>>5199 that's it boys a commie oc catgirl and a retarded line comparing government to cars made me abandon my beliefs and convert to anarcho stalinism.

>>5897 >anarcho- Disgusting. But the only monarchy I'd support is the one where I am the absolute autocratic monarch.

>>5913 >I'd only support a monarchy if I could be monarch but I want mob rule to be able to determine every aspect of my life and how I manage my property otherwise

>>5924 Where did I say that? I'm not a commie.

>>5199 I support "absolute" hereditary monarchy, divine right catholic traditionalist, counter revolutionary, judeophobic, Islamophobic, Distributist/corporatist, anti-masons, anti-LGBT, against strong parlementarism, against constitution, against immigration, anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-anarchist, anti-democrat, anti-abortion AND I don't want to be the ruler, I'm enough informed about the difficulty about being a king and his responsibilities, so I don't want to be one or gave this charge to my children.

>>5951 >"absolute" <using quotation marks feudfag trad larper GET OUT You either believe in the pre-eminence of one person as in an absolute monarchy or you're a mixed constitutionalist. Instead trads are sliding another meaningless third position bs.

>>5952 ><using quotation marks I use quotation cause it's a word invented by revolutionaries in my country in the decade 1790s for speak about the government they overthrow and the word "absolutist" was an insult like "Nazis" for speak about national-socialists and had a negative connotation, everybody can learn something like that in their first year in History studies sorry not sorry. If you prefer, I use quotation mark so that assholes don't come to piss me off telling me : >Noooo you can't use the terms absolutist like that it's really the good term for designed the old regime of your country reeeee so just precautions, nothing else. >believe in the pre-eminence of one person Actually agree with that >feudfag Wrong, not feudalist. >trad Yes > larper KYS Faggot, Regard.

I'm for absolute monarchy. Trad dudebros can kiss my ass. >>5199 >losing hope Look at the US elections. Checkmate. I like monarchy b/c I think it would be great. Not advocating overthrowing any democracy or oligarchy, let them die in their own death throes. <"And therefore whereas we said before, that in a well ordered State, the sovereign power must remain in one only, without communicating any part thereof (for in that case it should be a popular State and no Monarchy) and that all wise Politicians, Philosophers, Divines, and Historiographers have highly commended a Monarchy above all other States, it is not to pelase the Prince, that they hold this opinion, but for the safety and happiness of the subjects." >>5953 A few of us are absolutists & partisans of absolute monarchy. I don't take it as an insult. I take it for a compliment. For example, the name Cavalier was first used as an insult, but I am rather kind to the name, & likewise so was the counterpart Roundhead. The word itself has been carried around. As Bodin & Filmer nevertheless assert, a pure, absolute monarchy; and nobody else has offered terms of pure monarchy as say the Herodotus Debate since then.

I'm sorry, French anon. The reason why the word "absolutist" is an insult back then & today is because it is the serpent tongues who make it such insult. Think about the people who make it an insult Rather than the word itself, which, I, for one, fully believe. By the 1790s, theories of absolute monarchy & pre-eminence were no longer popular. In the Anglosphere, the civil wars & the Glorious Revolution of 1688, along w/ the rise of the house of Hanover, guaranteed that the word "absolutist" would be an insult. & so it was by the factions at the time surrounding Louis XVI, that so also the term was viewed as an insult. I'd say that it fell out of favor around the time of Louis XV. & today, among the traditionalist circles, it continues to be an insult b/c of Tocquevillists who carry the greatest breath in traditionalist circles, I hate to tell you. My historical analysis here >>5536 & >>5545 & >>5550 will tell you all about it prior to the French Revolution.

Again, I apologize, French anon. You must understand what it is like to be universally hated. Hoppeans? They hate my politics. Traditionalists? They hate my politics. Constitutionalists? They hate my politics. Politics such as mine is taboo as "Nazi". But the thing is, not taboo in the cool way. So I get very defensive. Otherwise I would nicepost.

>>5951 >I support "absolute" hereditary monarchy b/c of what you say, that you're neither a feudboy & neither in it for monarchical absolutism, then I suspect you're a constitutionalist. Some people will toss around words like "semi-constitutionalist" or even "semi-absolutist", but this is disingenuous. You reject a written constitution, but are you still holding onto constitutionalist principles? For example, the reason I cease to use the word "constitution" for a form of State today is precisely b/c of this predicament. In the past when they referred to your "constitution" or the "constitution of this country", they meant what form of State or what mixture. & because constitute as a word implies that it's of the parts, since constituents are parts, but I revere the pre-eminence of one person in relation to the whole State: "I am the State". He is to be regarded as a superior. Nec Pluribus Impar itself means "Not Unequal to Many", a statement of monarchical pre-eminence.

