, in speaking of the corporative State, it must not be understood as meaning only all that which pertains to the relations between employers and workers – relations based on a principle of collaboration rather than upon a struggle of classes. Fascism with its new arrangements aims at a more complex end. This, summed up in a few words, is "to reassert the sovereignty of the State over those syndicates, which, whether of an economic or social kind, when left to themselves broke out at one time against the State, subjecting the will of the individual to their own arbitrary decision, almost musing the rise of judicial provisions alien to the legal order of the State, opposing their own right to the right of the State, subordinating to their own interests the defenceless classes, and even the general interest, of which the State is naturally the judge, champion and avenger."

A brief disclaimer: this is the what the corporatism of Fascism is, State Corporatism, and not to be mistaken with the corporative system itself which act as internal organs of this higher personality. Those corporate bodies are limited and are organs, and that kind of corporatism is more analogous to guilds, the primary corporatism of Fascism is State Corporatism, these are corporations are organs and limited internally in relation to "The State" (which in this connotation refers to State Corporatism especially). Mario Palmieri: >To make this discipline possible, and the sovereignty effective in practice as well as in theory, Fascism has devised the “Corporazione,” an instrument of social life destined to exercise the most far-reaching influence upon the economic development of Fascist States. (The Italian word “Corporazione” which is currently translated into English by the apparently analogous word “Corporation,” means, more exactly in the Italian language, what the word “Guild” means in English; that is: associations of persons engaged in kindred pursuits. We shall nevertheless follow the general usage to obviate the danger of misunderstandings.) >Within the Corporations the interests of producers and consumers, employers and employees, individuals and associations are interlocked and integrated in a unique and univocal way, while all types of interests are brought under the aegis of the State. Fausto Pitigliani >That the Corporation has no legal independent personality but is an organ of the State Administration. >To these organs, which take the name of Corporations and link the various productive activities of the country as members of one body >The Corporations constitute the unitary organisation of the forces of production and represent all their interests. >In virtue of this integral representation, and in view of the fact that the interests of production are the interests of the Nation, the law recognises the Corporations as State organs. For clarity, Hobbes Leviathan also takes this stance on the limitation of subordinate corporations and the sovereign relationship of the state corporation: >Of Regular, some are Absolute, and Independent, subject to none but their own Representative: such are only Common-wealths [or States]; Of which I have spoken already in the 5. last preceding chapters. Others are Dependent; that is to say, Subordinate to some Soveraign Power, to which every one, as also their Representative is Subject. >Of Systemes subordinate, some are Politicall, and some Private. Politicall (otherwise Called Bodies Politique, and Persons In Law,) are those, which are made by authority from the Soveraign Power of the Common-wealth. Private, are those, which are constituted by Subjects amongst themselves, or by authoritie from a stranger. For no authority derived from forraign power, within the Dominion of another, is Publique there, but Private. >In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power of The Representative is Limited. >In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.

>>7648 Jean Bodin also adds. The Estates limited and the Sovereign the final & public authority >Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father. >I have said "limited", since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State. >That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority. >The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.

Thomas Hobbes >And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth [state] or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union There is a misnomer about Fascist corporatism: the true corporatism of Fascism is the Fascist State, the corporative system itself, like Mario Palmieri states, is a guild system between workers and employers, and leading up to a corporate state by taking the role as internal organs (to be many in one). Fausto Pitigliani >That the Corporation has no legal independent personality but is an organ of the State Administration. Mario Palmieri: >To make this discipline possible, and the sovereignty effective in practice as well as in theory, Fascism has devised the “Corporazione,” an instrument of social life destined to exercise the most far-reaching influence upon the economic development of Fascist States. (The Italian word “Corporazione” which is currently translated into English by the apparently analogous word “Corporation,” means, more exactly in the Italian language, what the word “Guild” means in English; that is: associations of persons engaged in kindred pursuits. We shall nevertheless follow the general usage to obviate the danger of misunderstandings.) See, they are just guilds. They are not corporations in the English sense of the word. Corporatism is truly understood to many any body of people to act as one person, and any body of people – such as the workers under a workers' party is a corporatism. Democratic centralism has a unitary principle. Which I see as a corporate rule of the workers' party, taking their wills into one will. Like Aristotle says that corporate rule takes the manifestation of a monarch or despot, the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" is basically that. Joseph de Maistre on King People <But of all monarchies, the hardest, most despotic, and most intolerable is King People… whose despotism, always harder and more capricious than that of kings, increases in intensity as the number of subjects grows. I'm not saying that is a bad thing like he does.

