Jean Bodin / French Royalism, Loyalty, & Patriotism >The King is so united with his subjects, that they are still willing to spend their goods, their blood, and lives, for the defence of his estate, honour, and life; and cease not after his death to write, sing, and publish his praises, amplifying them also in what they can. >But we pour out all our fortunes and our blood for the safety of King and Country

Dynastic patriotism: Hitler decried it. I support it. Bossuet on the Royal Bond / Hereditary State >The people, by themselves, have grown accustomed to this. "I saw all men living, that walk under the Sun with the second young man, who shall rise up in his place. >The second reason which favors this government, is that it makes the authorities who guide the State the ones who are most interested in its preservation. The prince who works for the State works for his children; and the love he bears his kingdom, mixed with that he has for his family, becomes natural to him." >Thus it is that peoples become attached to royal houses. The jealousy that one naturally feels against those whom one sees above him here turns into love and respect.

Gryffith Williams / A Kingdom = Great Family >A family being nothing else but a small Kingdom, wherein the paterfamilias had Regal power… and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family. Why are ants and bees called royal animals? Because like Aristotle notes. Aristotle / Suckled by the same milk, of the same blood >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'] All ants in a monogamous ant colony are related to the ant queen as their parent and they are offspring. A royal monarchy as father or mother of the people emulates this relationship: Jean Bodin / The best prince, the best father >The best Prince is the best Father. >The Prince, whom you may justly call the Father of the Country, ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father, as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God. Robert Filmer / Kings are the Fathers of their People >It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shews the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction. >If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference but only in the Latitude and Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferior Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People. Thomas Hobbes / Kings are the fathers of families >To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death. >But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty. King James VI & I / For a King is truly Parens Patriae >Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his People. Bossuet / My Father the King >Man who, as has been said, saw the image of a kingdom in the union of several families under the leadership of a common father, and who had found gentleness in that life, brought themselves easily to create societies of families under kings who took the place of fathers… it is apparently for that reason that the ancient people's of Palestine called their kings Abimelech, that is to say: my father the king. Subjects took themselves to be children of the Prince: and, each calling him, My father the king. Aristotle / The Association of Father & Son, the Ideal of Monarchy >For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule. Ramses II / Speech for his Father >For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him. >My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me.

The true meaning of royalism King & Kin or King and Country. Loyalism espoused in royalism is a familial kind of loyalty. Majesty or monarchical pre-eminence or monarchical sovereignty is when the whole state is united in the person of their sovereign monarch, indivisible in his person, a true royal bond.

As bees in service of the bee queen. So countrymen in service of their king is a broad act of filial piety. By unity in one person and having a royal bond, the people become a great family. Opposed to royalism, the people become base grasshoopers. >Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies, >Who have no King, by their confusion dies. >Others live long, as th' Ant and Royal Bee. >A Guard who keeps, lives, dyes in Majesty. >Their Hives, Walls, Combs, Cities, Holes, Houses are, >Stings are their Arms, one rules in peace and war. Majesty is more than possession of goods: it is mirrors infinity in glory; it is the most supreme and mighty power, the sovereignty of the whole state. Jean Bodin / Majesty >they confused the rights of inheritance with the majesty of empire as though they were discussing booty and possession of goods Believe in Majesty, believe in Sovereignty, believe in Monarchical Pre-eminence: where the state of one person reigns supreme.

As Homer's famous monarchist maxim says, Let there be One ruler

A thorough reading of Jean Bodin: Six Books of a Commonwealth & Easy Method for the Comprehension of History It'll clear up the strawmans and misconceptions of what absolute monarchy is. important for absolute monarchists to understand who dabble in it; because many start off with the crude notion of monarchical pre-eminence or are ignorant and will be easily mislead by our detractors He is THE author to start with for absolute monarchists who want to understand the origins of their political thought and sovereignty. of course, there is the Herodotus Debate and other places to look to begin with, but Bodin will teach the formalized understanding of monarchical pre-eminence refined we call sovereignty or majesty & if you've a crude seed of monarchical pre-eminence in your mind, Bodin will refine and nourish it into Majesty & show you the roots!

>>6480 Important b/c it's like a windy, twisted, thorny, wild path & you'll be mislead by our detractors and it's easy to go astray along the way for those learning our politics.

Hobbes Behemoth >A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim. The King, hearing of it, called the Houses of Parliament together again, on December the 14th, and then pressed again the business of Ireland: (as there was need; for all this while the Irish were murdering the English in Ireland, and strengthening themselves against the forces they expected to come out of England): and withal, told them he took notice of the bill in agitation for pressing of soldiers, and that he was contented it should pass with a salvo jure both for him and them, because the present time was unseasonable to dispute it in. <B: What was there unreasonable in this? >A: This was cruel proceeding. Do not the Kings of England use to sit in the Lords’ House when they please? And was not this bill in debate then in the House of Lords? It is a strange thing that a man should be lawfully in the company of men, where he must needs hear and see what they say and do, and yet must not take notice of it so much as to the same company; for though the King was not present at the debate itself, yet it was lawful for any of the Lords to make him acquainted with it. Any one of the House of Commons, though not present at a proposition or debate in the House, nevertheless hearing of it from some of his fellow-members, may certainly not only take notice of it, but also speak to it in the House of Commons: but to make the King give up his friends and counsellors to them, to be put to death, banishment, or imprisonment, for their good-will to him, was such a tyranny over the king, no king ever exercised over any subject but in cases of treason or murder, and seldom then. >A: Nothing: what is unreasonable is one question, what they quarrelled at is another. They quarrelled at this: that his Majesty took notice of the bill, while it was in debate in the House of Lords, before it was presented to him in the course of Parliament; and also that he showed himself displeased with those that propounded the said bill; both which they declared to be against the privileges of Parliament, and petitioned the King to give them reparation against those by whose evil counsel he was induced to it, that they might receive condign punishment. >A: I pray you do not ask me any reason of such things as I understand no better than you. I tell you only an act passed to that purpose, and was signed by the King in the middle of February, a little before the Archbishop was sent to the Tower. Besides this bill, the two Houses of Parliament agreed upon another, wherein it was enacted, that the present Parliament should continue till both the Houses did consent to the dissolution of it; which bill also the King signed the same day he signed the warrant for the execution of the Earl of Strafford. <B: What a great progress made the Parliament *towards their own ends, or at least towards the ends of the most seditious Members of both Houses in so little time! They say down in November, and now it was May; in this space of time, which is but half a year, they won from the King the adherence which was due to him from his people; they drove his faithfullest servants from him; beheaded the Earl of Strafford; imprisoned the Archbishop of Canterbury; obtained a triennial Parliament after their own dissolution, and a continuance of their own sitting as long as they listed: which last amounted to a total extinction of the King's right, in case that such a grant were valid; which I think it is not, unless the Sovereignty itself be in plain terms renounced, which it was not. … <B: But what money, by way of subsidy or otherwise, did they grant the King, in recompense of all these his large concessions? >A: None at all; but often promised they would make him the most glorious King that ever was in England; which were words that passed well enough for well meaning with the common people.

<B: But the Parliament was contented now? For I cannot imagine what they should desire more from the King, than he had now granted them. >A: Yes; they desired the whole and absolute sovereignty, and to change the monarchical government into an oligarchy; that is to say, to make the Parliament, consisting of a few Lords and about four hundred Commoners, absolute in the sovereignty, for the present, and shortly after to lay the House of Lords aside. For this was the design of the Presbyterian ministers, who taking themselves to be, by divine right, the only lawful governors of the Church, endeavoured to bring the same form of Government into the civil state. And as the spiritual laws were to be made by their synods, so the civil laws should be made by the House of Commons; who, as they thought, would no less be ruled by them afterwards, than they formerly had been: wherein they were deceived, and found themselves outgone by their own disciples, though not in malice, yet in wit. <B: What followed after this? >A: In August following, the King supposing he had now sufficiently obliged the Parliament to proceed no further against him, took a journey into Scotland, to satisfy his subjects there, as he had done here; intending, perhaps, so to gain their good wills, that in case the Parliament here should levy arms against him, they should not be aided by the Scots: wherein he also was deceived. For though they seemed satisfied with what he did, whereof one thing was his giving way to the abolition of episcopacy; yet afterwards they made a league with the Parliament, and for money, when the King began to have the better of the Parliament, invaded England in the Parliament’s quarrel. But this was a year or two after. >A: Besides, they obtained of the King the putting down the Star-chamber and High-Commission Courts. <B: Methinks this last was a very great fault. For what good could there be in putting the King upon an odd course of getting money, when the Parliament was willing to supply him, as far as to the security of the kingdom, or to the honour of the King, should be necessary? >A: But I told you before, they would give him none, but with a condition he should cut off the heads of whom they pleased, how faithfully soever they had served him. And if he would have sacrificed all his friends to their ambition, yet they would have found other excuses for denying him subsidies; for they were resolved to take from him the sovereign power to themselves; which they could never do without taking great care that he should have no money at all. In the next place, they put into the remonstrance, as faults of them whose counsel the King followed, all those things which since the beginning of the King’s reign were by them misliked, whether faults or not, and whereof they were not able to judge for want of knowledge of the causes and motives that induced the King to do them, and were known only to the King himself and such of his privy-council as he revealed them to. <B: But what were those particular pretended faults? >A: 1. The dissolution of his first Parliament at Oxford. 2. The dissolution of his second Parliament, being in the second year of his reign. 3. The dissolution of his Parliament in the fourth year of his reign. 4. The fruitless expedition against Calais. 5. The peace made with Spain, whereby the Palatine’s cause was deserted, and left to chargeable and hopeless treaties. 6. The sending of commissions to raise money by way of loan. 7. Raising of ship-money. 8. Enlargement of forests, contrary to Magna Charta. 9. The design of engrossing all the gunpowder into one hand, and keeping it in the Tower of London. 10. A design to bring in the use of brass money. 11. The fines, imprisonments, stigmatizings, mutilations, whippings, pillories, gags, confinements, and banishments, by sentence in the Court of Star-chamber. 12. The displacing of judges. 13. Illegal acts of the Council-table. 14. The arbitrary and illegal power of the Earl Marshal’s Court. 15. The abuses in Chancery, Exchequer-chamber, and Court of Wards. 16. The selling of titles of honour, of judges, and serjeants’ places, and other offices. 17. The insolence of bishops and other clerks, in suspensions, excommunications, deprivations, and degradations, of divers painful, and learned, and pious ministers. >18. The excess of severity of the High Commission-Court. 19. The preaching before the King against the property of the subject, and for the prerogative of the King above the law. And divers other petty quarrels they had to the government, which though they were laid upon this faction, yet they knew they would fall upon the King himself in the judgment of the people, to whom, by printing, it was communicated. >Again, after the dissolution of the Parliament May the 5th, 1640, they find other faults; as the dissolution itself; the imprisoning some members of both Houses; a forced loan of money attempted in London; the continuance of the Convocation, when the Parliament was ended; and the favour shewed to Papists by Secretary Windebank and others. <B: All this will go current with common people for misgovernment, and for faults of the King, though some of them were misfortunes; and both the misfortunes and the misgovernment, if any were, were the faults of the Parliament; who, by denying to give him money, did both frustrate his attempts abroad, and put him upon those extraordinary ways, which they call illegal, of raising money at home.

>A: You see what a heap of evils they have raised to make a show of ill-government to the people, which they second with an enumeration of the many services they have done the King in overcoming a great many of them, though not all, and in divers other things; and say, that though they had contracted a debt to the Scots of 220,000l. and granted six subsidies, and a bill of poll-money worth six subsidies more, yet that God had so blessed the endeavours of this Parliament, that the kingdom was a gainer by it: and then follows the catalogue of those good things they had done for the King and kingdom. For the kingdom they had done, they said, these things: they had abolished ship-money; they had taken away coat and conduct money, and other military charges, which, they said, amounted to little less than the ship-money; that they suppressed all monopolies, which they reckoned above a million yearly saved by the subject; that they had quelled living grievances, meaning evil counsellors and actors, by the death of my Lord of Strafford, by the flight of the Chancellor Finch, and of Secretary Windebank, by the imprisonment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of Judge Bartlet, and the impeachment of other bishops and judges; that they had passed a bill for a triennial Parliament, and another for the continuance of the present Parliament, till they should think fit to dissolve themselves. <B: That is to say, for ever, if they be suffered. But the sum of all these things, which they had done for the kingdom, is: that they had left it without government, without strength, without money, without law, and without good counsel. >A: They reckoned, also, putting down of the High-Commission, and the abating of the power of the Council-table, and of the bishops and their courts; the taking away of unnecessary ceremonies in religion; removing of ministers from their livings, that were not of their faction, and putting in *their places* such as were. <B: All this was but their own, and not the kingdom's business. >A: The good they had done the King, was first (they said) the giving of 25,000/. a month for the relief of the northern counties. <B: What need of relief had the northern, more than the rest of the counties of England? >A: Yes, in the northern counties were quartered the Scotch army which the Parliament called in to oppose the King, and consequently their quarter was to be discharged. <B: True; but by the Parliament that called them in. >A: But they say no; and that this money was given to the King, because he was bound to protect his subjects. <B: He is no further bound to that, than they give him money wherewithal to do it. This is very great imprudence; to raise an army against the King, and with that army to oppress their fellow-subjects, and then require that the King should relieve them, that is to say, be at the charge of paying the army that was raised to fight against him. >A: Nay, further; they put to the King's account the 300,000/. given to the Scots, without which they would not have invaded England; besides many other things, that I now remember not. <B: I did not think there had been so great impudence and villainy in mankind.

From Charles I's speech on scaffold >I shall begin first with my innocence. In troth I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a War with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I. More from Behemoth >A: None: but in order thereto, as they may pretend, they had a bill in agitation to assert the power of levying and pressing soldiers to the two Houses of the Lords and Commons; which was as much as to take from the King the power of the militia, which is in effect the whole sovereign power. For he that hath the power of levying and commanding the soldiers, has all other rights of sovereignty which he shall please to claim. >A: It is also worth observing, that this petition began with these words, Most gracious Sovereign: so stupid they were as not to know, that he that is master of the militia, is master of the kingdom, and consequently is in possession of a most absolute sovereignty. >A: I know not what need they had. But on both sides they thought it needful to hinder one another, as much as they could, from levying of soldiers; and, therefore, the King did set forth declarations in print, to make the people know that they ought not to obey the officers of the new militia set up by ordinance of Parliament, and also to let them see the legality of his own commissions of array. And the Parliament on their part did the like, to justify to the people the said ordinance, and to make the commission of array appear unlawful. >A: King William the Conqueror had gotten into his hands by victory all the land in England, of which he disposed some part as forests and chases for his recreation, and some part to lords and gentlemen that had assisted him or were to assist him in the wars. Upon which he laid a charge of service in his wars, some with more men, and some with less, according to the lands he had given them: whereby, when the King sent men unto them with commission to make use of their service, they were obliged to appear with arms, and to accompany the King to the wars for a certain time at their own charges: and such were the commissions by which this King did then make his levies. >A: After the sending of these propositions to the King, and his Majesty’s refusal to grant them, they began, on both sides, to prepare for war. The King raised a guard for his person in Yorkshire, and the Parliament, thereupon having voted that the King intended to make war upon his Parliament, gave order for the mustering and exercising the people in arms, and published propositions to invite and encourage them to bring in either ready money or plate, or to promise under their hands to furnish and maintain certain numbers of horse, horsemen, and arms, for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws); promising to repay their money with interest of 8l. in the 100l. and the value of their plate with twelve-pence the ounce for the fashion. On the other side, the King came to Nottingham, and there did set up his standard royal, and sent out commissions of array to call those to him, which by the ancient laws of England were bound to serve him in the wars. Upon this occasion there passed divers declarations between the King and Parliament concerning the legality of this array, which are too long to tell you at this time. >B: Nor do I desire to hear any mooting about this question. For I think that general law of salus populi, and the right of defending himself against those that had taken from him the sovereign power, are sufficient to make legal whatsoever he should do in order to the recovery of his kingdom, or to the punishing of the rebels.

King James VI & I >The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of diverse members. >The style of Pater patriae was ever, and is commonly used to Kings. And the proper office of a King towards his Subjects, agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body, and all the members thereof: For from the head, being the seat of Judgement, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding, and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof. >The head cares for the body, so does the King for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head. For if the King wants, the State wants >And though it in a sort this may seem to be my particular; yet it cannot be divided from the general good of the Commonwealth; >For the King that is Parens Patriae, tells you of his wants. Nay, Patria ispa by him speaks unto you. >For if the King want, the State wants, and therefore the strengthening of the King is the preservation and standing of the State; >And woe be to him that divides the weal of the King from the weal of the Kingdom. King James VI & I Speech >I am the husband, and all the whole isle is my lawful wife; I am the head, and it is my body; I am the shepherd, and it is my flock. >So my Sovereignty obliges me to yield to you love, government and protection: Neither did I ever wish any happiness to myself, which was not conjoined with the happiness of my people. I desire a perfect Union of Laws and persons, and such a naturalizing as may make one body of both Kingdoms under me your King, That I and my posterity (if it so please God) may rule over you to the world's end; Such an Union as was of the Scots and Picts in Scotland, and of the Heptarchy in England. And for Scotland I avow such an Union, as if you had got it by Conquest, but such a Conquest as may be cemented by love, the only sure bond of subjection or friendship: >That as there is over both but unus Rex, so there may be in both but unus Grex & una Lex My descent, the loins of Henry VII >First, by my descent lineally out of the lions of Henry the seventh, is reunited and confirmed in me the Union of the two Princely Roses of the two Houses of Lancaster and Yorke, whereof that King of happy memory was the first Uniter, as he was also the first groundlayer of the other Peace.

Jean Bodin on Monarchy >If we should inspect nature more closely, we should gaze upon monarchy everywhere. To make a beginning from small things, we see the king among the bees, the leader in the herd, the buck among the flocks or the bellwether (as among the cranes themselves the many follow one), and in the separate natures of things some one object excels: thus, adamant among the gems, gold among the metals, the Sun among the stars, and finally God alone, the prince and author of the world. Moresoever, they say that among the evil spirits one alone is supreme. But, not to continue indefinitely, what is a family other than the true image of a state? Yet this is directed by the rule of one, who presents, not a fictitious image, like the doge of Venice, but the true picture of a king. >If, then, Plato were to change the nature of things and set up several lords in the same family, several heads for the same body, several pilots on a ship, and finally several leaders among bees, flocks, herds (if only the farmers will permit); if at length he would join several gods into an association for ruling, then I would agree with him that the rule of the optimates is better than a kingdom. >But if the entire nature of things protests, reason dissents, lasting experience objects, I do not see why we ought to follow Plato or anyone else and violate nature. What Homer has said, "No good thing is a number of masters; let one man be master, one man be king," Euripides has repeated, "Power belongs to one man in the homes and in the cities." For this reason Sibylla is said to have prophesied in her poems that the safety of the Roman Republic is founded upon a kingdom, that is, the citizens cannot be protected unless they have a king. >There are a thousand such like examples, which do show us the necessity to have one head or commander, not only in war (where there is greatest danger) but also to obey one sovereign prince in a Commonwealth: for even as an army is ill led, and most commonly defeated that has many Generals; even so is a Commonwealth that has many lords, either by division, or a diversity of opinions, or by the diminution of power given to many, or by the difficulty there is to agree and resolve upon any thing, or for that the subjects know not whom to obey, or by the discovery of matters which should be kept secret, or through altogether. 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). <It shall suffice that we have made apparent demonstration, that a pure absolute Monarchy is the surest Commonweal, and without comparison the best of all

<Louis XV speech >It is only in my person where the sovereign power resides, whose proper character is the spirit of advice, justice and reason; it is to me that my courtiers owe their existence and their authority; the fullness of their authority, which they exercise only in my name, always resides in me and can never be turned against me; To me alone belongs the legislative power without dependency and without division; it is by my authority that the officers of my Court proceed not to the formation, but to the registration, publication and execution of the law […]; public order emanates from me, and the rights and interests of the Nation, of which a separate body from the Monarch is usually made, are necessarily united to mine and rest only in my hands.

>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies, >Who have no King, by their confusion dies. This is the people w/o a royal bond Renounce the partisanships & be a familial State. All the State revealed, One Person. No confusion, no political parties, no anarchy. Monarchy will be our Manifestation. <Hesiod: The Wisdom of Kingship >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, appeases the parties with soft words. <Bossuet: Peace, Bliss, Happiness under Monarchy >The people must keep itself in a condition of repose under the authority of the Prince… As soon as there is a King, the people has only to remain at rest under his authority. If an impatient people stirs, and does not want to keep itself tranquil under royal authority, the fire of division will flare up in the State, and consume the bramble-bush together with all the other trees, that is to say the King and the nations… When a King is authorized, "each remains at rest, without any fear, every one under his vine, and under his fig-tree, from one end of the Kingdom to the other." …And every man tilled his land with peace… the ancient men sat all in the streets, and spoke together of the public good; and the young men put on them glory, and the robes of war… and every man sat under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and lived without fear. – …To enjoy this repose one needs not just external peace: one needs internal peace as well, under the authority of an absolute prince. >Men are the true riches of a king… One is delighted when he sees, under good kings, the incredible multitude of people and the astonishing largeness of the armies. By contrast one is ashamed of Achab and of the kingdom of Israel exhausted of people, when one sees his army encamp "like two little flocks of goats"–while the Syrian army which faced it covered the face of the earth… In the enumeration of the immense riches of Solomon, there is nothing finer than these words: Judah and Israel were innumerable, as the sand of the sea in the multitude." …But here is the pinnacle of felicity and of richness. It is that this whole innumerable people "ate and drank of the fruit of its lands, every one under his vine and under his fig-tree, and rejoicing." For joy makes bodies healthy and vigorous. <Caesar, Earth's greatest good! <Caesar, Heav'n's chiefest care!

