/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Report your front-end woes 2: Electric Boogaloo

Winner of the JulayWorld Attention-Hungry Games™, Week 4

/icup/ - Inter-(image)Board Competitions

Nominations for week 5 are open.

What is the Imageboard Federation?

JulayWorld onion service: bhlnasxdkbaoxf4gtpbhavref7l2j3bwooes77hqcacxztkindztzrad.onion

Max message length: 32768

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

Serenissima and Italia Peasant 12/12/2019 (Thu) 16:17:56 No.1449
Seeing as Venice and Genoa were crowned republics, do they defy the traditional rule of republicanism?

Failing that, Italian monarchies thread.
>Seeing as Venice and Genoa were crowned republics, do they defy the traditional rule of republicanism?
Venice is the perfect example of having royalism yet not having monarchy. A lot of anons don't understand the name of royalism and how it is different from a monarchical rule and how it is personified.
Does Venice defy the traditional rule of republicanism? Because you said 'traditional' rule of republicanism and not revolutionary republicanism, I would say a clear no.
>inb4 you're an absolutist gatekeeping with #NotTrueMonarchy
The Republic of Venice is the textbook example of an aristocracy. republicans >8| have always pointed to merchantile Venice when they criticize monarchy. republicans >8| always complain to their royals in the past, "Why can't we be like Venice or more like Poland? Let's have royalism w/o all this monarchy stuff!" Pic related Filmer dealing with traditional republicans >8| begging for an aristocratic royal estate (yes, even centuries ago absolutists had to handle the eternal aristolarp).
Jean Bodin describes the nature of the oligarchical/aristocratic state and royalism like this:
>"A great policy in the Aristocratical estate is to give unto him (royal) least power to whom they give most honour."
>"And yet to say the truth, a man knoweth not how to do him so great honour as the majesty of the sacred empire, whereof he is the head of the deserves. But the maner of well governed Aristocratic states, is to grant unto him the least power to whom they give the greatest honour: and sometimes also least honour unto them that be of most power: as of all others the Venetians in the ordering and government of their Commonwealth best know how to use that matter."
A lot of stuck up trads will say to a monarchist, "Why don't you love traditional republicans >8|? They're so trad after all and are your best friends!" But I couldn't give a damn for tradist republicans >8| who bicker about 'sic semper tyrannis' anymore than revolutionary republicans >8| who shout 'Liberté, égalité, fraternité' or 'Give me liberty or give me death'.
Open file (52.72 KB 376x480 dante2.jpg)
*A note on Medievalism and the Middle Ages
The Medieval Period was NOT a 'monarchist'-only epoch contrary to what trads will tell you. Like all ages, the republican is there breathing in your ear. This is where I advocate to recognize the eternal nature of monarchy because trads typically forget that there were monarchical estates prior to European Middle Ages/time itself didn't begin in the Middle Ages.
Back then in the Middle Ages, the principle texts were of the republican tradition in terms of political philosophy and the monarchical term literally didn't come about until the re-introduction of classical texts and Dante and Aquinas helped re-introduce the term 'monarchy' rather than mere royalism itself. Prior to Dante and Aquinas and afterward, monarchist texts and ideals were maintained in the Church/Christendom, referring to the rights of kings in Biblical connotation OR the Pope as a supreme monarch. Sometimes also imperial law concerning Emperors and Rome as emphasizing a 'monarchical' right of the Prince (princeps)/Emperor. Political texts that are significantly pro-royal were among a few like 'De Regimine Principum of Aegidius Romanus' and the 'Noman Anonymous' coupled with a few principally regal rights reflecting the eternal nature of monarchy that are symbolic rather than textual.
That is why I asked. Venice's doges were elected by pure chance (one could argue, by God), and so it seemed to me that they were far less slaved to the pitfalls of modern-day republics. I'll admit to still learning about them, so I may be mistaken.

I would argue that Venice and the Commonwealth could be treated with back then because universal literacy was not a thing, and neither state was interested in spreading its way of governance. That said, Venice was always the sneaky and treacherous bugger of southern Europe, so treating with them was not always wise in any case. Genoa was second fiddle.