Benito Mussolini: Speech of the Ascension, May 26, 1927 The Unitary State >But in the meantime I come to an essential point of my speech: perhaps the most important. What have we Fascists done in these last five years? We did something huge, monumental, centuries in the making. What have we made? We have created the Italian Unitary State. Consider that from the time of the Empire onward, Italy was no longer a unitary State. Here we solemnly reaffirm our doctrine concerning the State; here I reaffirm my formula in the speech I delivered at La Scala in Milan: "Everything within the State, nothing against the State". I do not even think anyone in the 20th century can live outside the State, unless they are in a state of barbarism, a state of savagery. >It is only the State that gives people a consciousness of itself. If the people are not organized, if the people are not a State, they are simply a population that will be at the mercy of the first group of internal adventurers or external invaders. Because, dear gentlemen, only the State with its juridical organization, with its military force, prepared at all times, can defend the national collectivity; but if the human collectivity is broken up and reduced to the mere nucleus of the family, a few hundred Normans will suffice to conquer Puglia. >What was the State -- that State which we took over as it was breathing its last breath, gnawed by constitutional crises, debased by its organic impotence? The State which we conquered at the time of the March on Rome was the one which has been handed down from 1850 onward. It was not a State, but a system of badly organized prefectures, in which the prefect had but one preoccupation: that of being an efficient electoral errand boy. Fascism and Democracy >In that State, until 1922, the proletariat -- what shall I say? the entire people -- was absent, refractory, hostile. Today we announce to the world the creation of the powerful Unitary Italian State from the Alps to Sicily. And this STate expresses itself in a centralized, organized, unitary democracy in which the people move about at ease, because, gentlemen, either you place the people within the citadel of the State, and they will defend it, or they will be outside, and they will assault it.

Someone was talking to me and suggested this was Aristotelian. Which couldn't be more wrong. >"this Aristotelian approach to politics can be placed directly in the trash can" I said-- That is where you are wrong. State Corporatism is anything but Aristotelian. Where Plato praises it, Aristotle condemns it. Aristotle Politics >For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. Contrast this with Plato again. >That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be not many men, but one, and so the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity. As you can see, Plato supports many in one, but Aristotle condemns it. The taboo in the West against one-party States (for leftist vanguardism AND fascism) originates with Aristotle, and Aristotle condemns it for the same reason Aristotle condemns an absolute monarchy: it is seen as a tyranny over constitutionalism and the multi-parties and estates.

With De Jouvenel, it's simply a rehash of Aristotle / an appeal to a mixed / composite State. >HLvM: Aristotelian stress on the Middle Class & Anacyclosis (meaning, mix the State to preserve it, rather than unify) >Absolute Monarchy / State Corporatism bad: Aristotle >Atomization / individualism b/c too much Unity / Centralization: Another one of Aristotle's knacks against Plato's Republic. He also said that verbatim basically. And again: >Centralization vs Decentralization: Aristotle's stress on the nature of the State being Plurality rather than Unity (as opposed to Plato). If Monarchists only knew that you can't win with Aristotle, because Aristotle's definition of Monarchy and his political constitution makes Monarchy an inferior estate to the political constitution anyways & "one among equals" & inevitably rotational & elective govt. The Middle Ages as Alexis de Tocqueville praises is more in the spirit of very early Middle Ages, where there weren't any established hereditary Monarchies & kings were like chieftains & is nothing like Monarchy we know and love and envision tbh that has Majesty / pre-eminence. ... I dare say we are better off with State Corporatism & even the ideologies condemned as Modernity than what we're being offered by traditionalists with this Tocquevillism.

>>7653 Modern dictatorships & esp. North Korea are proof of that too (as unappealing and not traditionalist it is).