>>5954 >I'm for absolute monarchy. Based >Trad dudebros can kiss my ass. Unbased >A few of us are absolutists & partisans of absolute monarchy. Good. >I don't take it as an insult. I didn't say it's an insult, but it was mostly used in pejorative way, actually in History we use this word with quotation when we work, it's mostly about the mental pictures peoples have because the "enlighment" about absolutism, and it's deeply in their brain, so we have to use quotation when we work, and I'm used to it when I'm writing now. >why we use quotation ? For the reason I explained in my previous posts. >The reason why the word "absolutist" is an insult back then & today is because it is the serpent tongues who make it such insult. I know, actually everything who's related to the Ancien Régime is same for the corporations. >I'd say that it fell out of favor around the time of Louis XV. Yep cause he dishonored the King function and the moral picture of the King, if you want to know what I am talking about, do some search around the ''hôpital La Salpetrière" in Paris, Armand-Jean de Vignerot du Plessis, the case "Damien" etc. >among the traditionalist circles, it continues to be an insult b/c of Tocquevillists who carry the greatest breath in traditionalist circles, I hate to tell you. I'm not in the same "traditionalist circle", I mean Toqueville can be a good writer, I'm not really into it and I have seen it was mostly cuckstitutional monarchist was really into him, so not my tastes, thank you. >Again, I apologize, French anon. I think we misunderstood ourselves here. >You must understand what it is like to be universally hated. Part of my life but I don't care and I do a lot of trolling and I love it. >Traditionalists? They hate my politics. Are we talking about the same thing about "traditionalism" anon ? >So I get very defensive. Otherwise I would nicepost. Remember me during bad days. >b/c of what you say, that you're neither a feudboy & neither in it for monarchical absolutism, then I suspect you're a constitutionalist. Lmao Gestapo grindset now >You reject a written constitution, but are you still holding onto constitutionalist principles? Nope, constitutionalist principles are the works of the masons and the revolutions, they can perish in flames. >Some people will toss around words like "semi-constitutionalist" or even "semi-absolutist" Never heard something like that, are they retarded ?

>>5963 >Unbased You clearly haven't been around or in opposition to some traditionalists, b/c if you did you'd understand. Like pics related. Often spewing talking points that are cloaked Oligarchism. >actually in History I'm not a /his/fag. In politics, we call it Absolute Monarchy. Keep your history book, but also open your politics book. Contemporary historians don't leave room for the pre-eminence of Monarchy in their history books, let alone the imagination and narrative for it. I have a lot of problems with relying upon the more contemporary historians and pop history on Youtube. >Yep cause he dishonored the King function and the moral picture of the King So did Louis XIV have some immoral behaviors & scandals that trads would put their panties in a bunch for. And various other Kings of France discounting the Saint King. The King doesn't cease to be Sovereign b/c of this. >I mean Toqueville can be a good writer I blame him for shit like these pics related. >Never heard something like that, are they retarded ? It's a big thing on r/monarchism.

>divine right catholic traditionalist You clearly have not sparred with traditionalists yourself. Since tradcaths look upon that phrase "divine right" w/ the utmost disdain, b/c this phrase is considered a blot on the pre-eminence of the Pope.

>>5963 >You clearly haven't been around or in opposition to some traditionalists, b/c if you did you'd understand. Like pics related. Often spewing talking points that are cloaked Oligarchism. I don't use social network frequently so I can not become crazy and argue with stranger and lost my time. >Keep your history book, but also open your politics book. The two aren't in opposition but work together. >Contemporary historians don't leave room for the pre-eminence of Monarchy in their history books, let alone the imagination and narrative for it. I have a lot of problems with relying upon the more contemporary historians and pop history on Youtube. It's a long search but it always pays off, sometimes you have to deal with many sources and you can have something great at the end. >So did Louis XIV have some immoral behaviors & scandals that trads would put their panties in a bunch for. And various other Kings of France discounting the Saint King. Louis XIV didn't do the same thing than Louis XV, it's two differents kings, Louis XIV is a golden age for France, Louis XV is the downward slope with which one loses colonies, wars, very expensive wars, few innovations, many internal conspiracies aiming at destabilizing France from the inside, rise of the Freemasonry, pedophile network protected by Louis XV, which Louis XIV did not do in spite of the defects that he could have sorry. >It's a big thing on r/monarchism. As I said earlier I don't go on social network and here a lot. >You clearly have not sparred with traditionalists yourself. Most traditionalist catholic I know are royalist based like me, not every single one but the one who are my friends are in majority, so I don't see your problem here sorry. > look upon that phrase "divine right" w/ the utmost disdain, b/c this phrase is considered a blot on the pre-eminence of the Pope. I don't see why ? they clearly have lack in history and lack in comprehension, have Kings legitimate by God isn't in conflict with the pope, the King help the Church, the Church help the King, the two are working together why separate them ? it's fucking stupid.