<Dante: Notable Praise of Monarchy from De Monarchia >Justice is the strongest with the Monarch. For the best structure of the world, it is necessary for Monarchy or Empire to exist. >Therefore it is better that the human race should be ruled by one than by more, and that the one should be the Monarch, who is a unique Prince. And if it is better, it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And inasmuch as between two things, that which is better will likewise best, between this rule by "one" and this rule by "more", rule by "one" is acceptable to God not only in comparative but in the superlative degree. Wherefore the human race is ordered for the best when ruled by One sovereign. >In regard to the will, it must first be noted that the worst enemy of Justice is cupidity… When cupidity is removed altogether, nothing remains inimical to Justice… Cupidity is impossible when there is nothing to be desired, for passions cease to exist with the destruction of their objects. Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean, there is nothing for a Monarch to desire… So we conclude that among the mortals the purest subject for the indwelling of Justice is the Monarch. >Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude towards Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in him can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective… That right love should indwell in the Monarch more than in all men besides itself thus: Everything loved is the more loved the nearer it is to him who loves; men are nearer to the Monarch than other princes; therefore they ought to be most loved by him. >The Monarch is capable of the highest degree of judgment and Justice, and is therefore perfectly qualified, or especially well qualified to rule. Those two qualities are most befitting a maker and executor of the law. >Therefore it is established that every good thing is good because it subsists in unity. As concord is a good thing itself, it must subsist in some unity as its proper root, and this proper root must appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord. Now concord is the uniform movement of many wills; and unity of will, which we mean by uniform movement, is the root of concord, or rather concord itself. For just as we should call many clods concordant because all descend toward the centre, and many flames concordant because they ascend together to the circumference, as if they did this voluntarily, so we call many men concordant because they move together by their volition to one end formally present in their wills… All concord depends upon unity in wills; mankind is at its best in concord of a certain king. For just as one man at his best in body and spirit is a concord of a certain kind, and as a household, a city, and a kingdom is likewise a concord, so it is with mankind in its totality. Therefore the human race for its best disposition is dependent on unity in wills. But this state of concord is impossible unless one will dominates and guides all others into unity. >With this in mind we may understand that this freedom, or basic principle of our freedom, is, as I said, the greatest gift bestowed by God upon human nature, for through it we attain to joy here as men, and to blessedness there as gods. If this is so, who will not admit that mankind is best ordered when able to use this principle most effectively? But the race is most free under a Monarch. Wherefore let us know that the Philosopher holds in his book, concerning simple Being, that whatever exists for ts own sake and not for the sake of another is free. For whatever exists for the sake of another is conditioned by that other, as a road by its terminus. Only if a Monarch rules can the human race exist for its own sake. >If we consider the individual man, we shall see that this applies to him, for, when all his faculties are ordered for his happiness, the intellectual faculty itself is regulator and ruler of all others: in no way else can man attain to happiness. If we consider the household, whose end is to teach its members to live rightly, there is need for one called the pater-familias, or for some one holding his place, to direct and govern according to the Philosopher when he says, "Every household is ruled by its eldest." >Likewise, every son acts well and for the best when, as far as his individual nature permits, he follows in the footprints of a perfect father. As "Man and the sun generate man," according to the second book of Natural Learning, the human race is the son of heaven, which is absolutely perfect in all its works. Therefore mankind acts for the best when it follows in the footprints of heaven, as far as its distinctive nature permits. Now, human reason apprehends most clearly through philosophy that the entire heaven in all its parts, its movements, and its motors, s controlled by a single motion, the primum moble, and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when n all its movements and motors is controlled by One prince as by one mover, by one law as by one motion. On this account it is manifestly essential for the well-being of the world that there should exist a Monarchy of unified Principality, which men call the Empire. This truth Boethius sighed for in the words, "O race of men how blessed, dd the love which rules the heavens rule like your minds!" >Monarchy is therefore indispensible to the world, and this truth the Philosopher saw when he said, "Things have no desire to be wrongly ordered; inasmuch as a multitude of Princedoms is wrong, – let there be One Prince."

<Robert Filmer: That the First Kings were Fathers of Families >It may seem absurd to maintain, that Kings now are the Fathers of their People, since Experience shows the contrary. It is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Hers to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Supreme Jurisdiction; and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers: And therefore we find, that God told Cain of his Brother Abel, His Desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him. Accordingly, when Jacob bought his Brother's Birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus, Be Lord over thy Brethren, and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee. [Gen. 27. 29.] >It is confessed, that in the Infancy of the World, the Paternal Government was Monarchical… That the paternal Power cannot be lost… The Right of Fatherly Government was ordained by God, for the preservation of Mankind… All Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly power, there being no other original to be found on any Power whatsoever… Even the Power which God himself exerciseth over Mankind is by Right of Fatherhood; he is both the King and Father of us all; as God hath exalted the Dignity of Earthly Kings, by communicating to them his own Title, by saying they are gods; so on the other side, he hath been pleased as it were to humble himself, by assuming the Title of a King, to express his Power, and not the Title of any popular Government. >Father and King are not so diverse; it is confessed, that at first they were all one, for there is confessed Paternum imperium & haereditarium, and this Fatherly Empire, as t was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by Patent, and seizable by an Usurper, as other goods are: and thus every King now is, hath a Paternal Empire, either by inheritance, or by Translation, or Usurpation; so a Father and a King may be all one. >As long as the first Fathers of Families lived, the name of the Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them: but after a few Descents, when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct, and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir, then the Title of Prince or King was more significant, to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy; by this means it comes to pass, that many a Child, by succeeding a King, hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude, and hath the Title of Pater Patriae. >It may be demanded what becomes the Right of Fatherhood, in Case the Crown does esheat for want of an Heir? Whether doth it not then Dissolve to the People? The Answer is, It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir: For an Heir there always is. If Adam himself were still living, and now ready to die, it is certain that there is One Man, and but One in the World who is next Heir, although the Knowledge who should be that One Man is quite lost. >In all Kingdoms or Commonwealths in the World, whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People, or but the true Heir of such a Father, or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation, or by Election of the Nobles, or of the People, or by any other way whatsoever; or whether some Few or a Multitude Govern the Commonwealth: Yet still the Authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all these, is the only Right and natural Authority of a Supreme Father. There is, and always shall be continued to the end of the World, a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude, although by the secret Will of God, many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it. >If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People. >According to that of Aristotle, A Monarchy or Kingdom will be a fatherly government. <Dante on Aeneas as father of the Roman People >That the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king; and Titius Livus, illustrious writer of Roman deeds, confirms this testimony in the first part of his volume which begins with the capture of Troy. So great was the nobleness of this man, our ancestor most invincible and most pious, nobleness not only of his own considerable virtue, but that of his progenitors and consorts, which was transferred to him by hereditary right, that I cannot unfold it in detail, "I can but trace the main outlines of truth." >He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and her empire. <Giambattista Vico's New Science on Pater Familias >Axioms 67-76, and particularly the corollary to 69, show us that fathers in the family state must have exercised monarchical power which was subject to God alone. This power extended over the persons and property of their children, and to a greater extent over those of the family servants, famuli, who had sought refuge on their lands. This made them the first monarchs of the world. (We must interpret the Bible as referring to such men when it calls them patriarchs, which means "ruling fathers".) Throughout the Roman republic, their monarchical rights were guaranteed by the Law of the Twelve Tables, which says, "The family father shall have the right of life and death over his children". And it adds that "Whatever a son acquires, he acquires for his father".

🏰 REBUILD THE BASTILLE 🏰 ⚜ VIVE LE ROI ⚜

7 names Grace-chan reveres. 1. Jean Bodin 2. King James VI & I 3. Thomas Hobbes 4. Robert Filmer 5. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet 6. Dante Alighieri 7. Caligula

Jean Bodin / Noblemen had to ask permission to leave & monarchy promoted blood & soil literally >So that oftentimes the subject dare not so much as to depart out of the country without leave, as in England, Scotland, Denmark, and Sweden, the noble men dare not to go out of their country without leave of the prince, except they would therefore loose their goods: which is also observed in the realm of Naples, by the custom of the country. As also it was forbidden by the emperour Augustus to all Senators to go out of Italy without his leave, which was always right straightly looked unto. And by the ordinances of Spain it is forbidden the Spaniards to passe over into the West Indies, without the leave of the king of Spain: >But in such places and countries as wherein tyrants rule, or which for the barreness of the soil, or intemperature of the air are forsaken by the inhabitants; not only the citizens, but even the strangers also are oftentimes by the princes of such places prohibited to depart, as in Muscovy, Tartaria, and Ethiopia This is where ethnonationalists don't realize why monarchy is indirectly better for their cause. Apart from why I think dynastic patriotism is better also.

Jean Bodin adds about the Venetians in the 1500s: >The Venetian state suffers also from the danger that when they admit a countless multitude of foreigners and resident aliens, they risk being driven from control by these newcomers. >This danger, therefore, is to be feared in the case of Venice. For when a census of the whole city was taken in the year 1555, there were counted 159,459 resident aliens in addition to the patricians. Women and boys over six years were included in this number. About 1,500 patricians controlled these people, for the juniors under 25 years are not admitted to the assembly and to a share in power, except a few occasionally. The Venetians do not seem to have acted wisely in counting the people; first, since by divine law it is forbidden; then, when strangers and poor people understand their numbers and strength, of course there is danger lest they form some plot against the optimates. When the senate of the Romans once decreed that the slaves should be distinguished from the freeborn citizens by ornaments and clothing, Seneca said it would become dangerous if the slaves started to count their number.

>If you are my fan I consider you as my family, blood related. <Over the years we became a family. You are all my family. My children are your children and all children of the world are our children and our responsibility. >It was you who put your heart on the line. It was you who stepped forward to defend someone you love. It was you, on a worldwide basis who supported me as my army, my soldiers of love. You were always there. You are always loyal and I love you forever. -Michael Jackson

King James II the late Catholic king, like his Protestant grandfather King James I (who had read Bodin, btw), would appeal to absolute sovereignty (& an absolutist understanding thereof) & his prerogative in his declaration / proclamation: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Proclamation_(James_VII) >Have therefore thought fit to Grant, and by our Soveraign Authority, Prerogative Royal and absolute power, which all our Subjects are to obey without Reserve >by our Soveraign Authority, Prerogative Royal, and Absolute Power aforesaid >we by Our Authority and Absolute Power

Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors >But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected. But three Commonwealths or forms of State >Forasmuch as we have before sufficiently spoken of Sovereignty, and of the rights and marks thereof; now it behooves us to consider who they be which in every Commonweal hold that Sovereignty; thereby to judge what the estate is: as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy: but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [Or, in more proper wording, Oligarchy]. Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governours good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths; we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite. Now it is certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and exctricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion infinite numbers of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths: a thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say that there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy >There can be no forth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular, (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ochlocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice). Rejection of a mixed State or mixed Constitution >All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point. Jean Bodin on Herodotus: >It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all the others were imperfect forms >Let us therefore conclude, never any Commonwealth to have been made of an Oligarchy and popular estate; and so much less of the three states of Commonweals, and that there are not indeed but three estates of Commonweales, as Herodotus first most truly said amongst the Greeks, whom Tacitus amongst the Latins imitating, saith, The people, the nobility, or one alone, do rule all nations and cities. >Wherefore such states as wherein the rights of sovereignty are divided, are not rightly to be called Commonweales, but rather the corruption of Commonweales, as Herodotus hath most briefly, but most truly written. This is where the stress on 3 forms of State originates w/ absolute monarchists.

Thomas Hobbes' anti-scholasticism / Universities >All the Presbyterians were of the same mind with Gomar: but a very great many others not; and those were called here Arminians, who, because the doctrine of free-will had been exploded as a Papistical doctrine, and because the Presbyterians were far the greater number, and already in favour with the people, were generally hated. It was easy, therefore, for the Parliament to make that calumny pass currently with the people, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Laud, was for Arminius, and had a little before, by his power ecclesiastical, forbidden all his ministers to preach to the people of predestination; and when all ministers that were gracious with him, and hoped for Church preferment, fell to preaching and writing for free-will, to the uttermost of their power, as a proof of their ability and merit. Besides, they gave out, some of them, that the Archbishop was in heart a Papist; and in case he could effect a toleration here of the Roman religion, was to have a cardinal's hat: which was not only false, but also without any ground at all for a suspicion. >It is a strange thing, that scholars, obscure men that could receive no clarity but from the flame of the state, should be suffered to bring their unnecessary disputes, and together with them their quarrels, out of the universities into the commonwealth; and more strange, that the state should engage in their parties, and not rather put them both to silence [Presbyterians & Arminians] They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities >They must punish then the most of those that have had their breeding in the Universities. For such curious questions in divinity are first started in the Universities, and so are all those politic questions concerning the rights of civil and ecclesiastic government; and there they are furnished with arguments for liberty out of the works of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and out of the histories of Rome and Greece, for their disputation against the necessary power of their sovereigns. >Therefore I despair of any lasting peace amongst ourselves, till the Universities here shall bend and direct their studies to the settling of it, that is, to the teaching of absolute obedience to the laws of the King, and to his public edicts under the Great Seal of England. For I make no doubt, but that solid reason, backed with the authority of so many learned men, will more prevail for the keeping of us in peace within ourselves, than any victory can do over the rebels. But I am afraid that it is impossible to bring the Universities to such a compliance with the actions of state, as is necessary for the business. The core of rebellion – the Universities >The core of rebellion, as you have seen by this, and read of other rebellions, are the Universities; which nevertheless are not to be cast away, but to be better disciplined: that is to say, that the politics there taught be made to be, as true politics should be, such as are fit to make men know, that it is their duty to obey all laws whatsoever that shall by the authority of the King be enacted, till by the same authority they shall be repealed; such as are fit to make men understand, that the civil laws are God’s laws, as they that make them are by God appointed to make them and to make men know, that the people and the Church are one thing, and have but one head, the King; and that no man has title to govern under him, that has it not from him; that the King owes his crown to God only, and to no man, ecclesiastic or other; and that the religion they teach there, be a quiet waiting for the coming again of our blessed Saviour, and in the mean time a resolution to obey the King’s laws, which also are God’s laws The Pastorall Authority Of Soveraigns Only Is De Jure Divino, That Of Other Pastors Is Jure Civili >If a man therefore should ask a Pastor, in the execution of his Office, as the chief Priests and Elders of the people (Mat. 21.23.) asked our Saviour, “By what authority dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority:” he can make no other just Answer, but that he doth it by the Authority of the Common-wealth, given him by the King, or Assembly that representeth it. All Pastors, except the Supreme, execute their charges in the Right, that is by the Authority of the Civill Soveraign, that is, Jure Civili. But the King, and every other Soveraign executeth his Office of Supreme Pastor, by immediate Authority from God, that is to say, In Gods Right, or Jure Divino. And therefore none but Kings can put into their Titles (a mark of their submission to God onely ) Dei Gratia Rex, &c. Bishops ought to say in the beginning of their Mandates, “By the favour of the Kings Majesty, Bishop of such a Diocesse;” or as Civill Ministers, “In his Majesties Name.” For in saying, Divina Providentia, which is the same with Dei Gratia, though disguised, they deny to have received their authority from the Civill State; and sliely slip off the Collar of their Civill Subjection, contrary to the unity and defence of the Common-wealth. >So that where a stranger hath authority to appoint Teachers, it is given him by the Soveraign in whose Dominions he teacheth. Christian Doctors are our Schoolmasters to Christianity; But Kings are Fathers of Families, and may receive Schoolmasters for their Subjects from the recommendation of a stranger, but not from the command; especially when the ill teaching them shall redound to the great and manifest profit of him that recommends them: nor can they be obliged to retain them, longer than it is for the Publique good; the care of which they stand so long charged withall, as they retain any other essentiall Right of the Soveraignty. >And therefore the second Conclusion, concerning the best form of Government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Popes Power without his own Dominions: For in all other Common-wealths his Power (if hee have any at all) is that of the Schoolmaster onely, and not of the Master of the Family. >The third place, is John 21.16. “Feed my sheep;” which is not a Power to make Laws, but a command to Teach. Making Laws belongs to the Lord of the Family; who by his owne discretion chooseth his Chaplain, as also a Schoolmaster to Teach his children. The Universities… Again >Seeing the Universities have heretofore from time to time maintained the authority of the Pope, contrary to all laws divine, civil, and natural, against the right of our Kings, why can they not as well, when they have all manner of laws and equity on their side, maintain the rights of him that is both sovereign of the kingdom, and head of the Church? <Why then were they not in all points for the King’s power, presently after that King Henry VIII was in Parliament declared head of the Church, as much as they were before for the authority of the Pope? >Because the clergy in the Universities, by whom all things there are governed, and the clergy without the Universities, as well biships as inferior clerks, did think that the pulling down of the Pope was the setting up of them, as to England, in his place, and made no question, the greatest part of them, but that their spiritual power did depend not upon the authority of the King, but of Christ himself, derived to them by a successive imposition of hands from bishop to bishop; notwithstanding they knew that this derivation passed through the hands of popes and bishops whose authority they had cast off. For though they were content that the divine right, which the Pope pretended to in England, should be denied him, yet they thought it not so fit to be taken from the Church of England, whom they now supposed themselves to represent.

Bizi besleyen baba - the father who feeds us The title of the Sultan among the Janissaries.

We hear absolute power corrupts absolutely and so and so. Even Jean Bodin concedes here and there about the power of the Monarch, but I don't believe for the bare necessities of sovereignty (which involves an absolute power) – but really it's about the capacity and how the monarch doesn't need to micromanage every single thing. It is said that the sovereign monarch is lord of all goods, but there's no need to hoard and retain a monopoly on each industry. As a state usually divides these and channels their yield to return to the common good. A monarchy might have a couple monopolies and wealth. (& I think this works well because when the monarch use taxes even by the consent of assemblies they'll complain about it–but sadly this is considered the route to a lordly monarchy to retain the land and power and influence within the economy. Bodin even says the lordly monarchies can last longer, but nevertheless the ideal monarchy is deemed royal monarchy. & lordly monarchy is different from tyrannical monarchy. Saudi Arabia is a good example. They have hardly have taxes there except a corporate tax, I believe, b/c they have tremendous wealth. It's a dilemma with absolute monarchists knowing how the power of the purse can be abused and anchored against monarchy and have the monarch making concessions even cutting into his sovereignty like it was with King Charles I. But if not a lordly monarchy where the royal family has considerable wealth and influence within the economy, then like Bodin says it goes back to finding a way to get taxes and making this work to support monarchy. Thomas Hobbes also pondered this issue considerably – I am beginning to think a little bit of lordly monarchy is not a bad idea if it means having a bit more of a substantial wealth apart from taxes which are too conspicuous in rousing people against monarchy – but if can done without the the power of the purse leveraged too much against the monarchy and the monarchy can attain what is necessary for sovereignty it would be ideal also). This is the biggest stumbling block for absolute monarchists, imo.