Kim Il Sung Aphorism - Queen Bee >Just as worker bees form a group and live in a disciplined way, centring on a Queen Bee, so the collective must have a centre and discipline. Kim Il Sung – Party Organization >Kim Il Sung repeated this question to himself, picking up a pencil and tapping it lightly on the table. After a while, he asked the foreign quest: "Do you know how bees live?" <"What do you mean?" asked the latter >With a meaningful smile on his face, Kim Il Sung resumed: Bees are united around the Queen Bee. Of course, this mode of experience is a natural phenomenon based on their instinct, but it may provide an answer to the question of how to build up a party. >He went on: "Just as bees live in an orderly fashion united around the Queen Bee, there must be a centre and discipline within a collective." >He said that what was essential in building up a party was to unite all its members firmly around the leader, concluding that a party, which achieved the unity of all its members in ideology and will with the leader at the centre, would be ever-victorious.

I wish the praise of Bertrand de Jouvenel would die. Unfortunately, the popularity of Hoppe & the right libertarian to monarchist pipeline has prolonged my suffering. Never trust a Right Libertarian on Monarchy. They are the broom of constitutional monarchists & traditionalists who want a weak monarchy. They always default to Aristotelian pluralism & will try to sap and combat any sense of Majesty with Monarchy.

I wouldn't trust Libertarians on Monarchy. Why? Because what you'll get is a Fool's Gold in light of Monarchy. It will only get you so far until you bump into their stubborn insistence upon upholding Aristotelian pluralism (*ahem* Europe of a Thousand Liechtensteins) which rejects unitary ideals that work well with Monarchy. Then they'll complain about "centralization" and so forth (another quip they inherited from Aristotle against Monarchy). They make a pretense of rejecting democracy, but it's not that fundamentally different from mixed constitutionalism & parliamentarianism at its core. Instead of the Estates-General gathered together in a room -- (& remember, the Estates General is the general of all the estates in a City, for example, that is all the houses constituting a City) -- that same is understood for their love of Neofeudalism which harnesses Aristotelian pluralism and quite to the contrary of Homer's maxim "Let there be one ruler, one king" -- you'll find yourself with many kings in the same State and ideals more complementary to Oligarchy than Monarchy. As inevitably happens with Aristotle's pluralism, that monarchy becomes "one among equals" and inevitably this leads to recognizing it as an inferior estate to the State, to elective monarchy, & rotational govt -- which is nothing like Monarchy in the sense we enjoy.

I don't know why I bother. Some people are their own worst enemies.

>>7672 Cuz you gotta have a hobby in life. Theres gonna be some Christmas movies later. We could watch some. Ive never seen a barbie film you said you liked those right? Gotta be a christmas themed one or something we could watch.

Yeah theres a perfect christmas (2011) and a christmas carol (2008). The christmas carol one has more seeds, so in theory its the more popular one, and so even more theoretically it's the better of the two films.

>>7673 I would watch a movie with /christmas/, I guess.

>>491710656 Hesiod's Theogony - Praise of Kingship >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 and 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.