>>5967 >The two aren't in opposition but work together. I agree, but I am also skeptical of /his/fags. Not contemporary history, that would regard this as no more than fiction, story narrative, & fancy. As mythology or merely legend. In fact, I would argue that fictional narrative helps to understand monarchical pre-eminence. Since like Shakespeare says, all the world is a play, & has its respective actors... The framework and exhalation of Monarchy doesn't always fit into the picture of contemporary historians. >Louis XV is the downward slope Even Kings in their darkest hours... Bodin says that it is a French saying, that "a bad man makes a good king". All Kings have a some tyranny in them. And some tyrants have some royalty in them. >have Kings legitimate by God isn't in conflict with the pope They advocated social contract theory too b/c they wanted to get rid of Kings in conflict w/ the Pope. & vice versa. >they clearly have lack in history and lack in comprehension They usually bring up the English Reformation. Or the Protestant kings in the HRE. Or Gallicanism Or the Anti-Popes Or the Investiture Controversy >Most traditionalist catholic I know are royalist based like me I'll concede, that the French & English have a lot of room in their hearts for the pre-eminence of Kings unlike other nationalities (who I think might not understand at all how other peoples revere Kings). In my opinion, everything that we revere about royalism on this board, about the majesty, and all this emphasis on Kings to begin with, is thanks to France and England. I'm not sure about the Spanish, but I will give them an honorary mention. Other nationalities, I suppose, view Kings as just another dime in a dozen, like any other noble and nothing especial at all.

I think we owe a great debt to history. & it was Herodotus, the father of history, after all, who gives us the debate between the Persian sages and the case for pure monarchy from Darius. That's why I said, keep your history book. But also open your politics book. Because it is politics that engages, w/ reference to history and philosophy, how exactly to make Monarchy work in relation to the public and as a form of State. And I feel that there are certain things unique to the politics of Monarchy that historians could easily pass over & neglect.

It would be easy. Very easy. To befriend traditionalists, b/c to avoid ramming heads w/ them... would mean being less specific. Simply advocate ur basic bietch /pol/-tier stuff that everyone agrees with. And be another dudebro. In fact, that's why being a "traditionalist" has been more widely accepted in far right boards. It's a vague term. It doesn't prick anyone. Doesn't even specify what tradition. Except "tradition". It is a word that hasn't gotten any real stigma and is simply being a generic rightwinger. This is the path of least resistance. & if I wanted to get in good graces with them, I would simply take the path of least resistance & be their faithful lapdog. >>5967 >so I don't see your problem here sorry My opinion -- I am tied down w/ enemies b/c I boldly take some stances. Very niche stances. Very specific what I have in mind.