Dialogue Hobbes speaks through P >L: But I know, that there be statutes express, whereby the King hath obliged himself never to levy money upon his subjects without the consent of his Parliament. One of which statutes is 25 Edw. 1. c. 5, in these words: We have granted for us, and our heirs, as well to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and other folk of holy Church, as also to earls, barons, and to all the commonalty of the land, that for no business from henceforth, we shall take such aids, tasks, or prizes, but by the common consent of the realm. There is also another have been since that time confirmed by diverse other Kings, and lastly by the King that now reigneth. >L: In the said statutes that restrain the levying of money without consent of Parliament, is there any thing you can take exceptions to? >P: No, I am satisfied that kings that grant such liberties, are bound to make them good, so far as it may be done without sin: but if a King find that by such grant he be disabled to protect his subjects, if he maintain his grant, he sins; and therefore may, and ought to take no notice of the said grant. For such grants, as by error or false suggestion are gotten from him, are, as the lawyers do confess, void and of no effect, and ought to be recalled. Also the King, as in on all hands confessed, hath the charge lying upon him to protect his people against foreign enemies, and to keep the peace betwixt them within the kingdom: if he do not his utmost endeavour to discharge himself thereof, he committeth a sin. >P: Nor do I hereby lay any aspersion upon such grants of the King and his ancestors. Those statutes are in themselves very good for the King and the people, as creating some kind of difficulty for such Kings as, for the glory of conquest, might spend one part of their subjects' lives and estates in molesting other nations, and leave the rest to destroy themselves at home by factions. That which I here find fault with, is the wrestling of those, and other such statutes, to the binding of our Kings from the use of their armies in the necessary defense of themselves and their people. The late Long Parliament, that in 1648 murdered their King, (a King that sought no greater glory upon earth, but to be indulgent to his people, and a pious defender of the Church of England,) no sooner took upon them the sovereign power, than they levied money upon the people at their own discretion. Did any of their subjects dispute their power? Did they not send soldiers over the sea to subdue Ireland, and others to fight against the Dutch at sea; or made they any doubt but to be obeyed in all that they commanded, as a right absolutely due to the sovereign power in whomsoever it resides? I say not this as following their actions, but as testimony from the mouths of those very men that denied the same power to him whom they acknowledged to have been their sovereign immediately before >P: I know what it is that troubles your conscience in this point. All men are troubled at the crossing of their wishes; but it is our own fault. First, we wish impossibilities; we would have our security against all the world upon right of property, without paying for it; this is impossible. We may as well expect that fish and fowl should boil, roast, and dish themselves, and come to the table, and that grapes should squeeze themselves into our mouths, and have all other contentments and ease which some pleasant men have related of the land of Cocagne. Secondly, there is no nation in the world where he or they that have the sovereignty, do not take what money they please for the defense of those respective nations, when they think it necessary for their safety. The late Long Parliament denied this; but why? Because there was a design amongst them to depose the King. Thirdly, there is no example of any King of England that I have read of, that ever pretended any such necessity for levying money against his conscience. The greatest sums that ever were levied, comparing the value of money, as it was at that time, with what it is now, were levied by King Edward III and King Henry V; kings in whom we glory now, and think their actions great ornaments to the English history >P: All this I know, and am not satisfied. I am one of the common people, and one of that almost infinite number of men, for whose welfare Kings and other sovereigns were by God ordained: for God made Kings for the people, and not people for Kings. How shall I be defended from the domineering of proud and insolent strangers that speak another language, that scorn us, that seek to make us slaves, or how shall I avoid the destruction that may arise from the cruelty of factions in civil war, unless the King, to whom alone, you say, belongeth the right of levying and disposing of the militia by which only it can be prevented, have ready money, upon all occasions, to arm and pay as many soldiers, as for the present defense, or the peace of the people, shall be necessary? Shall not I, and you, and every man, be undone? Tell me not of a Parliament, when there is no Parliament sitting, or perhaps none in being, which may often happen. And when there is a Parliament, if the speaking and leading men should have a design to put down monarchy, as they had in the Parliament which began to sit the third of November, 1640, shall the King, who is to answer to God Almighty for the safety of the people, and to that end is intrusted with the power to levy and dispose of soldiery, be disabled to perform his office, by virtue of these acts of Parliament which you have cited? >And by that means the most men, knowing their Duties, will be the less subject to serve the Ambition of a few discontented persons, in their purposes against the State; and be the less grieved with the Contributions necessary for their Peace, and Defence; and the Governours themsleves have the less cause, to maintain at the Common charge any greater Army, than is necessary to make good the Publique Liberty, against the Invasions and Encroachments of foraign Enemies

Jean Bodin on the same >As for the right to impose taxes, or imposts upon the subjects, is as proper unto sovereign majesty, as is the law it self: not for that Commonwealth cannot stand without taxes and tallages, as the President the M. hath well noted, that taxes were not levied in this realm, but since the time of Saint Louis the king. But if it must needs be that they must for the public necessity be levied or taken away; it cannot be done but by him that hath the sovereign power; as it hath been judged and by a decree of parliament, against the duke of Burgundy; and many times since, aswell in the high court of parliament, as also in the privy council. >But here might some object and say, "That the estates of England suffer not any extraordinary charges and subsidies to be laid upon them, if it be not first agreed upon and consented unto in the high court of parliament: for so it is provided by an ancient law of Edward the first, king of England, wherewith the people as with a buckler hath been oftentimes seen to defend itself against the prince. Whereunto mine answer is, "That the other kings have in this point no more power than the kings of England: for that it is not in the power of any prince in the world, at his pleasure to taise taxes upon the people, no more than to take another man's goods from him; as Philip Commines wisely showed in the parliment holden at Tours, as we read in his Commentaries: and yet nevertheless if the necessity of the Commonwealth be such as cannot stay for the calling of a parliament, in that case the prince ought not to expect the assembly of the states, neither the consent of the people; of whose good foresight and wisdom, next unto God, the health & welfare of the whole state dependeth. >And yet for all that the just Monarchy, hath not any more assured foundation or stay, than the Estates of the people, Communities, Corporations, and Colleges: For if need be for the king to levy money, to raise forces, to maintain the Estate against the enemy, it cannot be better done, than by the estates of the people, and of every Province, Town, and Community. For where can things for the curing of the diseases of sick Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just reforming of the Estate, be better debated and handled, than before the Prince in his Senate before the people? There they confer of the affairs concerning the whole body of the Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just complaints and grievances of the poor subjects, which never otherwise come unto the prince's ears; there are discovered and laid open the robberies and extortions committed in the Prince's name; whereof he knoweth nothing, there the requests of all degrees of men are heard. Besides that, it is almost a thing incredible to say, how much the subjects are eased, and how well they are also pleased, to see their king to sit as chief in the assembly of the estates, and to hear him discouring; how every man desirabeth to be seen of him, and if it please him to hear their complaints, and to receive their requests, albeit that they be often times denied the same; yet O how it pleaseth them to have had access unto their Prince…[Although] Our Kings do not so often call together the assemblies of their estates, as do the kings of England. Personally, I am conflicted with Bodin's testimony in context of Hobbes' testimony. I think they say it's not too necessary to have a provision of land and wealth – I forgot who said so – I think Hobbes considering that even for lordly monarchy, it is preferable to have the wealth flow from all across the land rather than some estates the sovereign has… since the aim is ultimately for the commonweal and will have this channeled back. It is clear lordly monarchies don't have this problem, but with royal monarchies when it works it works considerably well.

Right, it was Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes / The Public Is Not To Be Dieted >In the Distribution of land, the Common-wealth itself, may be conceived to have a portion, and possess, and improve the same by their Representative; and that such portion may be made sufficient, to sustain the whole expence to the common Peace, and defence necessarily required: Which were very true, if there could be any Representative conceived free from humane passions, and infirmities. But the nature of men being as it is, the setting forth of Public Land, or of any certain Revenue for the Commonwealth, is in vain; and tends to the dissolution of Government, and to the condition of mere Nature, and War, as soon as ever the Sovereign Power falls into the hands of a Monarch, or of an Assembly, that are either too negligent of money, or too hazardous in engaging the public stock, into a long, or costly war. Commonwealths can endure no Diet: For seeing their expence is not limited by their own appetite, but by externall Accidents, and the appetites of their neighbours, the Public Riches cannot be limited by other limits, than those which the emergent occasions shall require. And whereas in England, there were by the Conquerour, diverse Lands reserved to his own use, (besides Forests, and Chases, either for his recreation, or for preservation of Woods,) and diverse services reserved on the Land he gave his Subjects; yet it seems they were not reserved for his Maintenance in his Public, but in his Natural capacity: For he, and his Successors did for all that, lay Arbitrary Taxes on all Subjects land, when they judged it necessary. Or if those public Lands, and Services, were ordained as a sufficient maintenance of the Commonwealth, it was contrary to the scope of the Institution; being (as it appeared by those ensuing Taxes) insufficient, and (as it appears by the late Revenue of the Crown) Subject to Alienation, and Diminution. It is therefore in vain, to assign a portion to the Commonwealth; which may sell, or give it away; and does sell, and give it away when tis done by their Representative. I have mixed feelings here. For instance, I recall that a taxation policy under an imperial dynasty of China was to have a portion of farmland on each farm and its yield reserved for the public. Or certain quotas would be another tax policy. Hobbes deemed it dieting and insufficient for the sovereign to rely on his own estates or expand them, but it might certainly help a Monarch (knowing the needs of monarchs is greater to attain all splendid royal things they might want a few monopolies and estates to cover this so dissenters will have less to bitch about when it comes to the public expense covering royal accommodations). Imo the Monarch should have these and I know it annoys the free marketeers to have a monarch meddling in the economy or monopolies or any royal provisions or royal estates. Besides, it happens regardless for any form of State – they will have a hand in the economy and the nature of economy is political anyways like I mentioned. IDK I think Hobbes thinks if we removed these pretenses about taxes, it wouldn't be a problem.

Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Soveraign, But Onely Of Another Subject >From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Soveraign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Soveraign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he representeth,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed voyd. It is true, that a Soveraign Monarch, or the greater part of a Soveraign Assembly, may ordain the doing of many things in pursuit of their Passions, contrary to their own consciences, which is a breach of trust, and of the Law of Nature; but this is not enough to authorise any subject, either to make warre upon, or so much as to accuse of Injustice, or any way to speak evill of their Soveraign; because they have authorised all his actions, and in bestowing the Soveraign Power, made them their own. But in what cases the Commands of Soveraigns are contrary to Equity, and the Law of Nature, is to be considered hereafter in another place. >The seventh Doctrine opposite to Government, is this, That each subject hath an absolute Dominion over the goods he is in possession of. That is to say, such a propriety as excludes not only the right of all the rest of his fellow−subjects to the same goods, but also of the Magistrate himself. Which is not true; for they who have a Lord over them, have themselves no Lordship, as hath been proved, Chap. 8. Artic. 5. Now the Magistrate is Lord of all his Subjects, by the constitution of Government. Before the yoke of Civill Society was undertaken, no man had any Proper Right; all things were common to all men. Tell me therefore, how gottest thou this propriety but from the Magistrate? How got the Magistrates it, but that every man transferred his Right on him? And thou therefore hast also given up thy Right to him; thy Dominion therefore, and Propriety, is just so much as he will, and shall last so long as he pleases; even as in a Family, each Son hath such proper goods, and so long lasting, as seeme good to the Father. But the greatest part of men who professe Civill Prudence, reason otherwise; we are equall (say they) by nature; there is no reason why any man should by better Right take my goods from me, than I his from him; we know that mony sometimes is needfull for the defence and maintenance of the publique; but let them, who require it, shew us the present necessity, and they shall willingly receive it. They who talk thus, know not, that what they would have, is already done from the beginning in the very constitution of Government, and therefore speaking as in a dissolute multitude, and yet not fashioned Government, they destroy the frame. >Farthermore, its necessarily requisite to the peoples defence, that they be fore−armed. Now to be fore−armed is to be furnisht with Souldiers, Armes, Ships, Forts and Monies, before the danger be instant; for the listing of Souldiers, and taking up of Armes after a blow is given, is too late at least, if not impossible. In like manner, not to raise Forts, and appoint Garrisons in convenient places, before the Frontiers are invaded, is to be like those Country Swains (as Demosthenes said) who ignorant of the art of Fencing, with their Bucklers guarded those parts of the body where they first felt the smart of the strokes. But they who think it then seasonable enough to raise Monies for the maintenance of Souldiers, and other Charges of War, when the danger begins to shew itself, they consider not surely how difficult a matter it is to wring suddenly out of close−fisted men so vast a proportion of Monies; for almost all men, what they once reckon in the number of their goods, doe judge themselves to have such a right and propriety in it, as they conceive themselves to be injured whensoever they are forced to employ but the least part of it for the publique good >Now a sufficient stock of monies to defend the Country with Armes, will not soon be raised out of the treasure of Imposts, and Customes; we must therefore, for fear of War, in time of Peace hoord up good summs, if we intend the safety of the Common−weal. Since therefore it necessarily belongs to Rulers for the Subjects safety to discover the Enemies Counsell, to keep Garrisons, and to have Money in continuall readinesse, and that Princes are by the Law of Nature bound to use their whole endeavour in procuring the welfare of their Subjects, it followes, that its not onely lawfull for them to send out Spies, to maintain Souldiers, to build Forts, and to require Monies for these purposes, but also, not to doe thus, is unlawfull. To which also may be added, whatsoever shall seeme to conduce to the lessening of the power of foreigners whom they suspect, whether by sleight, or force. For Rulers are bound according to their power to prevent the evills they suspect, lest peradventure they may happen through their negligence. >The fourth opinion (viz.): that subjects have their meum, tuum, and suum, in property, not only by virtue of the sovereign power over them all, distinct from one another, but also against the sovereign himself, by which they would pretend to contribute nothing to the public, but what they please, hath been already confuted >For the second grievance concerning meum and tuum, it is also none, but in appearance only. It consisteth in this, that the sovereign power taketh from him that which he used to enjoy, knowing no other propriety, but use and custom. But without such sovereign power, the right of men is not propriety to any thing, but a community; no better than to have no right at all, as hath been shewed Part I. chap. XIV, sect. 10. Propriety therefore being derived from the sovereign power, is not to be pretended against the same; especially when by it every subject hath his propriety against every other subject, which when sovereignty ceaseth, he hath not, because in that case they return to war amongst themselves. Those levies therefore which are made upon men’s estates, by the sovereign authority, are no more but the price of that peace and defence which the sovereignty maintaineth for them. If this were not so, no money nor forces for the wars or any other public occasion, could justly be levied in the world; for neither king, nor democracy, nor aristocracy, nor the estates of any land, could do it, if the sovereignty could not. For in all those cases, it is levied by virtue of the sovereignty; nay more, by the three estates here, the land of one man may be transferred to another, without crime of him from whom it was taken, and without pretence of public benefit; as hath been done. And this without injury, because done by the sovereign power; for the power whereby it is done, is no less than sovereign, and cannot be greater. Therefore this grievance for meum and tuum is not real; unless more be exacted than is necessary. But it seemeth a grievance, because to them that either know not the right of sovereignty, or to whom that right belongeth, it seemeth an injury; and injury, how light soever the damage, is always grievous, as putting us in mind of our disability to help ourselves.

Apart from belittling it as a mere pretense against the necessity of having funds via taxation, I'm not sure Hobbes has a solution other than that commonwealths inevitably will ignore those pretenses anyways. Maybe this is right. States today don't make as big a pretense than they did against Monarchies (as others have pointed out). As for taxation, Hobbes suggests a consumption tax as equitable and fair. While I am convinced that it is ideal to have funds from all across the lands funnel, a bit of lordly monarchy and revenue feels like what most people would accept as the path of least resistance. Monarchist apologists today make this case: they say that the British monarchy today doesn't take much at the public expense because of money earned from the crown estates and tourism. This is all is lordly monarchy is, but at a much larger scale… so people prefer a lordly monarchy in the sense that the monarchy has monopolies and immense wealth and lands. It doesn't ache them as much as taxation under a royal monarchy, so I'm not sure with Hobbes about the problem of dieting. I see his point that the Monarch will inevitably have to tax and adjust accordingly so a strict diet wouldn't do, but some dieting to funnel into the public wealth might help with lessening the tax burden or the grievances. But maybe States today are better primed since I know many right libertarians are complaining about the exorbitant taxes of the modern day. So I'm sure that by now they'd be used to it or wouldn't think they'd be better off with another form of State.

Following the Sun rising from Mt. Paektu 🌄 Our hearts are beating faster with every step 🫀🩸 We are the children of the Grand Marshal Kim Il Sung 🇰🇵 Aristotle on Education >No one will doubt that the legislator should direct his attention above all to the education of youth; for the neglect of education does harm to the State. The citizen should be molded to suit the form of State under which he lives. For each State has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it. >And since the whole City has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private–not as at present, when every one looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best; the training in things which are of common interest should be the same for all. Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the State, and are each of them a part of the State, and the care of each part is inseparable from the care of the Whole. Xenophon Cyropaedia <The education of youth >It is true that he was brought up according to the laws and customs of the Persians, and of these laws it must be noted that while they aim, as laws elsewhere, at the common weal, their guiding principle is far other than that which most nations follow. >Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. (3) But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object. <Friend & Enemy distinction: careful not to teach children dangerous things >Yes, my son, it is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage. And he drew the line between what one should do to one's friends and what to one's enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right to even deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose. (This is important b/c regicide theories would also use the basis of friend / enemy distinction between a king or tyrant & justify killing their king; though I think that the subjects shouldn't be taught to distinguish their Sovereign as any such enemy–their relation like children & the sovereign monarch their father–if they are taught anyone is an enemy, it is the opponents of their Sovereign & never the Sovereign himself, b/c esp. the monarchy-haters are too apt to abuse this). >And in teaching these lessons he had also to train the boys to practise them upon one another, just as also in wrestling, the Greeks, they say, teach deception and train the boys to be able to practise it upon one another. When, therefore, some had in this way become expert both in deceiving successfully and in taking unfair advantage and perhaps also not inexpert in avarice, the did not refrain from trying to take an unfair advantage even of their friends. >In consequence of that, therefore, an ordnance was passed which obtains even unto this day, simply to teach out boys, just as we teach our servants in their relations towards us, to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage; and if they should act contrary to this law, the law requires their punishment, in order that, inured to such habits, they may become more refined members of society. (All States today do this: they teach their citizens at birth to uphold the values of their State & only a friendly image, & reserves the bad teachings for any enemies, like is said – that they may become more refined members of society) >But when they came to be as old as you are now, then it seemed to be safe to teach them that also which is lawful towards enemies; for it does not seem likely that you would break away and fun into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect. In the same way we do not discuss sexual matters in the presence of very young boys, lest in case lax discipline should give a free rein to their passions the young might indulge them to excess.

Thomas Hobbes on Instruction / Education >Another thing necessary, is rooting out from the consciences of men all those opinions which seem to justify, and give pretense of right to rebellious actions… that there is a body of the people without him or them that have the sovereign power… and because opinions which are gotten by education, and in length of time are made habitual, cannot be taken away by force, and upon the sudden: they must therefore be taken away also, by time and education. And seeing the said opinions have proceeded from private and public teaching, and those teachers have received from grounds and principles, which they have learned in the Universities… >Instruction of the people in the essential rights which are the natural and fundamental laws of sovereignty… it is his duty to cause them [his subjects] to be instructed; and not only his duty, but his benefit also. >Whereas the common people's minds, unless they be tainted with dependence on the potent, or scribbled over with the opinions of their doctors, are like clean paper, fit to receive whatsoever the public authority shall be imprinted in them. >And, to descend to particulars, the people are to be taught, first, that they ought not to be in love with any form of government that they see in their neighbor nations, more than with their own, nor, whatsoever present prosperity they behold in nations that are otherwise governed than they, to desire change. For the prosperity of a people ruled by an oligarchical or democratical assembly comes not from Oligarchy, nor from Democracy, but from the obedience and concord of the subjects: nor do the people flourish in Monarchy because one man the has right to rule them, but because they obey him. Take away in any kind of state the obedience, and consequently the concord of the people, and they shall not flourish, but in short time be dissolved. And they that go about by disobedience to do no more than reform the Commonwealth shall find they do thereby destroy it; like the foolish daughters of Peleus, in the fable, which desiring to renew the youth of their decrepit father, did by the counsel of Medea cut him in pieces and boil him, together with strange herbs, but made not of him a new man. This desire of change is like the breach of the first of God's Commandments: for there God says, Non habebis Deos alienos: "Thou shalt not have the Gods of other nations," and in another place concerning kings, that they are gods. >[The Means to be Sovereign such as] appointing Teachers, and examining what Doctrines are conformable, or contrary to the Defence, Peace, and Good of the people. Secondly, it is against his duty, to let the people be ignorant, or misinformed of the grounds, and reasons of those his essential Rights; because thereby men are easy to be seduced, and drawn to resist him, when the Common-wealth shall require their use and exercise. >But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty. >I conclude therefore, that in the instruction of the people in the Essentiall Rights (which are the Naturall, and Fundamentall Lawes) of Soveraignty, there is no difficulty, (whilest a Soveraign has his Power entire,) but what proceeds from his own fault, or the fault of those whom he trusteth in the administration of the Common-wealth; and consequently, it is his Duty, to cause them so to be instructed; and not onely his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security, against the danger that may arrive to himselfe in his naturall Person, from Rebellion. <The Use of Universities >As for the Means, and Conduits, by which the people may receive this Instruction, wee are to search, by what means so may Opinions, contrary to the peace of Man-kind, upon weak and false Principles, have neverthelesse been so deeply rooted in them… It is therefore manifest, that the Instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the right teaching of Youth in the Universities. >It is his Duty, to cause them to be so instructed; and not only his Duty, but his Benefit also, and Security…

<Alexander Hamilton / An absolute monarchy would be more tolerable than the authority of British Parliament over America >I'll go farther, & assert, that the authority of the British Parliament over America, would, in all probability, be a more intolerable & excessive species of despotism than an absolute monarchy. The power of an absolute prince is not temporary, but perpetual. >He is under no temptation to purchase the favour of one part of his dominions, at the expence of another; but, it is his interest to treat them all, upon the same footing. >Very different is the case with regard to the Parliament: The Lords and Commons both, have a private and separate interest to pursue. To be found in Hamilton's Farmer Refuted in response to Samuel Seasbury: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0057 What Alexander Hamilton says is eerily similar to Hobbes' Leviathan >From whence it follows, that where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced. Now in Monarchy, the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a Monarch arise only from the riches, strength and reputation of his Subjects. For no King can be rich, nor glorious. nor secure; whose Subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissention, to maintain a war against their enemies: Whereas in a Democracy, or Aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune.