The narrative from NeoAbsolutism on BioLeninism and High being patrons of a slave ruling class - also found in Aristotle, & the hatred of the Liberal State or Modern State, could be defined by a hatred of State Corporatism & dividing a City into Master & Slaves like a Household. I would guess Aristotle's praise of the Middle Class is key to the problem, not precisely of HLvM, but maintaining the respective difference between the household and the city -- between economic & political -- which Aristotle feels Absolute Monarchy & State Corporatism threatens. Now, I think this calls for a comprehensive study on this issue... when thinking of NeoAbsolutism in relation to the Classics. But the Middle Class for Aristotle benefits the political constitution, b/c they are equals and similar, & for Aristotle's City this must be most of all The formula HLvM📢 screams about the plight of the Middle class most of all, & the plight of the Nobility -- its oppressors, the extreme rich & extreme poor. The stress is on the Middle & that's where their sympathies usually dwell -- the mediocrity between Monarchy & Democracy. What is most alarming to me -- & probably my biggest fear -- is the mediocrity between Monarchy & Democracy is Oligarchy, & that this stress on the Middle has turned them into a brood of softcore Oligarchists w/ contempt for Democratic State Corporatism & Absolute Monarchy. From my standpoint, there is either Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy. You either support Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy. You cannot both be a Monarchist and an Oligarchist; it's one or the other. NeoAbsolutists deny three separate forms of State: Citing Filmerean ontology, they say there is only Monarchy. & Traditionalists, too, tend to overlook the classic Herodotus Debate & the 3 simple forms, more in favor of simply stressing Aristocracy vs Tyranny. That kind of apathy towards the three forms, I feel, lets them neglect their respective differences, so they go about confusing Monarchy with Oligarchy and so on with Democracy. & it's extremely frustrating to me b/c it overall leads to apathy towards maintaining monarchical form. Even worse, paired with HLvM & the sympathy for Middle, they confound the notion of Aristocracy (or in this case Oligarchy) in our notion of 3 forms & Oligarchy, on and off, sometimes they talk about aristocracy, but other times plainly oligarchy, not that these aren't correlated. Aristocracy as simply the good government doesn't seem as partial to the 3 forms; but sometimes there's Aristocracy as Oligarchy. It's a long conversation where the conventional absolutist attitude is on this, but the former can be inclusive & the latter exclusive of monarchy. In that confusion, I am paranoid again of a kind of crypto-Oligarchist brooding, where they can play off people's confusion & especially the Traditionalists (who like the former definition) by flicking on & off what they mean, to the great detriment & exclusion of Monarchy. So, for instance, a crypto-oligarchist in monarchy clothing can really rain down a cloaked & severe contempt of Monarchy from the latter definition, but then steer into the former definition (which could also have connotation of Monarchy) to assuage us.

At this point, you might be wondering, then why not just accept the Mixed Constitution? you can have all kinds of ice cream, like vanilla, chocolate, strawberry mixed together, but like Jean Bodin... I feel mixed constitutionalism really come to fruition is plain democracy. That might be extremely anachronistic & trivial to my audience, but that is what I maintain, & mostly for the sake of definition like Bodin complains. If the only form of State is Monarchy (& there's no such thing as Oligarchy or Democracy), I would say a few things... 1st, I guess no point of comparison between Monarchy & other forms. 2nd, the only thing to lament is the imperfection of Monarchy & not the threat of it transforming into other forms being the loss of Monarchy. 3rd, probably more amiable to how Traditionalists yearn to see it. B/c the traditionalist view values the dichotomy of good vs bad govt, not partially the 3 forms imho, so a narrative like that is useful for Traditionalists. Monarchy is good government, imperfection thereof is bad government; so kinda jumps the 3 forms to aristocracy vs tyranny. In my eyes, this narrative just undermines the threat of monarchy slipping into instead an oligarchy or democracy, so that is why I think it is important to stick to the Herootus Debate notion of 3 simple forms, if not to just stress that Monarchy is not Oligarchy or Democracy. I think upholding that notion is hard for most to swallow, because sure, they could believe there's such a thing as Oligarchy, but Democracy? tbh most are incredulous to think Democracy even exists, in the first place but if that were so then what would be we complaining about? I'd imagine a NeoAbsolutist would say that we're complaining about HLvM & BioLeninism (as they call it). & for an NeoAbsolutist, maybe that is the closest they'll see "democracy" -- when there's BioLeninism & State Corporatism in this mode of HLvM, that is called "Democracy". But back to Aristotle. Private interpretation of mine, I dont really think he even acknowledges Monarchy as a form of State -- and if so, it's tyranny, b/c the proper place of Monarchy is as an estate, & when it tries to capture the fullness of the State -- it's tyranny. Might be a bad interpretation of Aristotle, but he says a household is a monarchy, & a political constitution is for freemen & equals, that these differ. Which leads me to think if they differ, & a household is a monarchy, then the political constitution should not be a monarchy. That makes me think for Aristotle -- there can't be a proper Monarchical state, but only a Monarchical estate. One of his definitions of tyranny is a Monarch who tries to rule a State like his Estate. So I think for him, it's an imperfection of Monarchy to be a monarchical state. In Rhetoric, Aristotle says that a Monarchy has the government of all & limited by law; but by his will, tyranny. Jean Bodin remarks, though, that it's also tyranny for Aristotle if the Monarch should do anything contrary to the wishes of the people, & so basically democracy I mainly have that private interpretation because when I read Aristotle's Politics, the latter half he expressed the difference in virtues between Aristocracy & Democracy, but Aristotle didn't include Monarchy; I suspected Aristotle doesn't really take Monarchy srsly as a State.