>>5967 >Are we talking about the same thing about "traditionalism" anon ? The traditionalist verdict on absolute monarchy is typically bad. & full of condemnations & spurning. They first & foremost feel uncomfortable w/ the idea of one person having so much influence. There are a couple core absolutist things that traditionalists hate. Like >1. The Monarch is an absolute Sovereign & has power over his laws w/o their consent & is a superior to the people <+ Supporting any notion of absolute power is a highly controversial political take & the standard trad case is to simply support the rule of law to its fullest extent and separation of powers: it's controversial even though Bodin concedes that the Sovereign is subject to the laws of God & Nature, even though he thinks the Sovereign should rule by his laws and should have laws, even though he supports the fundamental laws even. >2. There are 3 forms of State only: Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy. <+ Traditionalists hate this b/c they simply want Aristocracy vs Tyranny (good or bad government) to define the types of State, but absolutists prefer their 3 pure forms & don't define their form of State like this. <+ This pisses off the constitutionalists (which is, frankly, the more trad position to take, as Bodin himself concedes) b/c they want a check & balance of the estates to be a mixed State rather than a pure monarchy <+ Hobbes outright denies there being such thing as tyranny. Filmer too. While Bodin does acknowledge a royal, lordly, & tyrannical kind of monarchy. >3. Thomas Hobbes. <+ He was a core philosopher of the Enlightenment & is pretty much the public face of absolute monarchy today. People don't even know about the other names--if they know anyone it's Hobbes. & Hobbes was anti-Catholic, a materialist, a nominalist, individualist, liberal w/ regards to freedom in a state of nature, egalitarian, etc. Said that men aren't political animals in the way Aristotle asserts. That the State is Artificial. And also a Mortal God. Felt the Civil Authority had power over the clergy or "The Cathedral" as NRx calls it, -- & so on. <+ When NRx people complain about "rights", this is what they're talking about, & why Filmer had been popular w/ in the past <+ When traditionalists lament about a "machine government" or "state apparatus" & so on, it's usually them putting a cookie in Hobbes' cookie jar >4. Contemporary histories depiction of "Enlightened Despots" or "Enlightened Absolutism". <+ Names like Emp. Peter I, HRE Joseph II, Catherine II, Prussian King Frederick II. <+ w/ things in mind such as secularization and reforms >5. Fear of tyrannical monarchs like Henry VIII or another Julian the Apostate or Nero <+ They generally view "Divine Right of Kings" as a Protestant theory, referencing K. Henry VIII & Thomas Cranmer >6. Non-resistance theory. <+ This will aggro a LOT of people. Tyrannicide theory / Sic Semper Tyrannis sentiments are what trads are comfortable with. The Pope gets a part in their ideal of checks / balances by deposing rulers. >7. Being a statist in general. <+ Obviously annoys the libertarians, anarchists, & theocrats who want the supremacy of the Church over State <+ Credited w/ inventing the Modern State w/ the theory of Sovereignty & mumbo jumbo on centralization/decentralization. <+ Pretty much their historical narrative will pin everything wrong w/ the world today on us. Esp. in the right libertarian circles. >8. Monarch > Nobles <+ Pisses off aristocratic trads / oligarchyfags >9. Monarchy > Democracy <+ Pisses off populists / democracyfags >10. Pure Monarchy. <+ Nobody rlly argues in the framework of the Herodotus Debate anymore. & when Bodin re-introduced the emphasis on pure monarchy, a mixed constitution was the trad approved formula w/ the authority of so many names. That means pure monarchy it's somewhat an innovation / new. Not trad enough. >11. Being of the late 16th / 17th century politics <+ Trads prefer Medievalism / Middle Ages. & that gets a huge bonus b/c pop culture & high fantasy also reinforces Medievalism over Early Modernity. >12. Centralization / Decentralization. <+ Absolutist views are generally seen as unitary. >13. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. <+ You're bound to find trads touting Lord Action's famous phrase. <+ Lord of the Rings & pretty much most Western pop culture reinforces this view >14. The infamous pattern of Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II <+ This is why I bitch about historical narrative -- b/c there are plenty of other royals who've been overthrown & royal states destroyed, but we get the baddest rap here b/c if anyone knows anything it's these threefold names. >15. KJV onlyists / King James VI & I <+ Love him or hate him. A lot of trads hate it. At least some on /christian/ like it. <+ wrote treatises on Monarchy & speeches to parliament >16. Hereditary Monarchy > Elective Monarchy <+ This is the absolutist verdict. Bodin is a strong defender of hereditary State. Hobbes said Monarchy can only be hereditary (said even if the Monarch chooses his successor, it is hereditary). & the implication is usually that elective monarchies are oligarchies, such as the HRE, Venetians, Poland, Scandinavians, Malaysia, & so on.

[Expand Post]

<+ Many Catholic states were elective, including the Pope, so another indirect conflict w/ Catholicism. >17. Bound to piss of Germanophiles / Wehraboos <+ Bodin was a French chauvinist, said HRE was an Oligarchy, & ridiculed the HRE worse than Voltaire <+ Trads love the HRE, so -100 reputation points >18. Anglophiles too <+ Anglophiles tend to endorse constitutional monarchy >19. Many, many, many more things that doesn't sit well w/ the traditionalists It's really the most black sheep politics you can have. I'd call it politics on hard mode. It's extremely niche & anachronistic position to take. A lot of people will h8 you & not many people will sympathize w/, relate, or coddle you. Most of the time, you are on your own. That is, if you're an open apologist for absolute monarchy & actively defend / promote it & "read theory" (like leftypol says).

>>5973 My manifesto on why being an absolutist sucks & is basically hard mode politics. (Unless someone could persuade me otherwise, & this is coming from someone who shills absolute monarchy).

This is all for your own good. I want others to be educated, so you don't get caught with your pants down. Know the stigma. & the reproaches you will receive. Mentally prepare yourself.