I suppose this raises the question, though: why is Monarchism better than Aristocracy? Is the latter not literally "rule by the best"?
>why is Monarchism better than Aristocracy?
There are so many aristolarpy anons on this goddamn board.
Go read Dante's 'De Monarchia' and there will be quite a few reasons why monarchy is superior. He makes a point like Hobbes that monarchy is less susceptible to cupidity than aristocracy. A few seated mean (because aristocracy must sit and have meetings/councils) need rules to regulate their behavior and prevent conflict with the members of said aristocracy. A monarch uses his practical intellectual capacity to determine justice rather than relying only on the rules for every single instance. This grants a monarch a capacity for measuring justice.
>Since his jurisdiction is bounded only by the ocean, there is nothing for a Monarch to desire… Moreover, to extent however small that cupidity clouds the mental attitude toward Justice, charity or right love clarifies and brightens it. In whomever, therefore, right love can be present to the highest degree, in hum can Justice find the most effective place. Such is the Monarch, in whose person Justice is or may be most effective.

>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.

>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 together 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 gos. 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 its 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; only if a Monarch rules can the crooked policies be straightened, namely democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies which force mankind into slavery, as sees who goes among them, and under which kings, aristocrats called the best men, and zealots of popular liberty play at politics. For since a Monarch loves men greatly, a point already touched upon, he desires all men to do good, which cannot be among players at crooked policies… Upright governments have liberty as their aim, that men may live for themselves; not citizens for the sake of the consuls, nor a people for a king, but conversely, consuls for the sake of citizens, and a king for his people. As governments are not all established for the sake of laws, but laws for governments, so those living under the laws are not ordered for the sake of the legislator, but rather he for them…
>Wherefore it is also evident that although consul or king may be lord of others with respect to means of governing, they are servants with respect to the end of governing; and without doubt the Monarch must be held the chief servant of all. Now it becomes clear that a Monarch is conditioned in the making of laws by his previously determined end. Therefore the human race existing under a Monarch is best ordered, and from this it follows that a Monarchy is essential to the well-being of the world.
Open file (43.18 KB 729x423 Aristotle_moanrchy.jpg)
>Is the latter not literally "rule by the best"?
Figuratively, but sometimes not always. Hobbes, for example, complained of aristocracy for its PRIDE because he saw the nature of elitists constantly bumping shoulders and making a fuss. Not to mention the partisan nature of an aristocracy in the form of a clique.
>rule of the best
In response to this, I say that monarchy is the rule for the best of all.
This video is probably the most prominent video bashing aristocracy from a monarchist standpoint.
>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, is controlled by a single motion, the primum mobile, and by a single mover, God; then, if our syllogism is correct, the human race is best ordered when in all its movements and motors it 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, did the love which rules the heavens rule like your minds!”

>Wherever strife is a possibility, in that place must be judgment; otherwise imperfection would exist without its perfecting agent. This could not be, for God and Nature are not wanting in necessary things. It is self-evident that between any two princes, neither of whom owes allegiance to the other, controversy may arise either by their own fault or by the fault of their subjects. For such, judgment is necessary. And inasmuch as one owing no allegiance to the other can recognize no authority in him (for an equal cannot control an equal), there must be a third prince with more ample jurisdiction, who may govern both within the circle of his right. This prince will be or will not be a Monarch. If he is, our purpose is fulfilled; if not, he will again have a coequal beyond the circle of his jurisdiction, and again a third prince will be required. And thus either the process be carried to infinity, which is impossible, or that primal and highest judge will be reached, by whose judgments all disputes are settled mediately or or immediately. And this judge will be Monarch, or Emperor. Monarchy is therefore indispensable 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.”
>so many
I suppose it's to be expected since most people think aristocracy is part and parcel of monarchy.
It seems that I must read De Monarchia.
So in short, mankind needs a single exemplar and father figure to be directed correctly, and aristocracies, while they can result in men of great skill and cunning, muddy the waters unnecessarily and are infected with greater internal strife. As well, the Kingly model is that also of the blessed Trinity, and therefore has sacred precedent.