Before I compare HLvM to the same in Aristotle's Politics, let me talk about my overall distrust of "NeoAbsolutism" as an OG Absolute Monarchist. I mostly distrust "NeoAbsolutism" b/c it's filled to the brim with Evola-stanning Traditionalists; that might be an odd complaint, but I see it awfully trendy & all-consuming. You needn't look far to see what I mean, when these sorts take over a hobby or niche group on the Right. Look at what they've done to Fascism. You have Fascists basically ridiculing Actual Idealism & repeating Evola's snubbery against Giovanni Gentile's Anti-Intellectualism. I see myself as a Guardian of Old Absolutism against the innovations of NeoAbsolutism. The way NeoAbsolutists are all Bertrand de Jouvenel, with a bit of homage to Filmer, & total absence of Jean Bodin in discussing Absolutism & Sovereignty is criminal to me. Just within Fascism, these sorts have kind of made a mockery of Giovanni Genitle, I also fear the same with Old Absolutism & that is what Bertrand de Jouvenel derides. Thinking about Fascism & how trendy Traditionalism & all the e-Fascists gobbling it up, it's really sad to me... that Cultured Thug is the only e-Fascist I've ever met to recognize Evola's snide remarks like "I'm a Super-Fascist" is mostly a ridiculing of Fascism. Just as these e-Fascists don't seem to be consciously aware of the punches Evola is throwing at Fascism, so also I really wonder if NeoAbsolutists are fully aware of Bertrand de Jouvenel's punches against Absolutism & the roots of it with Tocqueville & Aristotle. When I first encountered "NeoAbsolutism", I was really astounded how anyone calling themselves "Absolutist" could associate with Bertrand de Jouvenel. I still think in the beginning, it's just like e-Fascists adopting Evola, b/c they're just not fully aware of Evola on Fascism. But the problem with that is Bertrand de Jouvenel is pretty open about it; the way Evola tackles Fascism is really witty, but Bertrand de Jouvenel straight up tells you his mission is against absolutism & "caesarists" & building "libertarians" against "caesarists". I've read Bertrand de Jouvenel and heard his talk about the "Republic of Old" & how it's parallel with Tocqueville's "Old Constitution of Europe" & it's the generic talking about chiefs and their partnership as you find in Aristotle's Politics. Maybe you could doubt -- that the situation of NeoAbsolutists adopting Bertrand de Jouvenel is like Fascists adopting Evola -- It's so obvious, that it can't be, so there's probably more nuance, but at the same time I really do think it be like that. Question ultimatly is, have NeoAbsolutists outwitted Bertrand de Jouvenel in their "Absolutism" or has Bertrand de Jouvenel outwitted them? --I think it's the latter. I really think in falling for HLvM, NeoAbsolutists indirectly carry forward a lot of the stigma against Absolutism & many of its key components. Absolutism adopted a lot to avoid the pitfalls of Aristotle, but NeoAbsolutism has dragged a lot back in & HLvM might be one of them.

Here's another area where Bertrand de Jouvenel is running contrary to a tendency in Absolutism: Absolutism embraces the idea that political & economical don't differ. Here, Bertrand de Jouvenel is asserting exactly that, & going along w/ Aristotle in "two degrees of authority". <De Jouvenel / Monarchical vs Senatorial >According to which of these two hypotheses is adopted, the conclusion is reached that the "natural" government is either the monarchical or the senatorial. But from the time that Locke utterly smashed up Filmer's fragile structure, the earliest political authority was considere to be the senate composed of fathers of families, using the word "families" in the widest sense. >Society must, therefore, have presented two degrees of authority, which were quite different in kind. On the one hand is the head of the family, exercising the most imperious sway over all who were within the family circle. On the other are the heads of families in council, taking decisions in concert, tied to each other only by consent, submitting only to what has been determined in common, and assembling their retainers, who have outside themselves, neither law nor master, to execute their will. Bertrand de Jouvenel obviously hates State Corporatism, but in his appeal to "Republic of Old" -- Bertrand de Jouvenel is also stressing how back then there wasn't State Corporatism. >It thus appears that the rulers do not form, as in our modern society, a coherent body which, from the minister of state down to the policeman, moves as one piece. On the contrary, the magistrates, great and small, discharge their duties in a way which verges on independence. That is also very Aristotelian.