>>5968 >Not contemporary history, that would regard this as no more than fiction, story narrative, & fancy. Don't care about them. >Even Kings in their darkest hours... with the rules of Louis XV it's when the darkest hours of my country start, sadly he got blackmailed and wasn't enough pious and too much in carnal desire. >They usually bring up the English Reformation. I'm FRENCH and catholic >Or the Protestant kings in the HRE. I'm FRENCH and catholic >Or Gallicanism I'm catholic >Or the Anti-Popes i don't mind about other country, I mind about my own, and in my own, they was conflict between our kings and the popes but like a couple they always reconciliate together. I consider the relationship between catholic church and our kings like a couple, you can argue sometimes with your partner but at the end you manage to reconcile with and continue your relationship. >Or the investiture Controversy I don't see what you call investiture Controversy, can you explain it to me please ? >Other nationalities, I suppose, view Kings as just another dime in a dozen, like any other noble and nothing especial at all. Personnaly I don't really care about the other country, I know a lot of monarchists are into the thing "gave every single country a monarchy" but personnaly it's not in my mind and I don't want to impose the government of my country to the other, cause it's not my fight. My Fight is for my country and in my country, if other country should be monarchy they have to become one by themself. Understand me, I can say " I would like this country return/turn to absolute monarchy etc." but It's not my buisiness and I have to mind mine own. >Because it is politics that engages, w/ reference to history and philosophy, how exactly to make Monarchy work in relation to the public and as a form of State. And I feel that there are certain things unique to the politics of Monarchy that historians could easily pass over & neglect. Actually some people in History studies can say "I'm too much politic for an historian" and other peoples say (a little bit like you) "I'm too much in History stuff for a politic". So I deal with it, it's me that's all. >It's a vague term. It doesn't prick anyone. Doesn't even specify what tradition. Except "tradition". I think I should have to specify myself when I speak about tradition in my next post.

For me, there are 2 types of "tradition", these 2 types of traditions I qualify them in 2 terms: -The tradition -The ultra-traditionalism The first one is a reference to the society of old regime and to the traditions previous to the democracy and to the republican regimes and to the thought of the lights. It is nevertheless limited to the Catholic part of the history of my country or any other country. This first term is mostly used nowadays because of the crises present in the Catholic world between the mass of Saint Pius V and that of Paul VI and the conflicts with the council of Vatican II. The term traditionalist in the religious sense is also close in the historical sense to the traditions of the country before a revolutionary period. The Second Vatican Council is brandished as a revolutionary element and there is clearly a Church before and after Vatican II. I therefore associate these two leanings of tradition in "traditionalist", in pre-revolutionary status quo, both in the Church and in my country France. Now "Ultra-traditionalism", what is behind ultra-traditionalism is mainly seen and is the influential thought of some fascist and national socialist circles. This thought is developed mainly by Julius Evola, and also slightly by the Gnostic mystic René Guénon, it is not directly said in terms of Ultra-traditionalism, but the term is appropriate. It is an ultra-traditionalism, because in a spirit of return to the fundamental values constituting a country and the values that compose it, its last ones, bastard children of the revolution, corrupted by the anti-clericalism, are in a revolt against "the modern world" and place in the modern world the Christianity in general and particularly the Catholicism. In this way Catholicism is a part of modernism and it is necessary to fight against Catholicism and to return to the regimes preceding the arrival of Catholicism in the country. I consider this last term as "traditionalism" because there is a will to reconnect with the fundamental values of one's country and the traditions of one's ancestors and to find this metaphasic link with one's land, family and history.