In fact, Fascism is no less absolutist. Mussolini >For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative. Giovanni Gentile: >It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs These are absolutist talking points, maintaining our notion of an indivisible, absolute sovereignty in modern times. Giovanni Gentile: >The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself. The Fascist State is a sovereign state: a sovereign or majestic State, like Bodin's sovereignty. What about Fascist corporatism? 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 or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union Hobbes testifies, the same had not been taken notice of the body-politic, neither had innumerable writers of politics beforehand observed such a union: that the political or state would be a corporation of one person, a monarch. Giovanni Gentile: >It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person. >The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable. Thomas Hobbes: Definition of a Commonwealth: >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.” Giovanni Gentile >Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning. >For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual. 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. Giovanni Gentile: >For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis. This necessary synthesis, that Giovanni Gentile talks of, of State and Individual, is none other than the monarchical pre-eminence, that groundwork of sovereignty or majesty: where the individual is insufficent; the political sufficient; monarchical pre-eminence puts the individual on par with the political, the person with majesty has the relationship of the whole to the part, like Aristotle describes. Yet Hobbes started individual, to know ones' self, then ended individual in the State or Leviathan as a corporation of one person, that's why I tend to respect his legacy as a monarchist. This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly– >Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course. -Bertrand De Jouvenel

[Expand Post]

<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: Giovanni Gentile mentions how nationalists place the whole prior to the part, or state conceived as prior to the individual. Aristotle: >Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part. Yet for Fascism, Gentile says– >For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis. Imo this builds off Thomas Hobbes. It was Thomas Hobbes aspiration to build a foundation for monarchical pre-eminence on popular sovereignty that allowed him to make individual and state inseperable: in the same way he would justify his monarchical pre-eminence by making the King and the People one and all, making the King's majesty also the totality of the people, united in one monarchical person. That famous portrait of Mussolini with the Si, si, si, si, reminds me of the total consent of the multitude into one person, w/ Mussolini's persona being representative. Thomas Hobbes: Generation of a Commonwealth or Leviathan >The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industry, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills [si, si, si, si[, by plurality of voices [si, si, si, si], unto one Will [si, si, si, si] What about this passage Mussolini says, that the State generates the people? Well, Bossuet likewise borrowed from Hobbes: since the Leviathan or State is one person, formally called the people, it is the sovereignty that makes the people. 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

Let's talk about the so-called Fascist concept of life & its totalitarian character & immanentism. In other words, biopolitics. Mussolini >The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. >Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values. Giovanni Gentile: >The first point, therefore, that must be established in a definition of Fascism, is the totalitarian character of its doctrine, which concerns itself not only with political order and direction of the nation, but with its will, thought and sentiment. Giovanni Gentile: >A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit Mussolini: >The State guarantees internal & external safety of the country, but it safeguards & transmits the spirit of the people, in language, its customs, its faith. >Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. Giovanni Gentile: >Morality & religion, essential elements in every consciousness, must be there, but they must be subordinated to the laws of the State, fused in it, absorbed in it. Mussolini: >The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual & raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Giovanni Gentile: >Thus, its formation is a product of the consciousness of each individual, & thus of the masses, in which the power of the State consists. >That explains the necessity of the Fascist Party & propaganda and of education to foster the political & moral ideals of Fascism. Giovanni Gentile: >To be a Catholic meant to live in the Church & under its discipline. Therefore, it was a necessity for the Fascist State to recognize the religious authority of the Church; a political necessity, a political recognition, w/ respect to the realization of the State itself. >The ecclesiastical politics of the Italian State must resolve the problem of maintaining its sovereignty, intact & absolute, even before the Church, w/o casting itself athwart the Catholic consciousness of Italians, nor Church that consciousness is subordinated. >It's a grave problem, as the transcendent conception that rules Catholicism contradicts the immanentist character of the political conception of Fascism. >Far from being a negation of liberalism & democracy, Fascism aspires to be a perfection of liberalism & democracy. This is the totalitarian character of Fascism: it is concerned with the total, the whole, the general power. This is fostered in part due to actual idealism & its immanentism. This makes Fascism very heterodox, but monarchical absolutism was heterodox in its own ways. This Fascist concept of life is the Leviathan holding both Sword & Crosier, the political AND spiritual power, imo, & the immanentism helps justify it, but heavily political doctrines like Fascism or monarchical absolutism necessarily have to be a bit heterodox to uplift the political. Evola & his traditionalists in general tends to look down on the political, whereas Fascism, like monarchical absolutism, uplifts the civil power and the political authority. Also contradicts Fascism's immanentism that embraces life and enables its totalitarianism w/o directly stating it wants Sword & Crosier, thereby enabling it to work within the modern world w/o appearing too anachronistic. What about Fascism's unitary beliefs? Giovanni Gentile: >The Fascist State, in order to penetrate & direct the consciousness of its citizens, wishes to organize them in national unity; a unity possessed of a soul. >That unity would manifest itself as a unitary being, possessed of powerful will, & conscious of its own ends. Thomas Hobbes: >For the Sovereign, is the public Soul, giving Life and Motion to the Commonwealth [State]. >[The Sovereign] relation to the City is not that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth

[Expand Post]

>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. Jean Bodin >For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens Fascism's unitary being, a unity possessed of a soul, is none other than our sovereignty, Could Fascism not be more monarchical? yes, in the leadership principle fascists have. Giovanni Gentile: >So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses. You might ask yourself, Fascism couldn't sound anymore like monarchical absolutism, right? or as anachronistic to appeal to something like the divine right of kings or something–? Read this quote & look at my 2nd pic related: (that picture is a good match for the quote below) Giovanni Gentile: <That Leader advances, secure, surrounded in an aura of myth, almost a person chosen by the Deity, tireless and infallible, an instrument employed by Providence to create a new civilization.

You need to understand that even before Hobbes the English had the distinction of the natural and political person of the King with the great seal. In the same way Catholics ex cathedra. Which is indeed like Warhammer 40k and the god emperor seated on the throne, much akin to that is the artificial person of the commonwealth styled that mortal god. As remarked here, W.P. Esq: >For he is a Corporation of himself, and has two capacities, (to wit) a Natural Body, in which he may inherit to any of his Ancestors, or purchase Lands to him, and the Heirs of his Body, which he shall retain, although he be afterwards removed from his Royal Estate; and Body Politick, in which he may purchase to him and his Heirs, Kings of England, or to him and his Successors, yet both Bodies make but one individual Body. Plowden It's important to understand the context behind this in the English Civil Wars. Thomas Hobbes notes here– >[Roundheads furnished supplies] for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws) See how they abused the political person of the king against the natural person of the king? the resolution Hobbes sought to resolve was trying to make them more united. John Cook, regicide and lawyer from the trial of King Charles I. Cook writes here >Greater than any one, but less than all This is in part related to the food for the table argument from Aristotle's Politics: that albeit one wise man could outsmart any one of an assembly, the assembly brings all the food to the table: this is a critical problem for monarchists – how to put the monarch or the individual on par with the people in general? that is the task of monarchical pre-eminence as a basis to justify monarchical authority – you must think like a monarchist to understand this. Others have written about this issue John Cook brings up. Francis Theobald >That the King is greater than any particular single man, but less than the whole body of men in a nation. >If there be any force in this way of arguing, by the same reason it will follow, that a flock of sheep are more excellent than a man, because the shepherd is found out for the sheep, and not the sheep for the shepherd; for if there were no flocks of sheep, there would be no need of a shepherd. Thomas Hobbes' answer to this dilemma, how to start with one person and end with one person in monarchical pre-eminence on par with the strength of the people and indivisible from them is part of his genius. Thomas Hobbes >This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the Sovereignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of Sovereign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of less power than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signify the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they understand them as one Person (which person the Sovereign appears,) then the power of all together, is the same with the Sovereign's power; and so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the Sovereignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it not; and yet the power of Sovereignty is the same in whomsoever it be placed. This is Thomas Hobbes' answer to John Cook. That is the magic of Leviathan, like pushing a camel through the eye of a needle. The whole business of monarchical pre-eminence, or majesty, or sovereignty is the groundwork for justifying the supremacy of the monarch. How to give the monarch that relationship, as Aristotle puts it, of being that pre-eminent person who has the relationship of the whole to the part. Or as Louis XIV calls it, Nec Pluribus Impar, meaning, Not Unequal to Many, which was his personal motto, the very meaning of this was equivalent to saying – I am the State. <Thomas Hobbes: The Multitude vs the People <In the last place, it's a great hindrance to Civill Government, especially Monarchicall, that men distinguish not enough between a People and a Multitude. The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are Citizens, that is to say, Subjects. In a Democraty, and Aristocraty, the Citizens are the Multitude, but the Court is the People. And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seeme a Paradox) the King is the People. >The common sort of men, and others who little consider these truthes, do alwayes speak of a great number of men, as of the People, that is to say, the City; they say that the City hath rebelled against the King (which is impossible) and that the People will, and nill, what murmuring and discontented Subjects would have, or would not have, under pretence of the People, stirring up the Citizens against the City, that is to say, the Multitude against the People.

part 2 of an absolutist inquiry on fascism. Mario Palmieri explicitly maintains an absolutist view on monarchy; Mario makes the sovereignty indivisible & puts the 3 branches of govt in the king's sovereignty and lists Bodin's marks of sovereignty. This is extremely unique to me b/c maintaining an absolutist stance like this is very antiquated and striking in the year 1936. It has to be very deliberate to revive the political absolutism: that is very striking to me about this Fascist work. Mario Palmieri in Philosophy of Fascism: Mario Palmieri >While the King personifies the sovereign authority of the State, authority which in itself sums up all powers; executive, legislative and judiciary, the Head of the Government represents only the King in his relationship with the People. >It is thus that in the Fascist reform of the State, the King is still the only one who has the right to declare war or to accept peace, the right of pardoning those condemned by the judiciary organs of the State, the right of stipulating in the name of the State, treatises of alliance with other states and, finally, the right to be outside and above all laws. This is an absolutist stance on monarchy. It unites executive, legislative, judiciary as offspring of an indivisible sovereign power summing up all the powers derived from Majesty. It lists Jean Bodin's marks of sovereignty (in a stunningly similar fashion to the Richard Knolles translation) – an absolute power above all laws – let's make the comparison with Jean Bodin. Jean Bodin's Marks of Sovereignty: >1. Make laws >2. Declare war / peace >3. Appoint magistrates >4. Hear last appeals >5. Give pardons >6. Receive fealty & homage >7. Coining of money >8. Regulation of weights & measures >9. Impose taxes >10. The power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punish Jean Bodin >So also is it proper unto sovereign majesty, to receive the subjects appeals, and the greatest magistrates, to place and displace officers, charge or exempt the subjects from taxes and subsidies, to grant pardons and dispensations against the rigor of the law, to have power of life and death, to increase or diminish the value and weight of the coin, to give it title, name, and figure: to cause all subjects and liegemen to swear for the keeping of their fidelity without exception, unto him to whom such oath is due: which are the true marks of sovereignty, comprised under the power of being able to give law to all in general, and to every one in particular, and not receive any law or command from any other >Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongeth an absolute power, not subject to any law. >It behooves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish other: which he cannot do that is himself subject laws or others In an older work, he lists them again. >I see the sovereignty of state involved in five functions. >One, and it is the principal one, is creating the most important magistrates and defining the office of each one; the second, proclaiming and annulling laws; the third, declaring war and peace; the fourth, receiving appeal from all magistrates; the last, the power of life and death when the law itself leaves no room for extenuation or grace. Back to Mario. Mario Palmieri >Above all, foundation and mainstay of the Fascist reform is the theory that all powers of the State belong to the King who personifies the very authority of the State, and that he simply delegates the executive, legislative and judiciary functions to the very organs of the State. >The King, in other words, not the people, is the true Sovereign of the Fascist State. It is outlandish, for sure, but Fascism has maintained or revived the doctrine of absolutism in some fashion. That had been unfashionable in the Anglosphere by the turn of the century into the 1700s, and unfashionable in continental Europe by the turn of the century into the 1800s (where the Victorian era saw a revival in constitutionalism, the more orthodox and traditional view compared to heterodox absolutism).

[Expand Post]

Mario Palmieri marks it out well: the discredit and ridicule of our political ideals: >It is no more than a platitude to affirm that the birth of Fascism found the political world in a condition of anarchy and decadence. >The theocratic principle of the autocratic state, which derived the authority of the Sovereign from the will of God, was not only discredited but ridiculed as well. Benito Mussolini marks this out similarly in The Doctrine of Fascism: >Fascism is opposed to Classical Liberalism which arose as a reaction to Absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became an expression of the conscience and will of the people >Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts Vincere, vincere, vincere È la parola d'ordine D'una suprema volontà That supreme will, & word of order, in the song Vincere is the sovereign will, majesty, the highest power to command.

Alfredo Rocco in The Political Doctrine of Fascism also makes out a historical outlook sympathetic to monarchical absolutism: >This innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle Ages. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement started by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution was directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as a negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and fulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages. Socially and politically considered, the Middle Ages wrought disintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual weakening and ultimate extinction of the State, embodied in the Roman Empire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to Germany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady advance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the State and reciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant particularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement of the 17th and 18th centuries was not directed against the Middle Ages, but rather against the restoration of the State by great national monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions that had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new states, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against the State. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The novelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and in its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the feudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations had been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the bourgeoisie and of the popular classes. Many traditionalists too prefer constitutionalism on the basis that it had precedence in the Middle Ages contrary to absolutism of the early modernity starting in the late 1500s. & ancaps today repeat the Tocquevillist mantra and see Medievalism and the Holy Roman Empire as an anarchy and decentralization they admire. Alfredo Rocco brings up Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia & Aquinas De Regno: >It was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest political writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of unity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the dangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the State, says St. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly than he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as far as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always one. In the physical body only one organ is dominant—the heart; in the spirit only one faculty has sway—reason. Bees have one sole ruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign—God. Experience shows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of disc0rd while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice, and plenty. The states which are not ruled by one are troubled by dissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which are ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are gladdened by affluence. >Italy in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in practice the authority of the State was being dissolved into a multiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of State unity and authority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of the Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for centuries the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it existed no longer. Dante's De Monarchia deduced the theory of this empire conceived as the unity of a strong State. "Quod potest fieri per unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura," he says in the 14th chapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as an instrument for the attainment of the ends of the State, he concludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country. "Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars quaedam civitatis … homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum." (lib. II. 8). Mussolini in A Diary of the Will (1927): >Yes. The State is that unitary expression, absolute will, of the power and of the consciousness of the Nation >This executive power–is the sovereign power of the Nation. The supreme head is the King Then Mussolini on his leadership doctrine for Fascist party members: >Because in the subordination of all to the will of a Leader, which is not a capricious will, but a seriously meditative will, & proven by deeds, Fascism has found its strength. >There should be no limits. We must obey even if the Leader asks too much.

Personally, I'm convinced it the decentralization / centralization babble in essence goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle disagreed with Plato, stating contrary to Plato that economical and political do have a contrary character, whereas Plato confers that they are no different and aren't of a contrary character. Because Aristotle asserts that political rule is the rule of constitutional freemen, and that democracy is freedom; but also that monarchy is the rule of a household, and monarchy is only concerned with staying in power – Aristotle sets the record that monarchy is despotism over constitutional freemen and ought to be one among equals or always to stay with popular convention of freemen and not like a master. Prior to the 1700s, there wasn't much talk of decentralization vs centralization like with left or right politics that's a staple of our more contemporary political lexicon–albeit we know the rudiments for this discussion in the past and how they came to be. Of course there was party politics and divisions of land and their concentration and separation. But after the colonization and constitutional debates between Americans over their colonial territory, after the French Revolution, & about the time of Alexis de Tocqueville and Bastiat, the terms decentralization and centralization were introduced with much more gravity and weight. They are words with no bearing on the concept of sovereignty. Imo, the pretense of decentralization has always been that: the independent rule of freemen, as Aristotle puts it, contrary to Plato: the idea that political and economical are of contrary characters, and that we must respect the political estate differently. That independent heads of houses are set apart from the city itself as freemen: but in this context it's not heads of households as freemen, but autonomous regions making the pretense against the notion of states and any wider authority. This is why Alexis de Tocqueville in the pretext of his work on the Old Regime sets it apart as the pretense of Liberty vs Despotism: that Liberty must prevail of Despotism. And despotism is the idea that the character of the political and economical are no different, like we say, back to Plato. The followers of Tocqueville and his political legacy, like Hoppe and De Jouvenel, tend to be aristocratic apologists. Alexis de Tocqueville in his study of the Ancien Regime brings up, however, that his study of the Middle Ages in search of the Old European Constitution is related largely to Germany / HRE (which, as we all know, muh border gore). It's what Ancaps and neofeuds always appeal to. Jean Bodin classifies the HRE / Germany to be an Aristocracy or kind of Oligarchy, so while Alexis de Tocqueville starts his analysis for the Old Constitution of Europe and his appeal to decentralization – it's important to note how it begins with a form of state that had been recognized as aristocratic or oligarchical. Because Alexis de Tocqueville's big blurt is about centralization and decentralization: his entire critique is standing upon this chair, and if you kick this chair from beneath the feat of Alexis de Tocqueville – he will collapse and break his bones. Alexis de Tocqueville notes in his work how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy, and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy Which is important to see how this is related to his study of Germany and the Prussian influence. Now I would babble about how these words decentralization / centralization are anathema to sovereignty and our political understanding, but suffice to say, that this pretense begins with Aristotle saying that the economy has a different character from the political will suffice enough, esp. when it comes to his idea of freemen (which Hobbes criticizes duly). A lot we see with American exceptionalism and democracy in terms of freedom and constitutionalism goes back to Aristotle. For a mixed constitution, it is largely attributed to Aristotle and Polybius, particularly Aristotle since Aristotle views whatever is whole to be a composite. I ward off their pretense of decentralization / centralization for absolute monarchy by these four points: 1. Political economy, how they aren't of a different character: all my political ancestors would agree more w/ Plato there than Aristotle. 2. The general is accepted over the particular. 3. These two words have no bearing on the concept of Sovereignty, & they confound a union or bond or state – with an association or concord or alliance. 4. Like the Anarchist symbol with an A within a circle, they appeal to decentralization to have order without rulers or a circle without a point. The doctrine of absolutism that Tocqueville slanders as the mother of all modern socialism has been acknowledged beforehand numerous times. He only begrudgingly admits that it had origins in the feudal system and his only pretense is the courts never admitted it – but if you read there's plenty of testimony behind the doctrine. – What I hate about Tocqueville here is the appeal to the Middle Ages and making a huff about how medieval royalism was different to renaissance and early modern royalism kinda originates with him and ancaps and anarcho-monarchists annoy me with it like Tocqueville does. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, says this: Alexander Hamilton >Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper. >When a nation abolishes aristocracy, centralization follows as a matter of course. -Alexis de Tocqueville How do I see Tocqueville's political legacy today? Tocqueville & Bastiat -→ De Jouvenel & Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -→ Hans-Hermann Hoppe A big influence on right libertarians w/ these names. They tend to be skeptical of democracy and monarchy and more forward w/ notions of aristocracy: it's b/c Hoppe has Tocquevillist reservations about monarchy that he doesn't consider himself a monarchist: but much like Tocqueville, Hoppe says he'd prefer an absolute monarchy to democracy in that way. It's very confusing b/c sometimes Tocqueville does appeal to democracy and patriotism and free cities (since right libertarians prior, again, appealed to free cities like Aristotle with freemen before the notion of the state and cities and commonwealth became odious to libertarians and they instead preferred free market).

[Expand Post]

In my 3rd screencap, you can see the context of what I'm talking about: with a notation for Plato and how Aristotle calls it an erroneous opinion. My 2nd screencap is repudiations from my political ancestors over this doctrine, but they all seem to agree more with Plato than Aristotle on this issue.

Thomas Hobbes tried to tackle this issue with Aristotle. >Now seeing freedom cannot stand together with subjection, liberty in a commonwealth is nothing but government and rule, which because it cannot be divided, men must expect in common; and that can be no where but in the popular state, or democracy. And Aristotle saith well (lib. 6, cap. 2 of his Politics), The ground or intention of a democracy, is liberty; which he confirmeth in these words: For men ordinarily say this: that no man can partake of liberty, but only in a popular commonwealth. Whosoever therefore in a monarchical estate, where the sovereign power is absolutely in one man, claimeth liberty, claimeth (if the hardest construction should be made thereof) either to have the sovereignty in his turn, or to be colleague with him that hath it, or to have the monarchy changed into a democracy <[Semi-relevant, from a previous chapter] <[The subjection of them who institute a commonwealth amongst themselves, is no less absolute, than the subjection of servants. And therein they are in equal estate; but the hope of those is greater than the hope of these. For he that subjecteth himself uncompelled, thinketh there is reason he should be better used, than he that doth it upon compulsion; and coming in freely, calleth himself, though in subjection, a FREEMAN; whereby it appeareth, that liberty is not any exemption from subjection and obedience to the sovereign power, but a state of better hope than theirs, that have been subjected by force and conquest. And this was the reason, that the name that signifieth children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifieth freemen. And yet in Rome, nothing at that time was so obnoxious to the power of others, as children in the family of their fathers. For both the state had power over their life without consent of their fathers; and the father might kill his son by his own authority, without any warrant from the state.] <[Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest. A freeman therefore may expect employments of honour, rather than a servant. And this is all that can be understood by the liberty of the subject. For in all other senses, liberty is the state of him that is not subject.] In Leviathan: >The Athenians, and Romanes, were free; that is, free Common-wealths: not that any particular men had the Libertie to resist their own Representative; but that their Representative had the Libertie to resist, or invade other people. There is written on the Turrets of the city of Luca in great characters at this day, the word LIBERTAS; yet no man can thence inferre, that a particular man has more Libertie, or Immunitie from the service of the Commonwealth there, than in Constantinople. Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchicall, or Popular, the Freedome is still the same. >But it is an easy thing, for men to be deceived, by the specious name of Libertie; and for want of Judgement to distinguish, mistake that for their Private Inheritance, and Birth right, which is the right of the Publique only. And when the same errour is confirmed by the authority of men in reputation for their writings in this subject, it is no wonder if it produce sedition, and change of Government. In these westerne parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions concerning the Institution, and Rights of Common-wealths, from Aristotle, Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romanes, that living under Popular States, derived those Rights, not from the Principles of Nature, but transcribed them into their books, out of the Practice of their own Common-wealths, which were Popular; as the Grammarians describe the Rules of Language, out of the Practise of the time; or the Rules of Poetry, out of the Poems of Homer and Virgil. And because the Athenians were taught, (to keep them from desire of changing their Government,) that they were Freemen, and all that lived under Monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politiques,(lib.6.cap.2) “In democracy, Liberty is to be supposed: for ’tis commonly held, that no man is Free in any other Government.” Those are my thoughts on the contemporary bug words decentralization and centralization, and how I think it originates with Plato and Aristotle, but Aristotle particularly for differentiating the political from the household rule on the basis of freemen.

<Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city >Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him. <Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth >So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed. <Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different >Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found. What I think by both communties, – means the State likewise has public servants. That an economic household, with its division of labors and servants, like a chef, tutor for the master's children, and maids, are no less modeled for the City: there's no difference between political (the city) and the household (economic). Or a nicer sounding way of saying it – a family as the economic is the true model for a political state. >Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular. <Hobbes / That a Family is a little City >"Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things."