Even some traditionalists are attracted to Hobbes' Leviathan main cover picture with the corporate figure of Leviathan, not even knowing how Enlightenment-tier Hobbes is. The big idea: State Corporatism. I think a lot of people are ashamed to admit they kinda like that idea. Plato also advocated State Corporatism & unitary politics. For some traditionalists, Bertrand de Jouvenel is a crusader against the kind of State Corporatism -- that they've grown to hate. The State Corporatism -- the Modern State. Albeit a lot of them are also just right libertarians & hate State Corporatism in general. For Louis XIV People admire Majesty encompassing a King, & his unique personality & charm, dare I say the power he wields demands respect But the stigma of Gallicanism, collectivism vs individualism, & Tocquevillism on Absolutism, Mixed Constitutionalism & power = bad taints it A lot of instances where people deep down admire these notions of Monarchy, but get swept away from it or hooted down by gatekeeping right libertarians & constitutional monarchists out to expunge that very admiration. That is probably another grievance I hate w/ Bertrand de Jouvenel & NeoAbsolutism: On one hand, you have absolute monarchists promoting this. On the other hand, you have right libertarian monarchists using Bertrand de Jouvenel to gatekeep would-be absolute monarchists. I am wary of the writers in the monarchist sphere Right Libertarians like. Hoppe, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihnl, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Ernst Kantorowicz, even Hans Adams II. I like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihnl the best, but he said in a recording: "Absolute Monarchy is EVIL." The right libertarians are our loudest haters. Out of all the discontents w/ Absolute Monarchy. Bertrand de Jouvenel basically calls for a war against absolute monarchy in his book and for a "libertarian elite" to rise up. That quote alone from Bertrand de Jouvenel where he talks of two authority and denying political & economical alike - that disqualifies him from being a Savant of Absolute Monarchy & our guy. I agree w/ Rousseau, Filmer, Hobbes, Bodin: denying econ. & pol. is alike as Plato puts it steers you as far away from the notion of Absolute Monarchy as possible.

Aristotle's Politics on HLvM & his praise of the Middle Class: >"There only can the government ever be stable where the middle class exceeds one or both of the others, and in that case there will be no fear that the rich will unite with the poor against the rulers." I think my biggest complaint about NeoAbsolutism, Formalism, & the dilemma of HLvM: Why not just look to Aristotle & his solutions? Legit HLvM here in Aristotle's Politics. There's almost no need for Formalism & NeoAbsolutism when you can take it straight from Politics 101. In a way, Aristotle's praise of the Middle Class is his own alternative take on Plato's Community of Pleasures & Pains, b/c Aristotle sees the problem in dividing the City like a household, where it should be equals & freemen. It's like Aristotle is saying: "No, that won't bring the desired result: a bigger middle class instead will unite people in likeness and similitude." And that only makes the proponents of HLvM in NeoAbsolutism more sketchy to me: it's often touted, that the rise of the middle class lead to the end of absolute monarchy. If you heard it before, that the rise of the middle class was the end of absolute monarchical rule, I think that myth originates well with Aristotle. >"The first governments were kingships, because of old, when cities were small, men of eminent virtue were few" >"When many persons equal in merit arose, no longer enduring the pre-eminence of one, they desired to have a commonwealth, & set up a constitution" That's why in this interview w/ the Shah of Iran, the Anglo interviewer asks: "Do you think as your country gets more prosperous, you'll be able to restrain the demands of your people for more of the kind of democracy we have in Britain?" The Shah's response is tit for tat what Aristotle covered: "The rule of a father over his children is royal... For a King is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder & younger, of father & son." The only issue I have is what Aristotle kind of proposes is "one among equals" which isn't a natural superior; Aristotle covers the pre-eminent Monarch & rejects the pre-eminent Monarch, stating he should take his turn in being governed & be like a statesmen. If you're familiar with Aristotle & his covering of the pre-eminent Monarch, the one who is pre-eminent is like a god among men or a lion to hares; Aristotle sets the bar SO high for the Monarch to be like a natural superior to his people -- & Aristotle rejects it. It's precedent also in Plato's Laws & his story of mankind being ruled like cattle by superiors, & it's part of his story & appeal to the rule of law, as like fragments of a higher mind. Plato calls it into question, but relates men are not like ants born w/ a natural superior. Both Aristotle & Plato, imo, leave open the possibility that such a pre-eminent Monarch can exist, & absolute monarchists have tried very hard to answer that dilemma by all answers to the question of monarchical pre-eminence & establishing Majesty.