>the Sovereign is subject to the laws of God & Nature Yes, and his power came from God and he's officialise King by a member of the Church and became a new Caesar, and Caesar rule in this world, the clercs help for the other world and the Monarch to keep the good way of the boat. The King is the captain of the ship and the church the map and the compass and the star in the sky. >b/c they want a check & balance of the estates to be a mixed State rather than a pure monarchy I want to restor my kingdom before the rule of Louis XVI (I like him very much but it was retarded to gave power to Parlement and Louis XV was right to supress their power and affirm the power of monarch, and also the kingdom is still savable during Louis XV) and my kingdom was kind of mixed state, there wasn't constitution or some shit like that but wasn't pure monarchy like you said earlier, so here I think we haven't an agreement on this point sadly. >He was a core philosopher of the Enlightenment & is pretty much the public face of absolute monarchy today. I hate the enlightenment sadly he's the man who represented the absolute monarchy for normies and teachers in History studies, really painful moment. >4. Contemporary histories depiction of "Enlightened Despots" or "Enlightened Absolutism". I hate this terms, and mostly when I see what they call "enlightened" I see, degenerate, crypto-masons and judeo-servils fag ">Catherine II, Prussian King Frederick II. " LMAO. > They generally view "Divine Right of Kings" as a Protestant theory LMAO excuse me wtf ? It's a divine right since Clovis baptism, it was divine right before the protestants retard spawn by kabbalistic magic invocation lol. >The Pope gets a part in their ideal of checks / balances by deposing rulers. The Pope have only something to say in theology that's all it's is work, he only have something to say about the respect of the religion and moral in the country nothing about how the king should do something or make laws for rule his country, I don't know if I'm clear. >7. Being a statist in general. I don't really consider the absolutism as a statist like the other, I mean it's not a totalitarian regime like the marxist and the fascists, and national-socialists want. It's clearly a strong state but there are a lot liberty in Absolutist rule, about working conditions, they are privileges and obviously obligations, but I don't see any problem here. >Pisses off aristocratic trads / oligarchyfags I don't see your point here, why he couldn't have a nobility in an absolute monarchy, there was one in countries that were absolute monarchies, so why conflict with an aristocracy? >9. Monarchy > Democracy Based >Trads prefer Medievalism / Middle Ages. Yep cause it's obviously based, but want a feudal state is an error and it's really a spit in the face of our kings and really don't understand the real goal of them and live in a imaginary world. A feudalist can't be a real royalist for me and their positions are too much retarded for me. >Absolutist views are generally seen as unitary. I don't remember where I've read that but the sentence was something like that : "Absolutism is a centralization state but deconcentrate [...] the republic is a state who centralise and concentrate.". So It's not the centralization the problem but the concentration, and I can assure the restauration of absolute monarchy in France will look it's decentralize but it's not at all lmao. >Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II There were good and based and blessed by God, it's a lack of historical information and really sophistic to say "theses kings are the proof then monarchy don't work and is bad". >Many Catholic states were elective, including the Pope, so another indirect conflict w/ Catholicism The spiritual power have their rules, we have our . It's not because the Pope is elected the King should be too, the Pope is the Pope, the King is the King. >Bodin was a French chauvinist, said HRE was an Oligarchy, & ridiculed the HRE worse than Voltaire Based >Trads love the HRE "Trad" germanophile, love the HRE* >Anglophiles tend to endorse constitutional monarchy Cringe, and cuck, happy to be French. >Most of the time, you are on your own. I believe in God so I'm never alone during the battle. >Mentally prepare yourself. I'm Royalist since many years now, I know the other and my college is full of leftists progressists, did you think I'm not used to it ?

>>5954 Why would you support a monarchy where you aren't the monarch though? That is unironic political cuckoldry. If I'm gonna support anyone having absolute power, that someone is me.