Got it.
I suppose Aristotle saw echoes of the aristos in Athens.
>I suppose it's to be expected since most people think aristocracy is part and parcel of monarchy.
This point of view tends to annoy me most of all. Why? Because these people don't tend to see what makes monarchy special IN ITSELF apart from an aristocracy. They also ignorantly spout stuff that deride monarchy in its essential form or show their true allegiance when they get more offended about punishing aristocracy and less offended about monarchomachist doctrines of regicide. I have seen it countless times where an aristocratic royalist will say, "Monarchy and aristocracy go hand in hand." But then go on to insult monarchy.
They stick out like a sore thumb. Here's what those types typically do that makes me feel the need to simply call them aristocratics:
#1. They larp and give themselves noble titles/names like 'baron', 'duke', 'lord,' 'earl,' or 'sir.' They aren't really these things, but they will say they had been related to nobility. They also get offended when you point out that they aren't really nobility.
#2. They ALWAYS praise Aristocracy~ and when you describe monarchy, they loft their eyebrows and go, "You would support a despotism of one man?" Aristocratics tend to look down on anything pertaining to the oneness or persona of monarchy. They only appreciate it as an 'institution' and for its appearance.
#3. They don't really care about what happens to the monarch. I have seen these royalists accept monarchomachist doctrines without hestitation and to me that's a really radical and anti-monarchy step to take. The moment you say that royal monarchy is a worthwhile end and such, they are crybabying about tyranny (like I do with oligarchy now). If you suggest that bad aristocrats have to be punished like bad children, then they get defensive and view this as them showing their true allegiance that they're perfectly fine with chopping a sovereign monarch's head off as long as somebody called him 'tyrant', but they'll get super defensive about even laying a finger on a member of the aristocracy.
In a sense, it is the same way elements of democracy are ruled over in a monarchy. A royal estate does lean towards an aristocratic order, yes, and royalism typically does imply having a gentry/nobility. That is part of the body-politic and what composes a state and there will always be elements of democracy/aristocracy in a monarchy.
Politics itself is a game and a kind of competition. People who praise aristocracy and only have negative things to say about democracy, while their hearts are in the right places, -- they don't realize that it's political suicide to completely cut off democracy or completely cut off aristocracy in a sense. You must handle both forms because it goes both ways with politics. If you're indifferent towards democracy completely (meaning, the masses), you are denying yourself an avenue and that means denying a potential strength for monarchy. Because politics is a struggle between monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and it's important to handle aristocratic and democratic forces as two animals ready to bite your hand.
Another thing about Aristocracy that some people are mistaken about, but when I talk about 'Aristocracy' -- I am NOT only referring to a nobility in opulent clothes with fancy titles or even the wealthy, but specifically the rule of a Few.
Now, here's the catch: a few really are sometimes, as the minority, the most talented of a majority. A few might have more courage and more wealth. That's just the way it is, and it's not that this is what disturbs me. I acknowledge that the poor man or the majority's desires to deprive the minority of its everything is also a form of plutocracy. In democracy, when the many want to take away, this is just as plutocratic as the few's wealthy practices because it is based on envy. And that is why I argue that monarchy is the only non-plutocratic form because it doesn't deal with percentages like the minority or the majority, and thus has the potential to benefit both (like Aristotle says, all). Monarchy in itself is a totality.
But when I talk about Aristocracy, I mean simply the Few. This could be applied to a variety of things, and it might surprise the average person to say that Lenin's vanguard party doctrine is essentially an aristocratic view towards democracy. It's that the Proles need a 'vanguard party' of a few men to lead them. And that's how flexible it is to view Aristocracy in this view. Regardless of how that makes us feel about these ideologies, it is important to understand that. A 'Few' could also apply to most republican governments and representative forms. What is essentially democracy isn't contained in small representative buildings, but it goes to larger percentages or the form of a mob. A mob doesn't really communicate like a seated few. A mob verse a seated few have different modes of conduct. To communicate with a mob, you must take the path of least resistance and communicate with emotions (because emotions are what are felt more easily to a blob without resistance than arguing with them; different people can disagree, but most can feel) and then how a seated council communicates with rules of conduct to not brush shoulders. It is also noted that in democracy and aristocracy, they typically need to meet up at one spot once in a while. But that is the form of Aristocracy I talk of, not the conventional image of 'aristocrats' who wear fancy stuff -- but just a few.
The house of Savoy is made of faggots.
Bourbons > Hapsburg >>>>>> Savoy >>>>>> Republic
Open file (9.40 MB 640x360 Brigante Se More.mp4)