Above, screencaps related, from Aristotle's Politics on the Middle Class: <De Jouvenel on Middle Class <How can men whose authority rests on Power's guarantee oppose to it the proud independence which honourably distinguished the ancient aristocracy? Lacking now all strength of their own, they no longer uphold Power; no longer upholding Power, they have become incapable of limiting it. The notions of aristocracy and liberty have parted company. >The heirs of their libertarian aspirations are the middle class. We will define the middle class, if we must, as composed of those who have enough social strength to stand in no need of any special protection and to desire the largest measure of liberty, but have on the other hand not enough strength to make their liberties oppressive to others.

Hobbes Elements of Law http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/31/91.pdf >And as this union into a city or body politic, is instituted with common power over all the particular persons, or members thereof, to the common good of them all; so also may there be amongst a multitude of those members, instituted a subordinate union of certain men, for certain common actions to be done by those men for some common benefit of theirs, or of the whole city; as for subordinate government, for counsel, for trade, and the like. And these subordinate bodies politic are usually called CORPORATIONS; and their power such over the particulars of their own society, as the whole city whereof they are members have allowed them. >In all cities or bodies politic not subordinate, but independent, that one man or one council, to whom the particular members have given that common power, is called their SOVEREIGN, and his power the sovereign power. which consisteth in the power and the strength that every of the members have transferred to him from themselves, by covenant. And because it is impossible for any man really to transfer his own strength to another, or for that other to receive it; it is to be understood: that to transfer a man's power and strength, is no more but to lay by or relinquish his own right of resisting him to whom he so transferreth it. And every member of the body politic, is called a SUBJECT, (viz.) to the sovereign … >The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men. >And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be one person in law, yet the same hath not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union.