>>5983 >Personnaly I don't really care about the other country It's not about making other countries monarchies. It's not other countries don't see monarchy the same way & so on. & the only reason people go out of their way to be pan-monarchists are is because there are pan-democratics & so forth whose mission it is to "make the world safe for democracy". >Yes, and his power came from God and he's officialise King by a member of the Church and became a new Caesar A new Caesar? But the French don't refer to their Kings as Tsar or Kaiser. Unless you mean as an Emperor. >clericalism My outlook on clericalism is different. Here's a quote you will like. >''If anything in the world is, which makes the State flourishing--if not in riches and greatness of empire, certainly in virtue and piety--censure by the clergy; nothing greater and more nearly divine can be imagined for restraining the greed of mankind and those voices which can in no way be corrected by human laws and judgments. Indeed, this coercion is modeled on the rule of Christ: moderate at first, and in gentle fashion; then a little more strigent; and then, if you do not obey, the solemn and effective interdiction of sacred things follows. Punishment by the magistrates comes after the interdiction. It is ridiculous, as Seneca says, to be good through law. And so it comes about that these things that can never be checked by laws are restrained in that city without violence and tumult by those very censors who have earned the highest respect for their own virtues. Therefore no prostitution, no drunkeness, no dancing, no beggars, and no idle people are found in this city." -Jean Bodin & others you will dislike-- <"Being by the college of cardinals constrained to yield up his Crown, & to make himself a monk, and his wife a nun, shut up apart from her husband in a cloister with other nuns, who yet were again afterwards delivered by the princes and nobility of France, (disdaining to see the pride of the clergy) and so again restored unto their former honors" -Jean Bodin <>But I think no man doubts, but that the king even before his consecration enjoys both the possession and propriety of the kingdom, not by inheritance or his fathers right, and much less by the country of the bishops or peers, but by the royal law and custom of the realm, as was long since decreed of the French men, that no man should think the power of the king to depend on the pleasure of the bishops; not for that the Senat ever doubted the power of the king before his coronation; but that those vain quirks of the bishops might be utterly reselled. For it is an old proverb with us, That the king doth never die, but that so soon as he is dead, the next male of his stock is seized of the kingdom, and in possession thereof before he be crowned, which is not conferred unto him by succession of his father, but by virtue of the law of the land'''; least the succession of the kingdom should be uncertain, then which nothing can be more dangerous in a Commonweal. >The King is the captain of the ship and the church the map and the compass and the star in the sky. I wouldn't have a problem w/ this, except I think you are a little naive on certain aspects. Like what NRx calls "the Cathedral" is also the media apparatus / propaganda machine of the State, & it's called that for a reason b/c it's often in the interests of the State to use the Church this way, since the State has so much concerning its subjects and their upbringing (in the same way a Father has the constituents of a family & cares for them, therefore also their upbringing). >I mean it's not a totalitarian regime like the marxist and the fascists, and national-socialists want. My verdict is all States are totalitarian. It doesn't matter whether there are liberties or no liberties, simply that the State is invested in your upbringing like biopolitics implies & has the relationship of the total or whole or greater to lesser or general to particular. >and I can assure the restauration of absolute monarchy in France will look it's decentralize but it's not at all lmao Do you read or follow Charles Maurras, by chance? You are giving me Maurras vibes. >and my kingdom was kind of mixed state, there wasn't constitution or some shit like that but wasn't pure monarchy like you said earlier, so here I think we haven't an agreement on this point sadly. My lad, then you are NOT an absolutist. That is constitutionalism -- sure, you deny a written constitution, but what constitutes written constitutions is especially that, that there is a mixture of State. It's difficult to explain, that there is constitutionalism w/ respect to the rule of law and fundamental laws & constitutionalism w/ respect to being a mixed State. ... Don't call yourself an absolutist or say you advocate absolute monarchy if you're for a mixed State That's the one tenet most absolutists have in common. I suspect you simply mean "absolute" in respect that the King is "independent" or has "sovereign immunity", such as Maurras said. This is not sufficient enough in my book to be an absolutist take. >"There are those who say, and have published in writing, that the State of France is a mixture of the three pure types, the Parlement representing aristocracy, the Estates-General democracy, and the King monarchy. But this is an opinion not only absurd but treasonable. It is treasonable to exalt the subjects to be the equals and colleagues of their Sovereign Prince." -Jean Bodin I suspect you are a constitutionalist in the closet & don't want to confess it b/c you don't want to be associated with the Windsorites & other constitutionalists b/c that's what most people who claim to be "absolutists" do -- simply because they are in opposition to the other party they claim to be absolutist when they're not. & being an absolutist doesn't really mean doing away with parliaments; Jean Bodin himself advocated having parliaments & that they increased the majesty of the Prince, & more importantly made a distinction between the Sovereign State & its manner of governance. The State being pure, & the governance possibly a mixture weaved together by the harmony of the State, but the State itself remaining pure and unmixed as a pure Monarchy. I think you are confused and need to re-assess your absolutism. Or, if you continue, at least, to refine your understanding a little more.

[Expand Post]

>>5982 Ok, so you're a tradcath. That's good you make it clear, b/c all sorts of people claim to be traditionalists from pagans to Christians.

I'm losing track of the graceposters; can you all pick a number or something?