Like the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, anon?
This needs to be elaborated on.
The aristocracy essentially is a seated few who conduct themselves as a mind according to their conduct and rules. A seated few need to conduct themselves like this unlike a single man because otherwise all their parts would be conflicting, thereby they all need to follow the rules.
How is this different from a democracy? A democracy just doesn't function this way. It is a mob and a mob doesn't just follow this mentality and cannot operate like this. A blob like democracy needs to be communicated with like a big party, where you're shouting LOUD to them all and trying to co-ordinate them with their emotions. Whereas an aristocracy involves like-minded men with an ego, who might have conflicting views and will butt heads together if they don't equalize themselves as a group of virtuous men. They require rules of conduct to move them around as a creature.
Where does this bring us to with monarchy?
Let us start with what anon said.
>"I suppose it's to be expected since most people think aristocracy is part and parcel of monarchy."
This pov is the 'royal as an extension of aristocracy' rather than monarchy as this independent force. The royal is just a fellow aristocrat, which is essentially saying this:
Imagine this elaborate throne at a table of aristocrats, and the aristocrats deem it 'just another chair' at their seated council.
Let's think about this. What does an aristocracy do with one aristocrat who is bumping shoulders with the fellow aristocrats, isn't conducting himself with the rules, and putting himself above their virtuous choir? They eject that one member from the board meeting--they say, "Get off that chair!" And this isn't a big deal in an aristocracy, because that's the nature of aristocracy and how the animal functions. An aristocracy is constituted by a few men, and they can afford to lose one pretty easily.
And thus, the aristocrat and demagogue will say to a monarch in his elaborate throne, "What makes this ONE man worthy to rule over us?" And they will become challengers regardless of whether the monarch is extraodinarily virtuous or not. I repeat, a monarch must be EXTRAordinarily virtuous, not just 'virtuous', and there is a reason for this.
A child alone cannot survive alone in the woods if it is dropped. It will perish and die -- UNLESS it is somehow extraordinarily virtuous. And the same mentality applies to the monarch as the HEAD of the body. "What right does this pesky monarch have to be at the head of our society?" Because that's where the monarch stands, at the head of the body, and that is why monarchs wear crowns because they use their mind and willpower above the aristocracy; in order to become extraordinarily virtuous, the monarch must channel MIND and BODY, but likewise spirit and soul which anchors the body/mind towards its completion/unity.
Now let's go back to the example of the seated aristocracy, but let's say now it's a monarchy.
In this monarchy, they aristocrats say, "You are just one of us; your throne is merely another chair and simple... Get off your throne!"
^ This is a direct attack on the extraordinary virtue espoused in monarchy in order to rule as a monarch. Look at this picture of a throne and answer me, "Does this look like just another chair at the table?"
When the monarch is head of a body-politic where people have a social order on each other, the monarch requires extraordinary virtue.
In Hobbes' Leviathan, his answer to this puzzle piece problem to fit in monarchy is to say that all the individual parts (because he starts from the perspective of an individual apart from society in his political philosophy) require an individual force to make a social cohesion. A lot of NRx people will make like Filmer in criticizing this and saying also like Aristotle, "Men don't grow like mushrooms from the ground," or "social continuity is already there and there was never a time of a state of nature." This is besides the point, imo, because the real matter for me is this puzzle piece of where to fit in this extraordinary virtue and what foundation the monarch rules.
Hobbes describes this 'Great Leviathan' as a mortal god or the WHOLE itself because all individuals formed it, so the partiality over the whole problem is dealt with. And this also justifies how a monarch's self interest could benefit the whole. Now, NRx people/aristocratic neoabsolutist don't care about anything benefiting monarchy in this picture and only chest-thump and scream, "MUH ENLIGHTENMENT!" rather than critically thinking about monarchy for all ages from Aristotle to Hobbes/Filmer.
Open file (106.82 KB 960x637 caesar quote.jpg)
Extraordinary virtue is something the first opponents of monarchy will try to pick apart regardless of how virtuous the monarch is. The aristocrat doesn't like to be humbled by a monarch, neither does the aristocrat like to be outshined. And revolutionary demagogues will attempt to drag a monarch to the mud. That's why many monarchomachists/feudboys complain about the Divine Right of Kings and so on. They don't like that extraordinary virtue enabling a monarchy. It's part of having of functional monarchy alongside styles like 'His/Her Majesty' and so forth.
Is it really just a cheap powergrab like the challengers say it is? Is it true that one man only cares about himself and in no way can self-sacrifice or attribute to the common good?