>It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants, or these in their turn apart from each other by an interval of space, provided that they 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 has the final and public authority. The former limited and private rule. So, also, it is still the same government, made up of many families, even if the territories and the settlements are far apart, provided only that they are in the guardianship of the same sovereign power: either one rules all; or all, the individuals; or a few, all. From this it comes about that the state is nothing else than a group of families or fraternities subjected to one and the same rule. >Cicero's definition of the state as a group of men associated for the sake of living well indicates the best objective, indeed, but not the power and the nature of the institution. This definition applies equally well to the assemblies of the Pythagoreans and of men who also come together for the sake of living well, yet they cannot be called states without great confusion of state and association. Furthermore, there are families of villains, no less than of good men, since a villain is no less a man than a good man is. A similar observation must be made about the governments. Who doubts but that every very great empire was established through violence by robbers? The definition of a state offered by us applies to villages, towns, cities, and principalities, however scattered their lands may be, provided that they are controlled by the same authority. The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse, as the elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception. So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars, which was bounded by the same limits as the course of the sun. <Hobbes / Difference between concord or association and union or bond of a state >They who compare a City and its Citizens, with a man and his members, almost all say, that he who hath the supreme power in the City, is the relation to the whole City, such as the head is to the whole man. But it appears by what has been already said, that he who is endued with such a power (whether it be a man, or a Court) has a relation to the City, not as that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth >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. <Bodin / The unity of sovereignty >No otherwise than Theseus his ship, which although it were an hundred times changed by putting in of new planks, yet still retained the old name. But as a ship, if the keel (which strongly bears up the prow, the poup, the ribs, and tacklings) be taken away, is no longer a ship, but an ill favoured houp of wood; even so a Commonwealth, without a sovereignty of power, which unites in one body all members and families of the same is no more a Commonwealth, neither can by and means long endure. And not to depart from our similitude; as a ship may be quite broken up, or altogether consumed with fire; so may also the people into diverse places dispersed, or be utterly destroyed, the City or state yet standing whole; for it is neither the walls, neither the persons, that makes the city, but the union of the people under the same sovereignty of government. >Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together. <For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

>>6630 >>6631 >>6632 These 3 posts are overall why I tend to outright disregard the terms Decentralization & Centralization -- two words I think greatly contribute to our misunderstanding of politics -- two words, that also, I believe, have no bearing on the concept of sovereignty. We know that anarchists lately are big advocates of decentralization: because we take the anarchist A and circle, appealing to -- Order without rulers -- in the same way to have a circle without a point. As you'd imagine with me, that we draw a circle with a point and compass. I shouldn't have to explain so heavily why I have a problem with the pretense of decentralization so much as a monarchist and why I feel it is in origin anti-monarchist: I'll only point to what Jean Bodin says here & post a picture. >Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens Compare and contrast the first picture with the 2nd picture: the anarchist symbol of order without rulers and measure -- is opposed to sovereignty as a guiding power. The appeal to decentralization is to not have a monarch -- always opposed to having any unity -- so they maintain we shouldn't draw and scale out human rulers as a measure and guidance for the people, repeating that pretense of Aristotle's freemen -- when in reality, it's Plato's household rule no less mirrored in the political, that need for a sovereign power and guidance to be our measure and our ruler, a monarch.

Like Putin criticized Lenin for -- it is important not to build a State constitution on temporary grounds, but as a perpetual body: that's why it's important to understand union or bond or state (perpetual) as opposed to an association or concord (temporary). A state compared to alliance doesn't abide by temporary conditions in the sense that its conditional for the parts... or like a defensive pact or association of a kind they are merely in league with -- very important to understand this understanding. Sovereignty, they say, is no more divisible than a point.

The pretense of Medievalism and Germany (muh HRE) and muh decentralization that's constantly hurled at us absolute monarchists by ancaps and traditionalists these days -- it originates with Alexis de Tocqueville. He appeals to the so-called Old Constitution of Europe which to really say is Germany -- which as we know Jean Bodin said was no less a sovereign state no less than others (despite the pretenses of decentralization), but an oligarchy of a few persons. That's partially why Tocquevillism has its strong pro-noble sensibilities: they're a kind of crypto-oligarchist. It's why Hoppe isn't a monarchist: Hoppe has Tocquevillist reservations about Monarchy.

In summary for my /monarchy/ audience: 1. I talk about Fascism & how it's related to our Absolutism. 2. My problems with decentralization / centralization dichotomy & Tocqueville's legacy.

>>6635 Now, HRE (Holy Roman Empire) or Germans are presented as the ultimate foil against absolute monarchy and our notion of sovereignty: But Jean Bodin already tackled the HRE & Tocquevillism's pretenses beforehand. Albeit we hear over and over about the border gore and decentralization and it being a kind of anarchy with the absence of a state on the merit of these, Jean Bodin classified the HRE to have been a sovereign state, particularly an oligarchical state, where three or four hundred persons at most had sovereignty, by convention of the imperial council. The pretense of decentralization stands upon the fact that an oligarchical state has similar attributes to democracy and monarchy: in the former, the assembly, but the latter great personal authority since an oligarchy is typically a plutocracy and rule of the wealthy, with great estates divested to great persons, acting in convention and unity with other great persons -- hence the border gore and diverse currencies -- this is a united sovereign body, but with diverse laws by the convention of the few, unilateral in their acceptance of each other. In this sense, albeit people point to the border meme, they choose to see the trees for the forest. Whereas Jean Bodin is able to see the forest for the trees in classifying the HRE: that is how we're able to bypass this misconception. The never really was a foil to our idea of absolute sovereignty, neither does the peace of westphalia (which people use as the basis for territorial sovereignty, which as we know by Bodin's testimony, isn't defined by territory since it doesn't matter how scattered the lands be or how far apart, a family remains a family in its integrity regardless). A thorough reading of Jean Bodin debunks this: the origin of the HRE as a foil dates back to Alexis de Tocqueville seeing Germany as the old constitution of Europe and his model... but we have to keep in mind that Tocqueville wasn't directly addressing our political ideas, but what he thought of the Ancien Regime and his testimony of it -- but the HRE isn't a foil and looking at Jean Bodin's classification of Germany and Alexis de Tocqueville's inclinations greatly towards the nobility, I'm further convinced in Jean Bodin was right about the HRE.

>>6637 So again: When Alexis de Tocqueville marks out, >how any centralization is a move away from Aristocracy, and decentralization only possible by Aristocracy Even an Oligarchical estate for the former point has a point of convention: as these nobles have a relationship with each other, that assists them to rule as a class. By the later, that decentralization is possible by aristocracy, it only comes to mean that the Oligarchy, by convention of the great person assembled or their representatives, allows its members considerable influence in convention with each other: that's why one great noble estate is different from the next and a considerable degree of autonomy, yet still a sovereign state. As a sovereign body can permit a multitude of currencies (that originate with the wealth of its members) and even laws, but still act as a united sovereignty. Part of the confusion, again, is we look at our typical notion of an assembly, like a democratic assembly, think that's more centralized, because its members act in one room: but in an oligarchical estate, by the convention of great persons and landed elite, they could convene in one room and also return with their authority to their estates. This is what makes the pretense of decentralization, but nevertheless there is a sovereign power albeit these great members are scattered and dispersed. As Jean Bodin says, >It is of no importance whether the families come together in the same place or live in separate homes and area. It is said to be no other than the same family even if the father lives apart from children and servants >The definition of a state offered by us applies to villages, towns, cities, and principalities, however scattered their lands may be, provided that they are controlled by the same authority. So albeit they are scattered or decentralized, there is still a soul and sovereignty for them as a whole in relation to each other. Not an association, but a union. >The concept is not conditioned by the limited size of the region or by its great expanse >So Ragusa or Geneva, whose rule is comprised almost within its walls, ought to be called a state no less than the empire of the Tartars As you see, it doesn't particularly matter whether it is a city-state, nation-state, or empire state, defined by its territorial size and integrity -- since like Bodin says as an elephant is no more an animal than the ant, since each has the power of movement and perception... so the people making the pretense of city-states only as opposed to nation-states or empires only are merely nitpicking about the size and overlooking the main point: whether it's a small house or a mansion, there is a household rule. It's a pointless charade to me and Bodin.

Also, I think it's seemingly stronger with Aristocracy or Oligarchy primarily because it mirrors Aristotle's pretense of freemen most closely in contrast to Plato stating that the political state is like an economical household rule, and like we say a household is under one head: so the pretense of free regions or free cities or autonomous regionalism against a unilateral governance is no less than Aristotle appealing to freemen (who would be masters themselves) as constitutional rulers, as opposed to Plato who makes political and economical estate the very same in character. Aristotle: >The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: >whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. This is why Alexis de Tocqueville in his book on the Ancien Regime appeals to Despotism vs Liberty beforehand in discussing centralization / decentralization: it's because he is opposed to the concept of a state being operated like a household rule... whereas the constitutional rule is freemen who are themselves masters. Alexis de Tocqueville is repeating that Aristotelian dynamic contrary to the Plato's assertion. This is why ancaps and traditionalists of this sort lash out at absolute monarchists (who uphold Plato's doctrine that political and economical really aren't of different character). And Aristotle himself oddly enough maintains that monarchy is squarely the economic or household rule: but doesn't mark it as political character. Aristotle: >For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations. But absolute monarchists maintain a full political / economical character in monarchy, seeing monarchy itself as a political form of state: that's why Jean Bodin identifies three forms of state / commonwealth / republic (whatever you call it, and, yes, even republic) -- monarchy, oligarchy, democracy. That is essentially why I feel they conflict with us, but also why Hoppe could almost endorse us at the same time: since monarchy is a household management, Hoppe feels partial to it; but Hoppe being a right libertarian and partial to this Aristotelian pretense of freemen, cannot bear the household rule on a political scale itself and thereby clings to Tocquevillist reservations about Monarchy. That's why I feel the centralization / decentralization debacle is another cloaked pretense of Aristotle's constitutional freemen, but no another level: not constitutional freemen as heads of families before the political city, but autonomous regions before the state. And about Oligarchical states-- Great nobles in league with each other have considerable wealth and autonomy, so they are a league of many families, and have their own familial laws and even currencies. This is supported because the oligarchs or optimates in league with each other are great persons, so they can have great autonomy: but for them to maintain their form of state and governance, they have to convene with each other... it's no coincidence you see the state of affairs in something like the HRE without their convention to maintain that. While they might have civil wars or in-fighting (which is very prompt for democracies and oligarchies), there is still a sovereignty and convention of the oligarchs / optimates like a democratic assembly.

Another problem is decentralization also simply becomes merely a call for association. For instance, looking at the imageboard community, the WeBring was described like a friend list: A friend list is an association, but not a union. Alliance or defensive treaties don't make a state. Where independent bodies meet up as a concord or association, they aren't a perpetual body or state. You might have a multitude of many states associate and have alliances, but it's by no means a state. When you have a multitude of states absorbed into bigger bodies or an assembled power already in one room as a nation, then it's not easy to go back: like snow clustering up into a ball for a snowman, it works against its formation and there's a great inertia against breaking up: at this point, it might as well be the destruction of a sovereign soul into new bodies, not old bodies: people maintain decentralization on this term as if it could do that and still remain the very same state, but what they really want is an association of many states and the destruction of that former state. I find the terms centralization / decentralization disingenuous and harmful to political understanding for these reasons: that's why I disavow the terms in the first place and think they make a bad inclusion in our political lexicon. The introduction of the terms to politics is about as old as the Left vs Right distinction. Like Charles Maurras says, they're ugly terms (and he was a big advocate for the decentralization meme). These terms decentralization / centralization are anathema to Majesty or Sovereignty. It lacks the soul and outlook of Majesty also, because it tends to be about whether things are close in proximity or scattered in proximity: but Majesty is about their soul and sovereign bond. As a monarchist I feel like others (monarchists themselves) can attack the idea of monarchy itself without thinking too much about the terms also. I absolutely hate that: b/c they divide their conceptional and political thinking about the form of state to what they learn in history and textbooks as historical royalty & policies... without consideration... that's why the terms annoy me as a monarchist apart from how far you can take the pretense of decentralization against the idea of monarchy itself: until you abandon the idea of one ruler, because one is typically central and unifying and so on It is a source of frustration for me b/c it's my opponents main contention with absolute monarchy, so I hear it everyday and all the time.

ngl, reading these texts on Fascism has made me more partial to Classical Italian Fascism than beforehand. Too bad /fascist/ is a bit dead and doesn't vibe too well with /monarchy/ lately.

Another unpopular / heterodox thing I do like Italian Fascism is admire North Korea Juche for their dynastic patriotism.

Traits of Monarchy: -Monarchy is the majesty of one person -Monarchy is personal rule -Does not take its turn in being governed; perpetual -Monarchy lifelong rule -Monarchy is paternal -Monarchy is household rule -Blood relationship; kinship; the heart and sovereign power. Characteristics of Monarchy: -Monarchy is the majesty of one person -Monarchy is personal rule -No rule by turns; perpetual -Monarchy is lifelong rule -Monarchy is paternal -Monarchy is modeled after a household -Blood relationship: kinship; blood signifies the heart, sovereign, and giving motion Every absolute monarchist start on Jean Bodin's Methodus & Six Books of a Commonwealth Then read-- -Dante De Monarchia -King James VI & I Political Works -Hobbes Leviathan, De Cive, Elements of Law, Dialogue, & Behemoth -Filmer Patriarcha & other works -Bossuet Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture -Joseph de Maistre political works As supplements to this reading: -A Worthy Panegyrick Upon Monarchy -Monarchia Triumphans -The Divine Right of Kings asserted in general, ours in particular Along with this quote by Gryffith Williams & this from Vico's New Science. It's important to think about monarchy's individual nature: this is the majesty of one individual person. -What or how will I justify the reign and rule of a monarch? What is the case for monarchical pre-eminence? -One person, supreme; one person, superior or on par to myriads. Absolute monarchists should be familiar with the notion of monarchical pre-eminence in Aristotle (which aptly compares such a pre-eminent person to be like a lion to hares) AND where we also strongly disagree with Aristotle on many grounds: like his doctrine of constitutional freemen and making a household rule different from a political rule... and his making a whole composite -- whereas we make the state simple and indivisible -- and especially how we agree with Plato on the political and economical being no different in this character. As well as all the marks of sovereignty and it's nature as an indivisible and perpetual union that Bodin and Hobbes aptly cover.

>>6650 The state is simple and indivisible, not compound or mixed. That is where we disagree with Aristotle also. Apart from the constitutional freemen differing from a household for the political.

Bossuet 4 properties of royal authority. 1. Royal authority is sacred; 2. It is paternal; 3. It is absolute; 4. It is subject to reason.

Words like Pre-eminence & Sovereignty are synonymous w/ Majesty. Jean Bodin / Majesty >Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth [La Souveraineté est la puissance absoluë & perpetuelle d’une République], which the Latins call Majestas; the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; and the Italians segniora, a word they use for private persons as well as for those who have full control of the state, while the Hebrews call it tomech shévet – that is the highest power of command. >As for the title of Majesty itself, it sufficiently appears, that it only belongs to him that is a sovereign prince: so that for him that hath no sovereignty to usurp the same, were a very absurd thing: but to arrogate unto himself the addition of most excellent and sacred majesty, is much more absurd the one being a point of lightnes, and the other of impiety: for what more can we give unto the most mighty and immortal God, if we take from him that which is proper unto himself? And albeit that in ancient time neither emperors nor kings used these so great addition or titles: yet the German princes nevertheless have oft times given the title of Sacred Majesty unto the kings of France; aswell as unto their emperor. As I remember my self to have seen the letters of the princes of the empire, written unto the king, for the deliverance of countie Mansfeld, then prisoner in France: wherein there was sixe times V. S. M. that is to say, Vestra, Sacra, Majestas, or Your Sacred Majesty an addition proper unto God, apart from all worldly princes. As for other princes which are not soueraignes some use the addition of His Highnesse, as the dukes of Loraine, Sauoy, Mantua, Ferrara, and Florence: some of Excellency, as the princes of the confines; or else of Serenitie, as the duke of Venice. >Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness. >For so here it behoveth first to define what Majesty or Sovereignty is, which neither lawyer nor political philosopher hath yet defined: although it be the principal and most necessary point for the understanding of the nature of a Commonweal. And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power: it rest to be declared, what is to be understood by the name of a most high and perpetual power. <We have said that this power ought to be perpetual, for that it may bee, that that absolute power over the subject may be given to one or many, for a short or certain time, which expired, they are no more than subjects themselves: so that whilest they are in their puissant authority, they cannot call themselves Sovereign princes, seeing that they are but men put in trust, and keepers of this sovereign power, until it shall please the people or the prince that gave it them to recall it >Who always remained ceased thereof. <For as they which lend or pawn unto another man their goods, remain still the lords and owners thereof: so it is also with them, who give unto others power and authority to judge and command, be it for a certain time limited, or so great and long time as shall please them; they themselves nevertheless continuing still ceased of the power and jurisdiction, which the other exercise but by way of loan or borrowing.

>For otherwise if the high and absolute power granted by a prince to his lieutenant, should of right be called Sovereignty, he might use the same against his prince, to whom nothing was left but the bare name of a prince, standing but for a cipher: so should the subject command his Sovereign, the servant his master, than which nothing could be more absurd: considering that in all power granted unto magistrates, or private men, the person of the prince is always to be excepted; who never gives so much power unto another, but that he always keeps more unto himself; neither is ever to be thought so deprived of his sovereign power, but that he may take unto himself the examination and deciding of such things as he hath committed unto his magistrates or officers, whether it be by the way of prevention, concurrence, or evocation: from whom he may also take the power given them by virtue of their commission or institution, or suffer them to hold it so long as shall please him. >These grounds thus laid, as the foundations of Sovereignty, wee conclude, that neither the Roman Dictator, nor the Harmoste of Lacedemonia, nor the Esmynaet of Salonick, nor he whom they cal the Archus of Malta, nor the antient Baily of Florence, (when it was gouerned by a popular state) neither the Regents or Viceroyes of kingdoms, nor any other officers or magistrats whatsoeuer, vnto whom the highest, but yet not the perpetual power, is by the princes or peoples grant commit∣ted, can be accounted to have the same in Sovereignty. >And albeit that the ancient Dictators had all power given them in best sort that might be (which the ancient Latins called Optima Lege) so that from them it was not lawful to appeal and upon whose creation all offices were suspended; until such time as that the Tribunes were ordained as keepers of the peoples liberty, who continued in their charge notwithstanding the creation of the Dictator, who had free power to oppose themselves against him; so that if appeal were made from the Dictator, the Tribunes might assemble the people, appointing the parties to bring forth the causes of their appeal, & the Dictator to stay his judgement; as when Papirius Cursor the Dictator, condemned Fabius Max the first, to death; and Fabius Max the second had in like manner condemned M•…nutius, both Colonels of the horsemen, for that they had fought with the enemy contrary to the command of the Dictator; they were yet both by appeale and judgement of the people acquitted. For so saith Livy, Then the father of Fabius said, I call upon the Tribunes, and appeal unto the people, which can do more than thy Dictatorship whereunto king Tullus Hostilius gave place. Whereby it appears that the Dictator was neither sovereign prince, nor magistrat, as many have supposed; neither had any thing more than a simple commission for the making of war, the repressing of sedition, the reforming of the state on instituting of new officers. >So that Sovereignty is not limited either in power, charge, or time certain. And namely the ten commissioners established for the reforming of custom and laws; albeit than they had absolute power, from which there was no appeal to be made, and that all offices were suspended, during the time of their commission; yet had they not for all that any Sovereignty; for their commission being fulfilled, their power also expired; as did that of the Dictators.

<"Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness." >And forasmuch as wee have before defined a Commonweal to be the right government of many families, and of things common amongst them, with a most high & perpetual power From a different author (I forgot his name). Talks briefly about the history of the style Majesty: <A TRIVIAL circumstance first discovered the effects of this great elevation upon the mind of Charles. In all the publick writs which he issued as king of Spain, he assumed the title of Majesty, and required it from his subjects as a mark of their respect. Before that time, all the monarchs of Europe were satisfied with the appellation of Highness, or Grace; but the vanity of other courts soon led them to imitate the example of the Spanish. The epithet of Majesty is no longer a mark of pre-eminence. The most inconsiderable monarchs in Europe enjoy it, and the arrogance of the greater potentates has invented no higher denomination.

>King Lear / Pre-eminence, Majesty Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower: For, by the sacred radiance of the sun, The mysteries of Hecate, and the night; By all the operation of the orbs From whom we do exist, and cease to be; Here I disclaim all my paternal care, Propinquity and property of blood, … I do invest you jointly with my power, [and] Pre eminence, and all the large effects That troop with Majesty. Ourself, by monthly course, With reservation of an hundred knights, By you to be sustain'd, shall our abode Make with you by due turns. Only we still retain The name, and all the additions to a king; The sway, revenue, execution of the rest, Beloved sons, be yours: which to confirm, This coronet part betwixt you.

Ebenezer Gay >Light is an Emblem of Authority. It is the Firstborn of Things visible: Hath the Pre-eminence among them, or Predominancy over them: >Rulers are the light of a People, and as when the Sun shineth brightly, there is a pleasant Day over the face of the Earth, so when they shine with Wisdom, Justice, Meekness and the like, and shed abroad the reviving Rays and benign Influences of good Government, there is a cheerful Day of Prosperity enjoyed; truly their Light is sweet.

Jean Bodin >As for the right of coining money, it is of the same nature as law, and only he who has the power to make law can regulate the coinage. That is readily evident from the Greek, Latin, and French terms, for the word nummus [in Latin] is from the Greek word nomos, and [the French] loi (law) is at the root of aloi (alloy), the first letter of which is dropped by those who speak precisely. Indeed, after law itself, there is nothing of greater consequence than the title, value, and measure of coins, as we have shown in a separate treatise, and in every well-ordered state, it is the sovereign prince alone who has this power. Thomas Hobbes >And the Right of Distribution of Them – The Distribution of the Materials of this Nourishment, is the constitution of Mine, and Thine, and His, that is to say, in one word Propriety; and belongs in all kinds of Commonwealth to the Sovereign power…. And this they well knew of old, who called that Nomos, (that is to say, Distribution,) which we call Law; and defined Justice, by distributing to every man his own. >All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Commonwealth in the Wilderness, but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise, which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their General: Who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land… And though a People coming into possession of a land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as of the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour. Dante Alighieri >And I urge you not only to rise up to meet him, but to stand in reverent awe before his presence, ye who drink of his streams, and sail upon his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores and the summits of the mountains that are his; ye who enjoy all public rights and possess all private property by the bond of his law, and no otherwise. Be ye not like the ignorant, deceiving your own selves, after the manner of them that dream, and say in their hearts, We have no Lord. King James VI & I >It is evident by the rolles of our Chancellery (which contain our eldest and fundamental Laws) that the King is Dominus omnium bonorum [Lord of all goods], and Dominus directus totius Dominii [Direct lord of the whole dominion (that is, property)], the whole subjects being but his vassals, and from him holding all their lands as their overlord.