There are 5 sides to the e-monarchist community: The two major factions: >1. The PROGRESSIVE, more contemporary CONSTITUTIONAL monarchists & ceremonial monarchists like the ones on r/monarchism, generally paired with Anglophiles & love of the British Empire, sometimes Prussian-style constitutional monarchy Kaiserboos, & sometimes very contemporary, democratic, & ultra-progressive type people, and fringe type people (monarcho-socialists, for example) or the Radical Monarchist Movement or Monarchists of America MOA. -- They are a bit more secular & politically concerned compared to other factions, but not always. This is the generic "Monarchism" that is mostly popular. vs >2. The HIGH CHURCH Tradcaths & Orthobros & Anglicans, mainly denoted by HIGH CHURCH & denominational concerns, paired with Traditionalist autists (*Evola, Guenon, Spengler) & sometimes neofeudalist / Medievalism, sometimes a general Aristocracy & elective monarchy flavor, and groups like The American Royalists TAR, with an emphasis on Aristocracy vs Tyranny (good govt vs bad govt generally) moreso than simply the 3 forms the Absolute Monarchists use -- but at the basis of this conservatism & traditionalism is Christianity overall and Church above all else. Then a few minor factions: <3. The RIGHT LIBERTARIANS within the e-monarchist sphere: Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe. These Mises.org people generally read Hoppe, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihnl, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Ernst Kantorowicz, Hans Adams II, Alexis de Tocqueville. Strongly linked to Mixed Constitutionalism or NeoFeudalism for decentralization's sake. -- <4. Closely related to the other factions (The Traditionalists & Right Libertarians) are the NRx (NeoReactionary) & BLOGSPHERE type people, usually connoted by the blogsphere, Dark Enlightenment, NeoAbsolutism, Imperium Press, Carlsbad / Von Haller, and Moldbug, & some blog / youtube personas. -- <5. The Absolute Monarchists, generally picking up from the 1500s/1600s style Monarchy & onward, connoted by both secular & political concerns while also fairly dominated by high church & denominational concerns. This category is fairly elemental. Mostly has opposition from the constitutional monarchist category and right libertarian category (& some traditionalist tradcaths also). Absolute Monarchists generally read Bodin, Filmer, Hobbes. K. James VI & I, Bossuet, Joseph de Maistre, etc. Among contemporary people, there can be fringe elements like with the constitutional monarchists (like people who like Fascism or North Korea) or more modern & secular people admiring contemporary dictatorships for political reasons. This category is also distinguished by, frankly, the more pre-eminent view of Monarchy & sometimes Caesarism, and the Herodotus Debate category of 3 simple forms (Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy) & Homer's maxim ("Let there be one ruler, one king"). There is a lot more priority & emphasis actually on Monarchy itself in a political sense here compared to the others. -- ... Now, there are some people who are fairly elemental w/ respect to these groups: commonly I see a combination of 2 (high church/traditionalism, 3 (right libertarian, 4 (NRx / blogsphere), -- & other combinations like 1 & 3 (constitutional monarchist + right libertarian) and even 1 & 2 (constitutional monarchist w/ a conservative / religious flair) or a mingling of these things but predominately leaning towards a group. Most people could be classified as belonging to these groups within the contemporary e-monarchist sphere or fairly mixed but with a greater leniency towards a group. ... This is the e-monarchist community in a nuthshell (as I see it), & I ultimately reside with the 5th group myself (absolute monarchists).

Mussolini >In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. >It is not the nation which generates the State >Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity. Bossuet: >To imagine now, with M. Jurieu, in the people considered to be in this condition, a sovereignty, which is already a species of government, is to insist on a government before all government, and to contradict oneself. Far from the people being sovereign in this condition, there is not even a people in this state. There may be families, as ill-governed as they are ill-secured; there may well be a troop, a mass of people, a confused multitude; but there can be no people, because people supposes something which already brings together some regulated conduct and some establshed law – something which happens only to those who have already begun to leave this unhappy condition, that is to say, that of anarchy. Joseph de Maistre >If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people of

<Hobbes Behemoth Two Virtues: Henry VII & Henry VIII: Frugality & Severity B. >And especially now amongst the Presbyterians. For I see few that are by them esteemed very good Christians, besides such as can repeat their sermons, and wrangle for them about the interpretation of the Scripture, and fight for them also with their bodies or purses, when they shall be required. To believe in Christ is nothing with them, unless you believe as they bid you. Charity is nothing with them, unless it be charity and liberality to them, and partaking with them in faction. How we can have peace while this is our religion, I cannot tell. Hæret lateri lethalis arundo. The seditious doctrine of the Presbyterians has been stuck so hard in the people’s heads and memories, (I cannot say into their hearts; for they understand nothing in it, but that they may lawfully rebel), that I fear the commonwealth will never be cured. A. >The two great virtues, that were severally in Henry VII and Henry VIII, when they shall be jointly in one King, will easily cure it. That of Henry VII was, without much noise of the people to fill his coffers; that of Henry VIII was an early severity; but this without the former cannot be exercised. B. >This that you say looks, methinks, like an advice to the King, to let them alone till he have gotten ready money enough to levy and maintain a sufficient army, and then to fall upon them and destroy them. A. >God forbid that so horrible, unchristian, and inhuman a design should ever enter into the King’s heart. I would have him have money enough readily to raise an army able to suppress any rebellion, and to take from his enemies all hope of success, that they may not dare to trouble him in the reformation of the Universities; but to put none to death without the actual committing such crimes as are already made capital by the laws.