My opinion is that monarchy requires many of the things that lead up to extraordinary virtue like force of religion and the paternal royalism because it places the monarch in the position to find a kind of extraordinary virtue. By this I mean willpower and self-control, the ability to control intellect and passions and make due with courage like this quote says. Because what reasonable man would do something that might get himself killed? And a coward would run away. It requires quick, decisive action that only a monarch could bring to have this kind of virtue.
Open file (352.35 KB 1600x1964 hinh-anh-cong-giao-18.jpg)
When people doubt that one man could do anything for the Common Good (meaning, good for everyone; good for not only the many, but the WHOLE; good for monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) they always quip, "The monarch does this for himself and becomes corrupt, leaving the whole in partiality." That has proven record of annoying me when people bring that up to explain why you can't have monarchy.
The Cruxificion and Redemption of Mankind is probably the most transparent monarchical act there is proving the nature of monarchy and its ability to work for the Common Good. It redeems Mankind from the 'curse of the law' and sin, where men are incapable of beating sin without a spiritual force to uplift them.
Article related^
Daily reminder that the struggle between Jesus and the Pharisees was basically a struggle between Jesus and aristolarps.
Open file (120.89 KB 1200x627 EKKFTwlWsAIXdew.jpg)
Speaking positively, the Twelve Disciples are the best of aristocracy, like the Twelve Tribes of Israel united under the House of David. And the Pharisees represent the corruption of oligarchy, the few not united in Christ and split apart in disobedience.
There are so many transparent, easy-to-see themes concerning monarchs and kingship from religious creeds that clearly demonstrate the virtue of monarchy.
Open file (704.40 KB 1388x1666 graced1.png)
Y' ever notice how the aristolarp makes his definitions based around treason, the destruction of kinship that a king desires and strong notions of disloyalty, among other things like partiality to a clique and so-called aristocratic virtue over monarchical extraordinary virtue. Make no mistake that to chop off the head of a body and remove a limb does an incredible disservice to the continuation of a body-politick. These are the tyrannophobes that Hobbes bemoaned and people I consider monarchomachist. REMEMBER THIS Whenever they complain about 'absolutism' and use the adjective 'absolute' behind 'monarchy', they really mean they dislike monarchy and the notion of a single ruler having anything to do. It is enough to imagine they really mean monarchy instead, then. A call for 'de-centralization' is a call for less monarchy, as monarchs are the center of the body-politick. Understandably, a body without a center or even without limbs is bad, but likewise without the general skin and its teeth, fingers, and toes. They always talk of a few, nothing to do with a MONarch. AND ALSO Monarchs ARE beneficial to use a democratic strength. HLvM is aristolarp crybabying to such a stupid degree. It is a genuine strength for a monarch to embrace democratic virtue in the same way there is a marching band leader leading a mass. In the same way, for instance with a royal monarch, King Richard II was able to lead an angry mob away during a rebellion. In the same way, for example, that monarchs provide a unity like the trinity; for one alone finds unity in part with their half, like man seeks woman and unites into a whole. The unity that monarchy brings is therefore organic and anti-partisan and that is why I say the soul of monarchy is inclined towards royalism and royalism for monarchy between father, wife, and son. It makes no sense to deny this strength when it is so innately a monarchical one. Obviously, in terms of unity and militant power, it shouldn't be denied that a monarch SHOULD become kin with his people. Call it democratic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing from my perspective. When I imagine 'democratic' values and 'democracy', I don't imagine representative buildings and cliques coming together (imo, that's oligarchical moreso), but generally a collective mass greater than fewer. It isn't co-ordinated in this sense that it is draw into a small fold and counted, but it moves like a mob. The form of democracy is whenever there is a vastly larger group together as an animal, not taken individually imo for each member of the mob, but the animal of the mob itself. MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT A MONARCH, STRIPPED OF IDEOLGOY AND NONSENSE, WOULD BE PRAGMATIC I want people to appreciate the idea of a monarch whose appearance of ideology doesn't matter, but strip that away and find a monarch who is pragmatic and thinks best w/o the pointless hampering and above it. Take the worst example of a leader and strip off the ideological clothing. THESE PEOPLE SEEK TO UNDERMINE WHAT IS PERSONAL ABOUT MONARCHY AND ONLY UPHOLD 'THE INSTITUTION' But taking away what is personal is destroying the soul of monarchy and thereby undermines the spirit for rules and regulations. A monarch needs his personal wisdom and monarchical jurisprudence within his framework and function. To make a monarch function like one of the table is unjust to the monarchy. A monarchical ruler should have the strength of his person and the household he rules. A monarch should use his willpower for the best course of action. A monarch should not be stripped of his honour like Aristotle remarks about offices. And this makes monarchy no legitimate form of government otherwise, if personal royal power were wholly removed. In all governments, there is an element of the beast frankly. The person of the monarch is necessary