From An Appeal to Caesar wherein gold & silver is proved to be the King Majesty's royal commodity by Thomas Violet >The Gold and Silver of the Nation, either Foreign coin, or Ingot, or the current Coin of the Kingdom, is the Soul of the Militia, and so all wise men know it, that those that command the Gold and Silver of the Kingdom, either Coin, or Bullion, to have it free at their disposal, to be Judges of the conveniency and inconveniency, or to hinder, or to give leave to transport Gold and Silver at their pleasure, is the great Wheel of the State, a most Royal Prerogative inherent in Your Majesty, Your Heirs and Successors, (and none other whomsoever, but by Your Majesty's License, and cannot be parted with to any Persons, but by Your Majesty most especial Grant;) your Majesty, and your Privy Councel being by the Law the only proper Judges Alexander Hamilton >"Were there any room to doubt, that the sole right of the territories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argument might be drawn from the principle of English tenure… By means of the feudal system, the King became, and still continues to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount, of all the lands in England.*—Agreeable to this rule, he must have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and was, therefore, authorized to dispose of them in what manner he thought proper." Jean Bodin continued <Of course each man was ruler of his family and had the right of life and death not only over the slaves but also over his wives and children, as Caesar himself testified. Justinian, in addition to many others, erred in alleging, in the chapter on a father's power, that no people had so much power over their sons as the Romans had, for it is evident from Aristotle and the Mosaic Law that the custom is also common to the Persians and the Hebrews. The ancients understood that such was the love of the parents toward their sons that even if they wished very much to abuse their power, they could not. Moreover, nothing was a more potent cause of virtue and reverence in children toward their parents than this patriarchal power. <Therefore, when they say that they are masters of the laws and of all things, they resemble those kings whom Aristotle calls lords, who, like fathers of families, protect the state as if it were their own property. It is not contrary to nature or to the law of nations that the prince should be master of all things and of laws in the state, only he must duly defend the empire with his arms and his child with his blood, since the father of a family by the law of nations is owner not only of the goods won by him but also of those won by his servants, as well as of his servants <Even more base is the fact that Jason when interpreting in the presence of King Louis XII a chapter of law well explained by Azo, affirmed recklessly that all things are the property of the prince. This interpretation violates not only the customs and laws of this kingdom but also all the edicts and advices of all the emperors and jurisconsults. All civil actions would be impossible if no one were owner of anything. "To the Kings," said Seneca, "power over all things belongs; to individual citizens, property." And a little later he added, "While under the best king the king holds all within his authority, at the same time the individual men hold possessions as private property." All things in the state belong to Caesar by right of authority, but property is acquired by inheritance

>Jean Bodin on Fatherly Monarchy >"The best Prince is the best Father." >"The Prince, whom you may justly call the Father of the Country, ought to be to every man Dearer and more Reverend than any Father, as one Ordained and Sent unto us by God." >Thomas Hobbes on Fatherly Monarchy >"To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Sovereign Lord, with power over him of life and death." >But Kings are the Fathers of Families… [the Public Good / education of subjects], the care of which they stand so long charged withal, as they retain any other essential Right of the Sovereignty. >King James VI & I briefly on Fatherly Monarchy >"Kings are also compared to Fathers of families: for a King is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his People." >Bossuet on Fatherly Monarchy >"Man who, as has been said, saw the image of a kingdom in the union of several families under the leadership of a common father, and who had found gentleness in that life, brought themselves easily to create societies of families under kings who took the place of fathers… it is apparently for that reason that the ancient people's of Palestine called their kings Abimelech, that is to say: my father the king. Subjects took themselves to be children of the Prince: and, each calling him, My father the king." >Aristotle on Fatherly Monarchy >"For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy… it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule." >"The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus –father of Gods and men – because he is the king of them all. 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 and younger, of father and son."

"The Household / Family well ordered is the true image of the Commonwealth." -Jean Bodin "My old home the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men." -Joseph Roth "Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of Despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in Despotism." -Friedrich Nietzche "A family being nothing else but a small Kingdom, wherein the paterfamilias had Regal power… and a Kingdom being nothing else but a great family." -Gryffith Williams "For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations." -Aristotle "The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head." -Aristotle "Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him." -Plato "So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed." -Jean Bodin

Xenophon Cyropaedia >The father of Cyrus, so runs the story, was Cambyses, a king of the Persians, and one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race The education of youth >It is true that he was brought up according to the laws and customs of the Persians, and of these laws it must be noted that while they aim, as laws elsewhere, at the common weal, their guiding principle is far other than that which most nations follow. >Most states permit their citizens to bring up their own children at their own discretion, and allow the grown men to regulate their own lives at their own will, and then they lay down certain prohibitions, for example, not to pick and steal, not to break into another man's house, not to strike a man unjustly, not to commit adultery, not to disobey the magistrate, and so forth; and on the transgressor they impose a penalty. (3) But the Persian laws try, as it were, to steal a march on time, to make their citizens from the beginning incapable of setting their hearts on any wickedness or shameful conduct whatsoever. And this is how they set about their object. Friend & Enemy distinction: careful not to teach children dangerous things >Yes, my son, it is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage. And he drew the line between what one should do to one's friends and what to one's enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right to even deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose. (This is important b/c regicide theories would also use the basis of friend / enemy distinction between a king or tyrant & justify killing their king; though I think that the subjects shouldn't be taught to distinguish their Sovereign as any such enemy–their relation like children & the sovereign monarch their father–if they are taught anyone is an enemy, it is the opponents of their Sovereign & never the Sovereign himself, b/c esp. the monarchy-haters are too apt to abuse this). >And in teaching these lessons he had also to train the boys to practise them upon one another, just as also in wrestling, the Greeks, they say, teach deception and train the boys to be able to practise it upon one another. When, therefore, some had in this way become expert both in deceiving successfully and in taking unfair advantage and perhaps also not inexpert in avarice, the did not refrain from trying to take an unfair advantage even of their friends. >In consequence of that, therefore, an ordnance was passed which obtains even unto this day, simply to teach out boys, just as we teach our servants in their relations towards us, to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage; and if they should act contrary to this law, the law requires their punishment, in order that, inured to such habits, they may become more refined members of society. (All States today do this: they teach their citizens at birth to uphold the values of their State & only a friendly image, & reserves the bad teachings for any enemies, like is said – that they may become more refined members of society) >But when they came to be as old as you are now, then it seemed to be safe to teach them that also which is lawful towards enemies; for it does not seem likely that you would break away and fun into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect. In the same way we do not discuss sexual matters in the presence of very young boys, lest in case lax discipline should give a free rein to their passions the young might indulge them to excess.

The importance of obedience >What city could be at rest, lawful, and orderly? What household could be safe? What ship sail home to her haven? And we, to what do we owe our triumph, if not to our obedience? We obeyed; we were ready to follow the call by night and day; we marched behind our leader, ranks that nothing could resist; we left nothing half-done of all we were told to do. If obedience is the one path to win the highest good, remember it is also the one way to preserve it. >Let us listen to the words of Cyrus. Let us gather round the public buildings and train ourselves, so that we may keep our hold on all we care for, and offer ourselves to Cyrus for his noble ends. Of one thing we may be sure: Cyrus will never put us to any service which can make for his own good and not for ours. Our needs are the same as his [Cyrus], and our foes the same. >Drovers may certainly be called the rulers of their cattle and horse-breeders the rulers of their studs—all herdsmen, in short, may reasonably be considered the governors of the animals they guard. If, then, we were to believe the evidence of our senses, was it not obvious that flocks and herds were more ready to obey their keepers than men their rulers? Watch the cattle wending their way wherever their herdsmen guide them, see them grazing in the pastures where they are sent and abstaining from forbidden grounds, the fruit of their own bodies they yield to their master to use as he thinks best; nor have we ever seen one flock among them all combining against their guardian, either to disobey him or to refuse him the absolute control of their produce. On the contrary, they are more apt to show hostility against other animals than against the owner who derives advantage from them. <But with man the rule is converse; men unite against none so readily as against those whom they see attempting to rule over them. (3) As long, therefore, as we followed these reflexions, we could not but conclude that man is by nature fitted to govern all creatures, except his fellow-man. >But when we came to realise the character of Cyrus the Persian, we were led to a change of mind: here is a man, we said, who won for himself obedience from thousands of his fellows, from cities and tribes innumerable: we must ask ourselves whether the government of men is after all an impossible or even a difficult task, provided one set about it in the right way. Cyrus, we know, found the readiest obedience in his subjects, though some of them dwelt at a distance which it would take days and months to traverse, and among them were men who had never set eyes on him, and for the matter of that could never hope to do so, and yet they were willing to obey him. Cyrus did indeed eclipse all other monarchs, before or since, and I include not only those who have inherited their power, but those who have won empire by their own exertions. >It is obvious that among this congeries of nations few, if any, could have spoken the same language as himself, or understood one another, but none the less Cyrus was able so to penetrate that vast extent of country by the sheer terror of his personality that the inhabitants were prostrate before him: not one of them dared lift hand against him. And yet he was able, at the same time, to inspire them all with so deep a desire to please him and win his favour that all they asked was to be guided by his judgment and his alone.

Xenophon / A good ruler differs not from a good father >Gentlemen, this is not the first time I have had occasion to observe that a good ruler differs in no respect from a good father. Even as a father takes thought that blessings may never fail his children, so Cyrus would commend to us the ways by which we can preserve our happiness. A ruler's charm >But we seem to learn also that Cyrus thought it necessary for the ruler not only to surpass his subjects by his own native worth, but also to charm them through deception and artifice. >At any rate he adopted the Median dress, and persuaded his comrades to do likewise; he thought it concealed any bodily defect, enhancing the beauty and stature of the wearer. The shoe, for instance, was so devised that a sole could be added without notice, and the man would seem taller than he really was. So also Cyrus encouraged the use of ointments to make the eyes more brilliant and pigments to make the skin look fairer. And he trained his courtiers never to spit or blow the nose in public or turn aside to stare at anything; they were to keep the stately air of persons whom nothing can surprise. These were all means to one end; to make it impossible for the subjects to despise their rulers.

Taming of men >Thus he moulded the men he considered worthy of command by his own example, by the training he gave them, and by the dignity of his own leadership. But the treatment of those he prepared for slavery was widely different. Not one of them would he incite to any noble toil, he would not even let them carry arms, and he was careful that they should never lack food or drink in any manly sort. >When the beaters drove the wild creatures into the plain he would allow food to be brought for the servants, but not for the free men; on a march he would lead the slaves to the water-springs as he led the beasts of burden. Or when it was the hour of breakfast he would wait himself till they had taken a snatch of food and stayed their wolfish hunger; and the end of it was they called him their father even as the nobles did, because he cared for them, but the object of his care was to keep them slaves for ever. >Thus he secured the safety of the Persian empire. He himself, he felt sure, ran no danger from the massages of the conquered people; he saw they had no courage, no unity, and no discipline, and, moreover, not one of them could ever come near him, day or night. >But there were others whom he knew to be true warriors, who carried arms, and who held by one another, commanders of horse and foot, many of them men of spirit, confident, as he could plainly see, of their own power to rule, men who were in close touch with his own guards, and many of them in constant intercourse with himself; as indeed was essential if he was to make any use of them at all. It was from them that danger was to be feared; and that in a thousand ways. How was he to guard against it? <He rejected the idea of disarming them; he thought this unjust, and that it would lead to the dissolution of the empire. To refuse them admission into his presence, to show them his distrust, would be, he considered, a declaration of war. >But there was one method, he felt, worth all the rest, an honourable method and one that would secure his safety absolutely; to win their friendship if he could, and make them more devoted to himself than to each other. I will now endeavour to set forth the methods, so far as I conceive them, by which he gained their love. >In the first place he never lost an opportunity of showing kindliness wherever he could, convinced that just as it is not easy to love those who hate us, so it is scarcely possible to feel enmity for those who love us and wish us well. >So long as he had lacked the power to confer benefits by wealth, all he could do then was to show his personal care for his comrades and his soldiers, to labour in their behalf, manifest his joy in their good fortune and his sympathy in their sorrows, and try to win them in that way. But when the time came for the gifts of wealth, he realised that of all the kindnesses between man and man none come with a more natural grace than the gifts of meat and drink. (This is somewhat notable for a few reasons: 1. The Christian mass also has formally bread & wine. 2. States have state dinners to also show kindness. 3. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar remarks, Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous. – Mark Antony responds, Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous, He is a noble Roman, and well given. – Julius Caesar finally says, Would he were fatter! But I fear him not.)

>Accordingly he arranged that his table should be spread every day for many guests in exactly the same way as for himself; and all that was set before him, after he and his guests had dined, he would send out to his absent friends, in token of affection and remembrance. He would include those who had won his approval by their work on guard, or in attendance on himself, or in any other service, letting them see that no desire to please him could ever escape his eyes. >He would show the same honour to any servant he wished to praise; and he had all the food for them placed at his own board, believing this would win their fidelity, as it would a dog's. >Or, if he wished some friend of his to be courted by the people, he would single him out for such gifts; even to this day the world will pay court to those who have dishes sent them from the Great King's table, thinking they must be in high favour at the palace and can get things done for others. But no doubt there was another reason for the pleasure in such gifts, and that was the sheer delicious taste of the royal meats. <Nor should that surprise us; for if we remember to what a pitch of perfection the other crafts are brought in great communities, we ought to expect the royal dishes to be wonders of finished art. Royal excellence in great servants >Necessarily the man who spends all his time and trouble on the smallest task will do that task the best. >But when there is work enough for one man to boil the pot, and another to roast the meat, and a third to stew the fish, and a fourth to fry it, while some one else must bake the bread, and not all of it either, for the loaves must be of different kinds, and it will be quite enough if the baker can serve up one kind to perfection—it is obvious, I think, that in this way a far higher standard of excellence will be attained in every branch of the work. Royal gifts >Thus it is easy to see how Cyrus could outdo all competitors in the grace of hospitality, and I will now explain how he came to triumph in all other services. >Far as he excelled mankind in the scale of his revenues, he excelled them even more in the grandeur of his gifts. It was Cyrus who set the fashion; and we are familiar to this day with the open-handedness of Oriental kings. >There is no one, indeed, in all the world whose friends are seen to be as wealthy as the friends of the Persian monarch: no one adorns his followers in such splendour of rich attire, no gifts are so well known as his, the bracelets, and the necklaces, and the chargers with the golden bridles. For in that country no one can have such treasures unless the king has given them. (Do you know how it's said dictators use gifts? The same is said here) >And of whom but the Great King could it be said that through the splendour of his presents he could steal the hearts of men and turn them to himself, away from brothers, fathers, sons?

The King's Eyes & The King's Ears >Indeed, we are led to think that the offices called "the king's eyes" and "the king's ears" came into being through this system of gifts and honours. >Cyrus' munificence toward all who told him what it was well for him to know set countless people listening with all their ears and watching with all their eyes for news that might be of service to him. Thus there sprang up a host of "king's eyes" and "king's ears," as they were called, known and reputed to be such. >But it is a mistake to suppose that the king has one chosen "eye." It is little that one man can see or one man hear, and to hand over the office to one single person would be to bid all others go to sleep. Moreover, his subjects would feel they must be on their guard before the man they knew was "the king's eye." The contrary is the case; the king will listen to any man who asserts that he has heard or seen anything that needs attention. (This was a practice: Tsar Paul I would also have a box for any subject to give tell him about any anything or any injustice – Jean Bodin remarked that this system of boxes in other states was abused & not a good practice, I forgot the details how or what grievances Bodin had). <The King has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears >Hence the saying that the king has a thousand eyes and a thousand ears; and hence the fear of uttering anything against his interest since "he is sure to hear," or doing anything that might injure him "since he may be there to see." So far, therefore, from venturing to breathe a syllable against Cyrus, every man felt that he was under the eye and within the hearing of a king who was always present. For this universal feeling towards him I can give no other reason than his resolve to be a benefactor on a most mighty scale.

Royal Shepherd >Indeed, a saying of his is handed down comparing a good king to a good shepherd—the shepherd must manage his flock by giving them all they need, and the king must satisfy the needs of his cities and his subjects if he is to manage them. We need not wonder, then, that with such opinions his ambition was to excel mankind in courtesy and care. Royal Physician >Moreover, he observed that the majority of mankind, if they live in good health for long, will only lay by such stores and requisites as may be used by a healthy man, and hardly care at all to have appliances at hand in case of sickness. But Cyrus was at the pains to provide these; he encouraged the ablest physicians of the day by his liberal payments, and if ever they recommended an instrument or a drug or a special kind of food or drink, he never failed to procure it and have it stored in the palace. >And whenever any one fell sick among those who had peculiar claims on his attentions, he would visit them and bring them all they needed, and he showed especial gratitude to the doctors if they cured their patients by the help of his own stores. >These measures, and others like them, he adopted to win the first place in the hearts of those whose friendship he desired. (It is useful to add that he supplied these doctors & made sure their care came with his blessing – so that the benefices of the doctors would by extension be benefices of the king – as the quote here says, what men would give to be cured adds to the friendship and trust in the king) Rewards & Badges >The day before it he summoned the officers of state, the Persians and the others, and gave them all the splendid Median dress. This was the first time the Persians wore it, and as they received the robes he said that he wished to drive in his chariot to the sacred precincts and offer sacrifice with them. >With that Cyrus gave the most splendid robes to his chief notables, and then he brought out others, for he had stores of Median garments, purple and scarlet and crimson and glowing red, and gave a share to each of his generals and said to them, "Adorn your friends, as I have adorned you." (4) Then one of them asked him, "And you, O Cyrus, when will you adorn yourself?" But he answered, "–Is it not adornment enough for me to have adorned you? If I can but do good to my friends, I shall look glorious enough, whatever robe I wear."

The importance of love and praise >Praise, Pheraulas saw, will reap counter-praise, kindness will stir kindness in return, and goodwill goodwill; those whom men know to love them they cannot hate. Cyrus >And you, Cambyses, you know of yourself without words from me, that your kingdom is not guarded by this golden sceptre, but by faithful friends; their loyalty is your true staff, a sceptre which shall not fail. But never think that loyal hearts grow up by nature as the grass grows in the field… No, every leader must win his own followers for himself, and the way to win them is not by violence but by loving-kindness. Epilogue >Of all the powers in Asia, the kingdom of Cyrus showed itself to be the greatest and most glorious. On the east it was bounded by the Red Sea, on the north by the Euxine, on the west by Cyprus and Egypt, and on the south by Ethiopia. And yet the whole of this enormous empire was governed by the mind and will of a single man, Cyrus: his subjects he cared for and cherished as a father might care for his children, and they who came beneath his rule reverenced him like a father.

Cyrus / To the eldest born son >Sons of mine, I love you both alike, but I choose the elder-born, the one whose experience of life is the greater, to be the leader in council and the guide in action.

Jean Bodin / The native people of America retained royal power, shaped by their Leader -- Nature -- they were not trained by Aristotle >Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be. Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature. For many pretenses against absolute monarchy start with Aristotle in some ways, besides what I cherrypick from Aristotle.

Ramesses II Speech for his Father: >For the son becomes the champion of his father, like Horus, when he championed his father, forming him that formed him, fashioning him that fashioned him, making to live the name of him that begat him. >My heart leads me in doing excellent things… I will cause it to be said forever and ever: 'It was his son, who made his name live.' May my father, Osiris, favor me with the long life of his son, Horus, according as I do that which he did; I do excellent things, as he did excellent things, for him who begat me. Merneptah's Speech >Hear ye the command of your lord; I give–as ye shall do, saying: I am the ruler who shepherds you; I spend my time searching out–as a father who preserves alive his children Egyptian Teachings of a Man for his Son (Praise extracts): >Praise the King, may you love him, as a worker. He makes radiant by the giving of his powers. He is greater than a million men for the one he has favored. He is the shield for the one who makes him content… Praise the King, adore the King. That is the post before god. Spread his powers, rejoicing when he has decreed and devising plans for what he has desired… He is the bodily health of the nameless. He exercises his body for him. He is the right arm of the man whose arms are weak. Egyptian Loyalist Teaching >He is the sun in whose leadership people live >Whoever is under his light will be great in wealth >He gives sustenance to his followers >He feeds the man who sticks to his path >the man he favors will be a lord of offerings >the man he rejects will be a pauper >He is Khuum for every body

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 Thomas Hobbes aptly describes the state of apathy and ignorance people had towards monarchical pre-eminence or majesty or sovereignty: the epitome of this was the Thomas Becket affair for me. Since then the clergy was highly esteemed and not enough the King. The majesty of the King was not known nor was the King a subject of monarchical pre-eminence or sovereignty. Monarchists take for granted all the majesty and our contemporary inclinations towards a king, what made the notion so especial in particular to us. This sentiment of majesty might not be shared equally across all cultures: since like Hobbes described it would be viewed merely as a title and nothing especial or pre-eminent. The purpose of this royal colony thread is to enlighten visitors to /monarchy/ on our ideal of royal majesty.

A big rift between myself and contemporary rightwingers: I sum up w/ Julius Evola's alleged criticism of Fascism -- that it only concerned with the political or state and we should aspire for higher ideals. I frankly disagree; I feel they're not focused on the political question enough or deem it inconsequential in comparison to morality / religion. It's a question of integrity, and political is about the integrity of all society and its constituents: totalitarianism adapts to this, they don't. It's why they hover around mild Christian democratic parties or stick to parish grounds. There's this kind of apathy permeating them that lacks the same oompf that totalitarianism does. Now, I consider sovereignty as the union of many families and the bond of states (the family included).