>>5987 >"Wherefore we conclude the majesty of a prince to be in nothing altered or diminished by the calling together or presence of the states: but to the contrary his majesty thereby to be much greater." -Jean Bodin A common myth on Absolute Monarchy is that it would entail no more parliaments or assemblies. However, this is false: it is only a stigma picked up by the historian's verdict on Louis XIV (for not summoning the estates as much) and the Stuarts. Yet in theory Absolutists are very keen on there being council and even the institution of a parliament. --Sure, the Sovereign Monarch is considered a superior to the people and expects the humility of them all assembled, that they can be dissolved & so forth, but absolutists don't advise doing so for long -- Bodin says that a Prince should have an assembly of wise men & Hobbes said that the council is like the relationship of the senses for the Sovereign Monarch, giving him all sorts of information from across the country. So it's another myth, imo, that says absolutists don't want these political institutions... in fact, it is typically that dictators and great monarchs can benefit from the institution of the assemblies. Most of the stigma w/ relation to the Stuarts is simply that the parliament was full of factions and it was really the religious conflict that made it unworkable as a circumstance. >I don't see your point here Monarchy =/= Oligarchy. I never said you couldn't have a nobility. I only criticized Oligarchists who shit on Monarchy & make the nobility out as enemies of the Monarch. >so why conflict with an aristocracy? Because first and foremost, the ideal of Monarchy is the Monarch is the sole Aristocrat, that is, the very best man, & they are the Nobility, the good men who follow him, like the disciples of Christ should follow Christ. Instead Tocquevillists make all kinds of pretenses of the nobility against the State of Monarchy and can be as irksome, if not worse, than democracy simps, truth be told. Like, for example, >>5965 >"The Nobility and Aristocracy are the blood and soul of the nation." & >"Also willing investing all your power into one guy is kinda instead of multiple lords sounds kinda gay and submissive tbh". ... This is flat out Oligarchy faggotry. & I'm tired of pretending it's not. It is the Monarchist maxim that the Monarch alone is the blood and soul of the nation. Hobbes called the Monarch (or any Sovereign) to be the soul of the Commonwealth. & Aristotle stressed for a king in particular has the blood relationship like a father. <"And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk']" -Aristotle, Politics I think Monarchists should be more open to criticizing Oligarchists when they make themselves known instead of bending over and taking it up the ass. That's like saying that it's about the disciples of Christ rather than Christ himself is of the central importance w/ regard to the Eucharist -- it's not the blood of the disciples that you drink in Catholic mass, but the blood of Christ. The nobilityfags get what they fucking deserve for all their pretenses against Monarchy & it is the Tocquevillists who are the loudest in slandering us absolutists. Bodin even advocated a nobility & hereditary peers, but this isn't the case that the Monarch is one among equals -- the Monarch is regarded as a superior even to the Nobility. These nobility simps / oligarchyfags clearly don't have any understanding of monarchical pre-eminence & should be shunned when they oppose Monarchy, that's all I have to say.

>>5987 I am the real Graceposter. The other has the Vendee heart.

<Anon: "Ok... I think... I might understand -- this is to start a movement? ...to become a symbol?" >Clown Grace: "Come on, anooon; do I look like the kind of tyrant that could start a movement? I killed those nobles because they were awful: everybody is awful these days. It's enough to make anyone crazy." <Anon: "Ok. So that's it. You're crazy. That's your defense for killing three young noblemen?" >Clown Grace: "Nah. They couldn't read Bodin to save their lives. Sure, he didn't really recommend to kill nobles, but they were traitors--" *traditionalist crowd groaning* >Clown Grace: "Ughhh, why is everybody so upset about these nobles? If it was me, ur Sovereign, dying on the sidewalk, you'd walk right over me. I pass you everyday and you don't notice me, but these guys -- what -- because Alexis de Tocqueville cried about them on TV?" <Anon: "You have problem with Alexis de Tocqueville...?" >Clown Grace: "YES, I DO... Have you seen what it's like out there, anon? Do you ever actually leave the board? Everybody just yells and screams centralization/decentralization at each other. Nobody's sovereign anymore! Nobody thinks what it's like to be the Monarch guy... You think men like Alexis de Tocqueville ever think what it's like to be an absolutist like me? To be somebody but their nobles? they don't. They think that I'll just sit there and take it, like good little kings, that we won't CALIGULA and go WILD!" <Anon: "Ya finished? I mean, it's so much self-pity, Gracefag. You sound like you're making excuses for killing those young noblemen. Not every oligarchist, and I'll tell you this, not every noble, is awful." >Clown Grace: "You're awful, anon." <Anon: "Me? I'm a feudfag? Oh yeah, how am I awful?" >Clown Grace: "Visiting my thread. Replying to me. You just wanted to make FUN of me. You're just like the REST of 'em!" <Anon: "You don't know the first thing about me, pal. Look at what happened because of what Louis XIV did. What you absolute monarchists did. What it lead to. There was despotism out there. Two noblemen are in critical condition. You're laughing. You're laughing. Some noble was disgraced today because of what YOU said." >Clown Grace: "I know~ *giggle* How about another joke, anon? <Anon: "No, I think we had enough of your jokes--" >Clown Grace: "What do ya get..." <Anon: "No, I don't think so--" >Clown Grace: "When you cross a mentally ill monarchist with a NOBILITY that ABANDONS HER and treats me like TRASH! I'll tell you what you get--" <Anon: "Resistance theory -- resist Absolute Monarchy--What about the Nobility?--" >Clown Grace: "YOU GET WHAT YOU FUCKING DESERVE!"

>>5989 I hereby rebel against you in favor of the other graceposter, because that is the world's shittiest commiecat.

>>5992 Somehow that's even worse.

>>5997 And?

>>5998 basically. Your retarded.

>>5999 No, retarded is making sacrifices for a kingdom that isn't yours.