Thomas Hobbes laments the prevalence of mixed monarchy / constitutionalism >Saving only that he [the Earl] was carried away with the stream, in a manner, of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament. ... >You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers by profession, or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be thought so. >Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy; all which governments they esteemed tyranny, and were in love with monarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy. >And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such, if I have not been misinformed, as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but who when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's party. ... >Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny. >This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the victory for the King in a battle, when a battle could not be avoided, yet it weakened their endeavour to procure him an absolute victory in the war. >And for this cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly resolved to take all kingly power whatsoever out of his hands, yet their counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer propositions to them of treaty and accommodation, and to make and publish declarations; which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great disadvantage to those actions by which the King was to recover his crown and preserve his life. ... >Sometimes also in the merely civil government there be more than one soul... For although few perceive that such government is not government, but division of the Commonwealth into three factions, and call it mixed monarchy; yet the truth is that it is not one independent Commonwealth, but three independent factions; nor one representative person, but three. In the Kingdom of God there may be three persons independent, without breach of unity in God that reigneth; but where men reign, that be subject to diversity of opinions, it cannot be so. >To what disease in the natural body of man I may exactly compare this irregularity of a Commonwealth, I know not. But I have seen a man that had another man growing out of his side, with a head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own: if he had had another man growing out of his other side, the comparison might then have been exact. ... >And if there were a commonwealth, wherein the rights of sovereignty were divided, we must confess with Bodin, Lib. II. chap. I. De Republica, that they are not rightly to be called commonwealths, but the corruption of commonwealths. >The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] 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.

Oswald Mosley >It was not always so. In earlier times the King and his Government ruled the state and no man, however wealthy, could defy the King’s law and the ordinances of his ministers. Indeed, we now realize, despite the version of history taught us at school, that, when King Charles defied Parliament, he was, as he said at his trial, fighting for the freedom of the common people of England against the tyrannous demands of the purse-proud merchants of the City of London. Unfortunately, the national authority of Tudor England was broken on his scaffold, and ever since wealth has gained ever greater power over the people.

>be me <monarchist circles basically consist of constitutionalists, ultra-clerical traditionalists / heavy denominationalists, & hoppean / right libertarian variants <all these groups invariably dislike your monarchical absolutism one way or another and outnumber you It's never been an easy task for me. There's no wiggle room to navigate between these parties and their faggotry. Little by little, my hard work is paying off and people in the monarchist sphere will embrace Majesty.

<Jean Bodin / Dictators are Sufficient Proof that Monarchy is necessary for the preservation of society >And what power soever they have by virtue of their places, yet Popular and Aristocratical commonweales, finding themselves embarked in any dangerous war, either against the enemy, or among themselves, or in difficulty to proceed criminally against some mighty citizen, or to give order for the plague, or to create magistrates, or to do any other thing of great consequence, did usually create a Dictator, as a sovereign Monarch: knowing well that a Monarchy was the anchor whereunto of necessity they must have recourse. >The impunity of vices, and the contempt of magistrates in a Popular estate, does sufficiently show that Monarchs are necessary for the preservation of the society of mankind, seeing that the Romans who for the error of one Prince, had all kings in hatred, made a Dictator for the conduct of all their great affairs. >So did the Lacedemonians in their extremities create a magistrate with power like unto the Dictator, whom they called Harmoste: and the Thessaliens, him whom they called Archus: as in the like case the Mityleniens their great Aezimnere; to whom the great Providador of the Venetians may be in some sort compared: finding by experience that an absolute power united in one person, is more eminent and of greater effect.

This screencap mentions a particular criticism of the indivisibility of Sovereignty and Jean Bodin, that I felt prompt to address, and how it is related to my commotion w/ right libertarians about centralization. >But Bodin's account of sovereignty was also the source of much confusion, since he was primarily responsible for introducing the seductive but erroneous notion that sovereignty is indivisible. It is true, of course, that every legal system, by its very definition as an authoritative method of resolving conflicts, must rest upon an ultimate legal norm or rule of recognition, which is the guarantee of unity. Which the constitutionalists take issue with. >But when Bodin spoke about the unity of sovereignty, the power that he had in mind was not the constituent authority of the general community or the ultimate coordinating rule that the community had come to recognise This is exactly what Hobbes criticized, and w/ constitutionalism it rolls back to Aristotle. It's why absolute monarchists in particular make a gripe w/ Aristotle: in general, it returns to our notion that the political and economical are no different: the true image of the commonwealth is the household or family well ordered. What constitutionalism denies in the indivisibility of sovereignty is the unilateral authority of a household: for what reason, Aristotle says, that a monarchy is proper for an economical unit or household rule, but not for constitutional rule of freemen and equals (democracy or oligarchy) -- which he ascribed to the political state. >He advanced, in other words, a theory of ruler sovereignty. His celebrated principle that sovereignty is indivisible thus meant that the high powers of government could not be shared by separate agents or distributed among them, but that all of them had to be entirely concentrated in a single individual or group. Yet we hold unity, not the mutual concord of freemen, to be the basis for the constitution. Sovereignty is the foundation. Thomas Hobbes aptly states. >The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth >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. It might be said, that to defend this doctrine in the year 2023 is unpalatable: yet it has a feature in some constitutions and Rousseau also seemed to concede it. Quote by Rousseau. >Whenever Sovereignty seems to be divided, there is an illusion: the rights of which are taken as being part of Sovereignty are really all subordinate, and always imply supreme wills of which they only sanction the execution.

Aristotle: >The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: >whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. This is critical, esp. b/c Aristotle diverges the household as a model from the state. Jean Bodin: >And the ancients (to assure Popular estates) did strive to equal all citizens in goods, honours, power, and rewards: and if any one were more virtuous, more just, or more wise, than the rest, he was banished, as I have showed before, seeking to make an equality, if it were possible: and even Plato did wish, That wives and children should be common to all, to the end that no many might say, This is mine, or, That is thine: for those words of Meum, and Tuum (said he) were the breeders of disc0rd, and the ruin of states. >By the which there will grow many absurdities: for in so doing, a city shall be ruined, and become a household (as Aristotle said) although that a household or family (which is the true image of a Commonweal) has but one head. Bodin notes here, that Aristotle sees the ruin of the State to be ordered like a Monarchy or Household: albeit some constitutionalists will try to think otherwise, this is fundamentally why I believe right libertarians are at odds with absolute monarchy as an ideal. They hold fast to Aristotle's notion. And that's why they say centralization and say all these things about us absolute monarchists. Jean Bodin somewhat criticizes Plato and Aristotle both. >And for this cause, an ancient lawmaker, being importuned by some one, to make his country a Popular estate: Make it (says he) in thine own house. And if they say, That it is a goodly thing so to unite citizens and a city, as to make one household of it, they must then take away the plurality of heads and commanders, which are in a Popular estate, to make a Monarch, as the true fathers of a family; and to cut off this equality of goods, power, honour, and commandment, which they seek to make in a Popular estate; for that it is incompatible in a family. It is a little confusing how this is unraveled, but here the case is indeed the State made like a household becomes a monarchy.

Robert Filmer aptly sums this up this doctrine. Robert Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different >Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found. >Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular. How does this doctrine make sense? that the political state or city is like a household? Anons, consider this. A household has a vast array of servants and rooms. There are many rooms for many purposes. As a city has many services and buildings. And buildings for different purposes. Household / Economic: A room for the master's children to be educated with teachers A kitchen for the cooks to provide food A room for laundry A room for books. The City / Political: It has schools / universities for people to be educated It has a restaurant for people to eat and be served by food workers. It has laundromats for people to clean their clothes It has libraries for their public books. Public services where the people can be masters with public servants

Jean Bodin also calls out those who would prefer an oligarchy to democracy or monarchy, on account of its moderation between the two. >Yet those who have come from his school approve more highly the rule of the optimates, which lies halfway between a democracy and a monarchy. They err, however, in this respect, that they seem to place virtue in the average thing or number, not in the mean proportional. Indeed, if this is true no prince will ever be good, nor will any oligarchy be quarrelsome, because between one and many they place the mean of a few, like the mean of virtue. Yet if there is any excellence in numbers, I suppose that unity is most to be praised of all, as Plato himself most divinely wrote, in the book about entity and unity.

Cesare Cuttica (from History of Absolutism): >Moresoever, the king was considered as 'lex animata' -- the breath which regulated the legislative life of the kingdom, and without whose intervention the body politic could not survive. Thus, potestas absoluta corresponded to various functions the monarch possessed: suspending, pardoning, mitigating, and facing unforeseen circumstances. It was a form of 'discretionary power' which shaped the concept of royal prerogative... Although it is often claimed that the degree of absoluteness of a king's power expended on the extent to which the law of nature was thought to legislate, this does not mean that he was held to be limited. In fact, absolutists of that kind described here, regarded monarchs as capable of restricting the domain of political life that the law of nature could regulate. Consequently, not only the laws, but also customs were were the outcome of the supreme decision of the lex loquens king, who was depicted as the creator of the nation's ethos... Another historical trait of absolutism was the tension between the personalization of kingship -- whereby the sovereign was depicted as the individual who was superior because of his qualities and, therefore, one who had to be obeyed and adored; and the process of abstraction of kingship where he was associated with the purity of and public presence of the State. (Keohane, 1980) Thomas Hobbes: Civil Sovereign is the Head, Source, Root, & Sun >The Civil Sovereign in every Common-wealth, is the Head, the Source, the Root, and the Sun, from which all Jurisdiction is derived. And therefore, the Jurisdiction of Bishops, is derived from the Civil Sovereign. Thomas Hobbes: Sovereign Power, Generalissimo >For the power by which the people are to be defended consists in their armies, and the strength of an army in the union of their strength under one command; which command the sovereign instituted, therefore has, because the command of the militia, without other institution, makes him that has it sovereign. And therefore, whosoever is made general of an army, he that has the sovereign power is always generalissimo.

Jean Bodin: >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 in Leviathan: <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. ᴉuᴉlossnW: >For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.

The e-monarchist community to me is like a gordian knot. I have come so far, yet still have so much more to learn. … Thomas Hobbes has well convinced me that Aristotle is ground zero >To conclude there is nothing so absurd, that the old Philosophers (as Cicero saith, who was one of them) have not some of them maintained. And I beleeve that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said in naturall Philosophy, than that which now is called Aristotles Metaphysiques, nor more repugnant to Government, than much of that hee hath said in his Politiques; nor more ignorantly, than a great part of his Ethiques. My conversations, esp. w/ right libertarians and in particular constitutional monarchists, has convinced me Hobbes singling out Aristotle was justified and valid. & not only Hobbes, but many other absolute monarchists. Not Polybius, but Aristotle, Hobbes also convinced me, is for the most part at the root for our problems w/ constitutional monarchy and mixed states. Now that I'm aware of this, it almost seems too easy to point out the problem w/ constitutional monarchists… but I'm still cautious for all that and think there's still more to deal with. … That Aristotle says monarchy is proper for an economic estate, but not the political estate: that alone seems enough to explain the problem w/ constitutionalism… but I'm not sure how I'd put my finger on, there's still more to unravel there.

This view of a sovereign monarchy and majesty isn't diminished because there are assemblies or parliaments – Jean Bodin: >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 the greater, & the more honorable, seeing all his people to acknowledge him for their sovereign; albeit that in such assemblies, princes not willing to reject their subjects, grant, and pass many things, whereunto they would not otherwise yield their consent, if they were not overcome by the requests, prayers, and just grievances of the people, afflicted and vexed oftentimes without the knowledge of the prince, who yields many things unto them all, which he would deny unto them in particular; or at leastwise not so easily grant them: either for that the voices of every one in particular, are less heard, than of all together: or for that the prince at other times commonly uses to see but by other mens eyes and to hear but by other mens ears and reports: whereas in parliament he sees and hears his people himself, and so enforced with shame, and fear of religion, or his own good disposition, admits their just requests. >And in that the greatness and majesty of a true sovereign prince, is to be known; when the estates of all the people assembled together, in all humility present their requests and supplications to their prince, without having any power in any thing to command or determine, or to give voice, but that that which it pleases the King to like or dislike of, to command or forbid, is held for law, for an edict and ordinance. Wherein they which have written of the duty of magistrates, & others such like books, have deceived themselves, in maintaining that the power of the people is greater than the prince; a thing which oft times causes the true subjects to revolt from the obedience which they owe unto their sovereign prince, & ministers matter of great troubles in Commonwealths. >And yet for all that the just Monarchy, hath not any more assured foundation or stay, than the Estates of the people, Communities, Corporations, and Colleges: For if need be for the king to levy money, to raise forces, to maintain the Estate against the enemy, it cannot be better done, than by the estates of the people, and of every Province, Town, and Community. For where can things for the curing of the diseases of sick Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just reforming of the Estate, be better debated and handled, than before the Prince in his Senate before the people? There they confer of the affairs concerning the whole body of the Commonwealth, and of the members thereof; there are heard and understood the just complaints and grievances of the poor subjects, which never otherwise come unto the prince's ears; there are discovered and laid open the robberies and extortions committed in the Prince's name; whereof he knoweth nothing, there the requests of all degrees of men are heard. Besides that, it is almost a thing incredible to say, how much the subjects are eased, and how well they are also pleased, to see their king to sit as chief in the assembly of the estates, and to hear him discouring; how every man desirabeth to be seen of him, and if it please him to hear their complaints, and to receive their requests, albeit that they be often times denied the same; yet O how it pleaseth them to have had access unto their Prince…[Although] Our Kings do not so often call together the assemblies of their estates, as do the kings of England. Yet we also don't subscribe to the mixed constitution and Aristotle and constitutionalism for all this. As absolute monarchists, we reject this and maintain the pre-eminence of monarchy.

So even most absolute monarchists had a place for parliament / senate / assembly in monarchy: contrary to popular belief, that absolute monarchy is a business of lordly monarchy vs parliamentary monarchy only -- only that the monarch should have majesty. We do resist Aristotle's notion of constitutionalism: that puts monarchy as inappropriate to rule the political estate, and sets monarchy aside at best as one among equals. As well as the mixed constitution. On behalf of our notions of monarchical pre-eminence, majesty, and sovereignty, this view is rejected. Thomas Hobbes approved of it and had a place for parliaments / assemblies / council like Jean Bodin: >A Court of Counsellors is rather to be compared with the head, or one Counsellor, whose only Counsell (if of any one alone) the chief Ruler makes use of in matters of greatest moment: for the office of the head is to counsell, as the soules is to command. >It is therefore necessary to the defense of the City, First, that there be some who may as near as may be, search into, and discover the counsels and motions of all those who may prejudice it. For discoverers to Ministers of State, are like the beams of the Sun to the humane soul, and we may more truly say in vision political, than natural, that the sensible, and intelligible Species of outward things, not well considered by others, are by the air transported to the soul, (that is to say to them who have the Supreme Authority) and therefore are they no less necessary to the preservation of the State, than the rays of the light are to the conservation of man; or if they be compared to Spiders webs, which extended on all sides by the finest threads, do warn them, keeping in their small holds, of all outward motions; They who bear Rule can no more know what is necessary to be commanded for the defense of their Subjects without Spies, than those Spiders can when they shall go forth, and whether they shall repair, without the motion of those threads. 1st quote, Hobbes compares a council and court (which could also be parliament) to a head -- to give counsel and be a web of information for all the estates in a commonwealth. 2nd quote, Hobbes approves of council and intelligence agencies and there is much more to support any institutions of parliament and assemblies under a sovereign monarchy, again, contrary to popular belief and opinions -- absolute monarchy does not deny it or suggest monarchy be without this institution. But rather, it is all a case for the pre-eminence of monarchy as supreme and sovereign person in politics.

And yet absolute monarchists do reject certain constitutionalist doctrines. <Jean Bodin: The Analogy of Three Cities with Different Forms of Commonwealth (or State) Mixing together: The Three Forms of State are of Contrary Natures: >"So as if the mixture of things of diverse and contrary natures, arises a third all together differing form the things so together mixed. But that State which is made of the mixture of the three kinds of Commonweales differs in deed nothing from a mean popular State (democracy); For if three cites, whereof one of them is governed by a King, and so a Monarchy (One); the second by an Optimacy, and so an Oligarchy (Few); the third by the People, and so a Democracy (Many); should be confounded, and so thrust together into one and the same form of a Commonweale (State), and so the chief power and Sovereignty communicated unto all; who is there that can doubt but that that State shall be altogether a State popular (Democracy)? except the Sovereignty should by turns be given; first to the King, then to the Nobility, and afterwards to the People; As in the vacancy of the Roman Kingdom, the King being dead, the Senators ruled by turns: yet must they need again fall unto one of these three kinds of a Commonweale which we have spoken of: neither could this alternative manner of government be of any long continuance, either yet more profitable to the Commonwealth, then as if in an evil governed family, the wife should first command the husband; then the children them both; and the servants after them to domineer over all." <Jean Bodin: Mixed Constitutonalism. An Opinion Not Only Absurd... but Treasonable >"There are those who say, and have published in writing, that the constituton of France is a mixture of the three pure types, the Parlement representing Oligarchy (few), the Estates-General representing Democracy (many), and the King representing Monarchy (one). 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 Monarch." >For otherwise if the King should be subject unto the assemblies and decrees of the People, he should neither be King nor Sovereign; and the Commonwealth not a Monarchical State, but a mere Oligarchy of many Lords in power equal, where the greater part commands the less in general, and every one in particular: and wherein the edicts and laws are not to be published in the name of him that rules, but in the name and authority of the states, as in an Aristocratical Seignorie, where he that is chief has no power, but owes obedience unto the commandments of the seignorie: unto whom they all and every one of them feign themselves to owe their faith and obedience: which are all things so absurd, as hard it is to say which is furthest from reason. SO when Charles the Eight, the French king, [being but so young], held a parliament at Tours, although the power of the parliament was never before so great as in those times, yet Relli, then speaker for the people, turning himself unto the King, thus begins his oration, which is yet in print. Most high, most mighty, and most Christian King, our natural and onely Lord, we your humble and obedient subjects, &c. Which are come hither by your command, in all HUMILITY, REVERENCE, and SUBJECTION present ourselves before you, &c. And have given me in charge from all this noble assembly, to declare unto you the good will and hartie desire they have with a most firm resolution and purpose to SERVE, OBEY, and AID you in all your affairs, commandments, and pleasures. In brief, all that his oration and speech is nothing else but a declaration of all their good wills towards the King, and of their humble obedience and loyalty.

<Lacedemonians and cities of Gauls - Oligarchy >"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines... And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty." Jean Bodin: >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 in Leviathan: <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. Mussolini: >For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative. So the estates-general is limited, the state and sovereign power indivisible and a united being, contrary to Aristotle -- the State is modeled after a household, the true image of the commonwealth, united under one head: to which Fascism also opposed constitutionalism and Aristotle, in opposing multi-party democracy to have a one-party state, again bringing us back to the model of a household under one head (which Aristotle deemed inappropriate for political rule, but rather economic -- putting monarchy to the sideline -- in returning to Plato's doctrine, that the household and state function no differently, political & economical, and appropriating it to further our notion of monarchical pre-eminence and majesty an sovereignty.

Jean Bodin Six Books of Commonwealth: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A16275.0001.001?c=eebo;c=eebo2;g=eebogroup;rgn=main;view=fulltext;xc=1

Political Works & Speeches of King James VI & I: https://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01294377&id=nl8NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false

Leviathan: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm Elements of Law: http://public-library.uk/ebooks/31/91.pdf De Cive: http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/27/57.pdf Dialogue & Behemoth: https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hobbes-the-english-works-vol-vi-dialogue-behemoth-rhetoric

Dante De Monarchia http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2196/Dante_1477.pdf Dante Political Letters (That's Epistles V, VI, & VII) http://www.danteonline.it/english/opere.asp?idope=7&idlang=UK Aquinas De Regno https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Logic/Logic%20Course%20Material/Aquinas%20Texts/Aquinas%20(Newer%20PDFs)/De%20Regno%20ENGLISH.pdf

This right here are all the top-tier monarchist reads. Homer's monarchist maxim, brief but also highly important.

Absolute monarchists speak in terms of the Herodotus Debate. Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy. 3 simple forms of State. Bodin traces it back to Herodotus. >All the ancients agree that there are at least three types of commonwealth. Some have added a fourth composed of a mixture of the other three. Plato added a fourth type, or rule of the wise. But this, properly speaking, is only the purest form that aristocracy can take. He did not accept a mixed state as a fourth type. Aristotle accepted both Plato's fourth type and the mixed state, making five in all. Polybius distinguished seven, three good, three bad, and one composed of a mixture of the three good. Dionysius Halicarnassus only admitted four, the three pure types, and a mixture of them. Cicero, and following his example, Sir Thomas More in his Commonwealth, Contarini, Machiavelli, and many others have held the same opinion. This view has the dignity of antiquity. It was not new when propounded by Polybius, who is generally credited with its invention, nor by Aristotle. It goes back four hundred years earlier to Herodotus. He said that many thought that the mixed was the best type, but for his part he thought there were only three types, and all others were imperfect forms. I should have been convinced by the authority of such great names, but that reason and common sense compels me to hold the opposing view. One must show then not only why these views are erroneous but why the arguments and examples they rely on do not really prove their point… As you can see, Jean Bodin isn't taking the traditional point of view: for the longest time preceding him, many believed in the mixed constitution… it had the dignity of antiquity and the Aristotelian influence (whom I believe Hobbes and myself credit with the idea of the mixed constitution most). We're a bit heterodox in this regard. Traditionalists are not only partial to mixed constitutionalism due to this, but also tend to not stress three forms of State. They tend to stress Aristocracy vs Tyranny. Good government and bad government. Not so much whether it is a monarchy or oligarchy or democracy – but to Bodin these are accidental qualities and for his part Bodin doesn't define the state by virtue – a tyrannical monarch has a monarchy nonetheless – but he does make room for a royal monarchy, a lordly monarchy, and a tyrannical monarchy… the difference is the stress is moreso on monarchy itself. That's a big difference you'll easily find between myself and traditionalists: they tend to be more vague and identify with aristocracy (not as oligarchy or rule of the few, but as rule of the best). Whereas we in particular are very insistent upon there being one ruler… they want any number of kings really. I'm convinced the whole "monarchism" thing as a political ideology is mostly thanks to absolute monarchists – we brought back and stressed monarchy in terms of Herodotus and being a simple form of state where one rules with majesty – otherwise it's aristocracy or mixed constitutionalism being stressed more than monarchy itself imo.

Jean Bodin explains himself here: >There can be no fourth, and indeed none can be conceived, for virtue and viciousness do not create a type of rule. Whether the prince is unjust or worthy, nevertheless the state is still a monarchy. The same thing must be said about oligarchy and the rule of the people, who, while they have no powers but the creation of magistrates, still have the sovereignty, and on them the form of government necessarily depends. We shall then call the form one of optimates, or else popular (let us use these words in order that we may not rather often be forced to use the names aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, ocholocracy, according to the type of virtue or vice). And again in Six Books of a Commonwealth: >Thereby to judge what the estate is – as if the Sovereignty consist in one only prince, we call it a Monarchy; but if all the people be therein interested, we call it a Democracy, or Popular estate: So if but some part of the people have the Sovereign command, we account that state to be an Aristocracy [or Oligarchy]. >Which words we will use, to avoid the obscurity and confusion which might otherwise arise, by the variety of governors good or bad: which has given occasion unto many, to make more sorts of Commonwealths than three. But if that opinion should take place, and that we should by the foot of virtues and vices, measure the estate of Commonwealths, we should find a world of them, and them in number infinite. >Now it is most certain, that to attain unto the true definitions and resolutions of all things, we must not rest upon the external accidents which are innumerable, but rather upon the essential and formal differences: for otherwise a man might fall into an infinite and inextricable labyrinth, whereof no knowledge is to be had, or certain precept to be given. For so a man should forge and fashion an infinite number of Commonwealths, not only according to the diversity of virtues and vices; but even according to the variety of things indifferent also. As if a Monarch were to be chosen for his strength, or for his beauty, for his stature, or for his nobility, or riches, which are all things indifferent; or for his martial disposition, or for that he is more given to peace, for his gravity, or for his justice, for his beauty, or for his wisdom, for his sobriety, or his humility, for his simplicity, or his chastity; and so for all other qualities, a man should so make an infinity of Monarchies: and in like sort in the Aristocratic state, if some few of many should have the sovereignty above the rest, such as excelled others in riches, nobility, wisdom, justice, martial prowess, or other like virtues, or vices, or things indifferent, there should thereof arise infinite forms of Commonwealths; >A thing most absurd, and so by consequent the opinion whereof such an absurdity arises, is to be rejected. Seeing therefore that the accidental quality changes not the nature of things: let us say there are but three estates or sorts of Commonwealths; namely, a Monarchy, an Aristocracy, and a Democracy. So we stress as Bodin calls it, the essential and formal differences.

Whether the father is of good or bad quality – yet the father remains a father and ought to be respected by virtue of that. And for majesty or pre-eminence, it's not how many pushups or meritocracy, but the most superlatively power nobody can help to compare to – it's what Aristotle called being like a god among men or a lion to hares – much greater than simply the best man imo, but something extraordinarily grand – for that reason Hobbes makes Leviathan to be the grand total of all the People united in One Person, so that monarch has pre-eminence extraordinary and without comparison in power which is the true mark of majesty or pre-eminence in monarchy, not meritocracy so much imo since no matter how many pushups you do it would never match that great power in potential, which is on par with the power of the people – that's why Louis XIV uses the motto Nec Pluribus Impar, not unequal to many – but let's get back to the topic– Jean Bodin: >Whereas No cause (as saith Cicero) can be thought just or sufficient for vs to take up arms against our country… then much less is it lawful to take up arms against a Sovereign Prince. I cannot use a better example, than of the duty of a son towards his father: the law of God says, That he which speaks evil of his father or mother, shall be put to death. Now if the father shall be a thief, a murderer, a traitor to his country, as an incestuous person, a manqueller, a blasphemer, an atheist, or what so you will else; I confess that all the punishments that can bee devised are not sufficient to punish him: yet I say, it is not for the son to put his hand thereunto, Quia nulla tanta impiet as, nullum tantum scelus est, quod sit parricidio vindicandum. For that (as saith an ancient Orator) no impiety can be so great, no offense so heinous, as to be revenged with the killing of ones father. Jean Bodin / An infinite labyrinth of errors >But here happily some man will say, that none but myself is of this opinion, and that not one of the ancient and much less of the modern writers which intreat of matters of State or Commonwealths, have once touched this point. True it is that I cannot deny the same; yet this distinction nevertheless seems unto me more than necessary, for the good understanding of the state of every commonweal; if a man will not cast himself head long into an infinite labyrinth of errors, where into we see Aristotle himself to have fallen: mistaking the popular Commonwealth for the Aristocratic: and so contrarywise, contrary to the common received opinion, yea and contrary to common sense also: For these principles evil grounded, nothing that is firm and sure can possibly be thereon built. From this error likewise is sprung the opinion of them which have forged a form of a Commonwealth mingled of all three, which we have for good reasons before rejected.

I dislike how rightwingers these days consider the state or political to be dirty or pee-pee poo-poo. They paint an ignoble picture. The ancaps / hoppeans and ultramontanists I've talked with take the idea that State is like the individual and how a good man and good citizen aren't always the same – they've taken it and run with it, but they also forget other passages. The ancaps in particular I think use that mentality to support their view of the Natural Order (ancap elites) without a state. Yet Aristotle and Cicero paint a different picture: Aristotle / The State or Political Community Aims at the Highest Good >But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good. "So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero "For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero "Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero "But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero "Plato himself is for a Divine Power assisting in Human Politics… 'tis a remarkable passage that of his in his Meno. "We may as properly call Governors, or States-men, Divine, as we call those who give out the Oracles, or Prophets or Poets by that name; and we may affirm, that they have a Divine Illumination, and are possessed by the Deity, when they consult for the good of the commonwealth" –William Nichols

I'm aware Evola also made the reverse critique from Guenon, too. Yet I also find Evola disagreeable and Evola likewise criticized us (so I feel justified). I've never liked the NRx / traditionalist crowd hovering around Spengler, Guenon, and Evola – they have a certain air to them and apathy I find disagreeable when it comes to monarchy and my own ideals. I put my foot down too b/c I certainly don't agree w/ Guenon that we should return to the Thomas Becket era where the kings lacked majesty or pre-eminence and where the political estate was overlooked in the doctrine of the two swords…I def for sure don't want that same apathy toward the majesty of monarchy. I'd rather agree w/ Hobbes that back then there was the same apathy when the political order meant so much more, – that I cannot help agree with the Fascists on this one. As all the philosophers too found the political order noteworthy whether it was Plato's Republic or Statesman or Aristotle's Politics. All in all there's a reason why I'm a monarchist and not a theocrat alone – part of it is I highly value the political as an ideal and unity -- the other is I feel a stronger bond with monarchy would lead to integrity and inspire virtue, as the political forms of state do come with certain virtues like Aristotle himself confesses. I've had traditionalists come up to me and say it doesn't fundamentally whether it's a monarchy or not, but the system of values – which I disagree with again. The way contemporary rightwingers talk about morality independent of the policy and structure of society is asinine to me – different structures reflect different values, what makes a good monarchy is different from a good democracy and so on, the same way we don't talk about moral order irrespective as if it didn't matter whether parents or their children had the integrity of the family. Again, the apathy of traditionalists toward policy I find to be part of their own downfall if I had to criticize them. It's their own neglect of making this dichotomy of the secular and spiritual and deeming the political order not an ideal worthy of pursuit that pushed them off the rest of society and made the radical shift toward secularism inevitable – because the political order accounts for everything in society, the priest caste and warrior caste, the maintenance of justice and order overall. And it's the monarch's part, not as a warrior or priest, but as the head of a household (that's the idea of monarchy in my mind)… monarchy appeals to me precisely because it's unique, not because it's part of a clique (which I say to the caste mentality) – the monarch is an individual power who gives us an indivisible sovereign power and has majesty, not only that it's a hierarchy (rule by priests) or a stratocracy (military government) – the ideal of monarchy and majesty is a strength insurmountable and not one clique against the other clique – this misunderstands majesty.

Evola dismisses absolute monarchy and in particular Thomas Hobbes to be atheist and uninspired. Albeit without consideration of Jean Bodin and others. Between Evola and Guenon – there are typically those stressing warrior caste or priest caste. Say what you will about Hobbes and how Leviathan is Enlightenment-tier – I'm convinced Hobbes had the right idea about Sword and Crosier – direct and indirect power – Hobbes understood the problem and redressed it by uniting them both under one person, a very monarchist conviction. There's a reason why totalitarian / authoritarian societies (whatever you call it) lead by political minds seem more successful overall in impacting a change than the pockets of traditionalists and churches in Western democracies. –They've never been able to overcome that chasm set by their distinction of the secular and spiritual and realized in the Enlightenment. Whereas the totalitarian and authoritarian and politicized regimes are very successful in impacting – they not only change the values, but deal with society at large, something the traditionalists have never fully committed to doing because they deemed it merely a secularism. They've revitalized the political and re-organized society accordingly, they've been successfully instilling order in the modern world and realized social integrity in ways traditionalists frankly cannot (albeit they would slander these regimes). The basic conservative redpill with morality is sorta half-realized because of this. They see society and social disunity and come to this, but they haven't come to appreciate the craft of social unity in politics which takes into consideration all of it from the family and overall state under which warriors and priests are brought up. You find this problem with Catholicism – that you have clashes with the Vatican, because the priesthood is raised under the state – inevitably it creeps into the Church because the priests themselves are born and reared this way – you find it with low church and Protestants that they clash with the World or society (which to them is like a big public school) that even their children will be influenced no matter how much they try to shelter them. It's all because the political dominion matters a hecka lot and the structure of society inspires virtues for people to follow. If we don't focus on the political as a high pursuit, so much is abandoned and fall shorts no matter how much they put consideration in morality and the religion – you need heroes and a structural integrity the political encompasses. This is why I personally think Evola was in the wrong in criticizing Fascism – and why ᴉuᴉlossnW and Giovanni Gentile had the right idea. Giovanni Gentile: >A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit Mussolini: >The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. >Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values. That's why I don't call myself a traditionalist (apart from being associated with other doctrines). Being an absolute monarchist is a little heterodox and we tend to be black sheepish at times – to assert one person as supreme it's almost a necessity. Otherwise we would settle for the mixed state and all the other ideas that were considered traditional and the norm, but this order lacked certain notions of monarchy we sought to establish.

In a way, I kinda lament the ascendance of traditionalists and esotericism in rightwing circles (particularly Fascism) b/c they replace and take the spotlight over such valid opinions concerning politics. I feel the same way for Monarchy. It's taken for granted that what denomination you are will inevitably lead to what politics you hold in e-monarchist circles a lot. And while Hobbes acknowledged this in the Presbyterians trying to establish a democracy in England with the Puritans – I'd also note there are some inconsistencies that it's not always a solid deal. It might make sense for England when they were united, but sometimes it's also an inconvenience when they're separated and yet mirror each other – it evolves into a Cain and Abel or Romulus and Remus scenario. Many right libertarians, for example, also tend to be Catholic and yet Cromwell also established a dictatorship and was close to having his own dynasty. I'm not of the opinion that if we shill Catholicism then a monarchical state will inevitably follow – we might get a traditional monarchical state with all the regalia, but I don't take it for granted as there are many Catholic countries that also aren't monarchies. But that's my criticism of e-monarchist business: way too much focus on what denomination rather than simply the political idea of Monarchy: it wasn't like that in the Herodotus Debate, for example. It's also crucial to me to stress Monarchy as a political form of state just as much, but many e-monarchists dawdle around it. A big difference between us is they consider the Middle Ages as the quintessential time of monarchy and no improvements could've been made… but I clearly think otherwise given what I said about the Thomas Becket era. I tend to think of the crown and regalia more like the paint that comes with monarchy and the culture, but not necessarily the paint makes monarchy: for instance, some monarchies don't wear crowns or the ones that do only wear the crown very briefly and for the rest you're left with their person. As far as I'm concerned, a secular dictatorship even could potentially become a monarchy and that's why I tend to pay attention to a lot of unusual regimes for a monarchist to pay attention to. The only thing about such dictatorships is they typically keep the pretense of democracy and this might be that ah-hah moment for traditionalists to slam dunk me – but even those cases could still potentially be a monarchy like the Pahlavi dynasty. I guess a big difference is I'm of the opinion monarchy can happen in the modern world, just that it would simply look different and have another coat of paint. – this is mostly true even for traditional royalty as we all know they now wear suits and ties like the rest of the statesmen. For myself I don't really go into the dichotomy of the traditional vs the modern or the middle ages vs the modern era – monarchy for me is a universal form of state applied to all times and ages, so long as there are states there is a potential for monarchy in my mind to adopt the state. I overlook a lot of the dichotomies set before our eyes.

For them, they tend to bawl their eyes and bite their lips at Philip the Fair persecuting the Templars and Henry VIII's dissolution of monasteries. While I on the other hand, bawl my eyes the Road to Canossa and Thomas Becket affair (particularly for the King) and the Constantine Donation or Childeric III being deposed and tonsured or disdain for other kings being desposed and sent to nunneries. With Guénon and Evola, I'm not typically invested in returning to an Aryan Indian caste system or a class of cliques between warrior and priestly caste. Like I said, my idea of monarchy isn't warrior or priest per say, but the structure of a household which lays the foundation for the structure of policy: I like the king as the supreme head and father of the people and the idea of the household places emphasis on governance and ruling – the reason why BAP (who focuses on the warrior caste or general kings) or the priestly caste is partially to do with that idea. The head of a household could include a multitude of professions all under one. Their idea of Aryan Indian caste skips over the other Western canon called politics (which, like a household, could include both professions). I've been called Caesaropapist before, but it's also true the Caesars and Augustus also had the religious office of Pontifex maximus and Bodin acknowledged the power of priests and the clergy and how monarchs adapted it to make their power greater… and I recall other Roman statesmen too sometimes joined between religious offices. Guénon seems to pin it all on Philip the Fair allegedly. When Bodin lists all the offices constituting a commonwealth and ranking them, he well ranks the clergy high – but it wasn't so much that they weren't also involved in the commonwealth or without political consideration. Bodin lists the monarch first and then follows the clergy in terms of the offices of a commonwealth and rank – I'm of the opinion this is a good tihng. Like I've said numerous times before… I'm not into monarchy because I like cliques – if I did, I would be an oligarchist. The purpose of there being a monarch imo is not to establish a clique priestly or warrior, but to have an individual person establish harmony between the cliques. As Bodin appeals to harmony as the virtue of a monarchical state. The stress isn't that we need a warrior king or a priest king, but one king – we need one, let there be one ruler.

Indeed, the household is the model and unit of all values: under its composition, we have all the variety of professions. The political or city has the constitution of all houses itself: for this reason I believe Mussolini says Fascism is totalitarian, apart from its immanentism and its concept of life, the Fascist ideal is the State realized. People are "made aware of their moral unity" in this ideal of Fascism and the Fascist State. In that sense, the Fascist State makes the people.

These two videos btw Illustrate the problem I mean >>6817 here W/ the Christian Right and Traditionalists rambling about secular affairs and secularism. They consider politics pee-pee poo poo like RedeemedZoomer says. And also disregard the political order, which accounts for the moral integrity of society and our well being as people. When they complain about the secular, they really aren't offering us much in return or any solutions: in order to redress our social order, it will require a look into political affairs -- yet for all that, they refuse to. The secular in original terms originating with the rest of society and all the mundane professions as they called it (even the cream of the top leaders who we all read about as legends and heroes and men of virtue, indeed, are mundane and merely a secularism in this view) with exception of the clergy. Which cannot be done, seeing how the secular order runs pretty much everything and consists of the entire laity. That we cannot have a society of clergymen and churches only as buildings (although traditionalists would like to pretend to build entire towns of only churches for A e s t h e t i c s).

They call me a monarcho-nihilist, though, for allowing such strident personal loyalty to a person of hereditary birth, I suspect, and not overthrowing them on the pretense of meritocracy or finding someone of virtue... but again, I have to agree with Jean Bodin that we can find men of numerous virtues and would overthrow people constantly. Hereditary royal birth is a structure I believe inspires virtue and thereby integrity: following the model of a family and transfer of blood and father-to-son government. Then because I stress a kind of cult of personality or heroism or avatarism of the Monarch: I suppose, I have to answer for being a monarchist and not a strict theocrat: for stressing worldly kings and not deities strictly instead, and building a social order around this monarchy. Yet I believe a cult of personality and heroism and avatars will inspire people nonetheless. It might be, like fascists are to integralists, the fascists stress the primacy of the state, and the integralists the church. They say that the state and politics is materialistic. As though as I mentioned before, it wasn't something worthy of pursuit or as Cicero says, a very noble deed to aspire to serve your country. I guess I live in my own world and mythology, that nobody understands what calling I find here. When they say, to abandon the political and aspire for higher ideals: I say, that this is an ideal worthy of pursuit for all I've said.

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. >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 But even though Aristotle said this, Aristotle in a way initiated this trend to monarchical pre-eminence, that others would safeguard in response to him (& that's why I think Hobbes made sure to call his Leviathan a mortal god under the immortal god, to safeguard against Aristotle and secure monarchical pre-eminence). Bodin went on to say. >Just as Almighty God cannot create another God equal with himself, since He is infinite and two infinities cannot co-exist, so the Sovereign Prince, who is the image of God, cannot make a subject equal with himself without self-destruction The republican John Milton complained about it in his work The Readie & Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth. <Whereas a king must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughty court about him, of vast expence and luxury, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female In the song Publions en tous lieux: >Barely can we suffice >With all our voices Louis XIV the Sun King had the motto: Nec Pluribus Impar (Not unequal to many). As there is a maxim that the king is worth a thousand men in power.

Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: >This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence. >Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man, (whose Pride and other Passions have compelled him to submit himselfe to Government;) together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; >Where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, called him King of the Proud. “There is nothing,” saith he, “on earth, to be compared with him. He is made so as not be afraid. Hee seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride.” But because he is mortall, and subject to decay, as all other Earthly creatures are; and because there is that in heaven, (though not on earth) that he should stand in fear of, and whose Lawes he ought to obey; >There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24 Jean Bodin / The citizens in particular & the people in general >It is one thing to bind all together, and to bind every one in particular: for so all the citizens particularly swore to the observation of the laws, but not all together for that every one of them in particular was bound unto the power of them all in general. But an oath could not be given by them all: for why, the people in general is a certain universal body, in power and nature divided from every man in particular. Then again to say truly, an oath cannot be made but by a lesser to the greater, but in a popular estate nothing can be greater than the whole body of the people themselves. >But in a monarchy it is otherwise, where every one in particular, and all the people in general, and (as it were) in one body, must swear to the observation of the laws, and their faithful allegiance to one sovereign monarch; who next unto God (of whom he holds his scepter & power) is bound to no man. For an oath carries always with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour.

>For an oath carries always with it reverence unto whom, or in whose name it is made, as still given unto a superiour. Indeed, the Monarch in Sovereign Monarchy is hailed as a superior. Superior to thousands, superior to myriads people. If not on par with their power (Leviathan). The Monarch is a superior and given the style of Majesty.

Bossuet in Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture adds. >God, moreover, has put something divine into kings. "I have said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the most High." It is God himself whom David makes speak in this way. >Even if the king should be an infidel [does this hold true], from the respect one should have for the ordination of God. "By health of the pharaoh, you shall not depart hence." >Hence one must listen to the first Christians, and to Tertullian, who speaks as follows in the name of all of them: "We shall swear, not by the genius of the Caesars, but by their health, which is the most august of all geniuses. Do you not know that geniuses are demons? But we, who see in the emperors the choice and judgment of God, who gave them command over all peoples, respect in them what God has placed there, and we uphold that through a great oath." >Thus it is the spirit of Christianity to make kings respected in a kind of religious way–which Tertullian (again) calls very well "the religion of the second majesty". >This second majesty simply flows out of the first, that is to say the divine, which, for the good of human affairs, has sent some of its brilliance to kings. >Kings must tremble, then, in using the power that God gives them, and consider how horrible is the sacrilege of using for evil a power that comes from God. >Let them respect their power, then, because it is not their power, but the power of God, which must be used in a holy and religious way. St. Gregory of Nazianze spoke thus to the emperors: "Respect the purple; recognize the great mystery of God in yours persons: He governs by himself the celestial things. He divides those of the earth with you. Be gods, then, to your subjects." That is to say, govern them as God governs, in a way that is noble, disinterested, beneficent–in a word divine. Bossuet later adds. >An undefinable element of divinity is possessed by the prince, and inspires fear in his subjects. The king himself would do well to remember this. "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." I have said: you are gods; this signifies that you possess in your authority, you bear on your forehead, the stamp of the divine. You are the children of the most HIgh; it is he who has established your power for the good of the human race. But, O gods of flesh and blood, of mud and dust, you will die like other men, you will fall like the greatest. Greatness divides men for a little while; a common fall levels them all in the end… O kings, be bold therefore in the exercise of your power: for it is divine and beneficial to the human race; but wield it with humility. It is conferred on you from without. In the end it leaves you weak. It leaves you mortal, it leaves you still sinners; and it lays upon you a heavier charge to render to God.