for unity and necessary for its spirit and orientation. I am a firm believer in leadership on behalf of the whole and NOT the part like the aristolarps keep repeating. I don't think the clique is all that matters here; I do think a monarch pulls the group together and leads them; I do think that the monarch is the mind and a people are a body; and, obviously, I do think the wisdom of monarchs is worthwhile in function BETTER than an aristocracy functions w/o a monarch. In the sense that a monarch commands better and uses personal wisdom w/o the multiplication of wills, a monarchy functions better. >why do you resent the aristocratic royalists so much? #1. They constantly libel an 'absolutism' or 'absolute monarchy' while taking kicks at monarchy in its base concept. The 'absolutism' part just gives them a boogeyman to kick around. It is as if they don't know monarchy, or, worse, know and hate monarchy for all it is. Talking about the merits of a 'few' without any acknowledgment of 'one' or a monarch, but mere royalism as an institution to plug in and plug out. #2. Monarchomachist definitions. Their worthwhile doctrine is to treat the monarch as a mere fellow aristocrat and that means killing the monarch and praise of regicide. They will call it 'tyrannocide', but Hobbes' wise words about how people call the governments they hate by its negative form doesn't lose ground here. #3. Almost every monarchist I meet seems to really be a mere royalist. I get tired of all this talk about aristocracy and not monarchy whenever I enter a royalist forum. They invoke words like "how aristocratic of you" and center the view around aristocracy and hardly the perspective of monarchy. This pov matters a lot to me. The monarch must check their balance, not the other way around. But they always seem antagonized by the idea of a single ruler and an actual MONARCH that it makes me wonder why they're calling themselves monarchists and not just mere royalists. #4. The general subcultures surrounding the aristolarps. They generally only have the substance of saying, 'URRRGH, I HATE LIBTARDS' and 'MODERNITY; WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!' and that usually means an empty-blanket medievalism. It negates having an eye for eternal truths for all ages and discounts that royal monarchy has a potential to be an innovation. Oddily enough, the tradition preserved that is counter-intuitive to a royal monarchy like all the regulations and laws set up restricting personal liberty (an oligarchy comes to an abundance of laws, seeing as how that's their function like breathing) -- reform is a monarchical pursuit when an oligarchy overextends itself. Conservatism, for all its worth, when it only exists to delay the fixing of past problems -- is useless. Dead weight conservatives won't be praised. When I talk about any kind of innovation of monarchy, that does not mean what people think like becoming LGBT-friendly now or more crap, but actually taking an abandoned tradition dead and renewing it. Republicanism is ancient, but it became an innovation. So would royal monarchy and so had it been before.
>>1815 Relevant, but Filmer + Hobbes critique of aristocracy.
>>1815 DE M*ISTRE ON MONARCHY BRINGING BALANCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRACY/DEMOCRACY Now, it is one of the greatest advantages of monarchical government that in it the aristocracy loses, as much as the nature of things allows, all those features offensive to the lower classes. It is important to understand the reasons for this. >1. This kind of aristocracy is legal; it is an integral part of government, everyone knows this, and it does not waken in anyone's mind the idea of usurpation and injustice. In republics, on the other hand, the distinction between persons exists as much as in monarchies, but it is harder and more offensive because it is not the work of the law and because popular opinion regards it as a continual rebellion against the principle of equality admitted by the constitution…. >2. Once the influence of a hereditary aristocracy becomes inevitable (and the experience of every age leaves no doubt on this point), the best course to deprive this influence of the elements that rub against the pride of the lower classes is to remove all insurmountable barriers between the families within the state and to allow none of them to be humiliated by a distinction that they can never enjoy. Now this is precisely the case in a monarchy resting on good laws. There is no family that the merit of its head cannot raise from the second to the first rank…. >3. And this order of things appears still more perfect when it is remembered that the aristocracy of birth and office, already softened by the right belonging to every family to enjoy the same distinctions in its turn, is stripped of everything possibly offensive to the lower orders by the universal supremacy of the monarch, before whom no citizen is more powerful than another; the man in the street, who is insignificant when he measures himself against a great lord, measures the lord against the sovereign, and the title of subject which brings both of them under the same power and the same justice is a kind of equality that stills the inevitable pangs of self-esteem….
>>1815 >a monarch should have nothing to do with his people--that is democratic! But it is totally royal as a monarch is like a father to his people and as Aristotle describes 'kin, but also a natural superior'. To disregard democracy or what merit quantity has is disingenuous. It is part of an order, not the destruction of an order. To severe this tie to the kinship that kings possess -IS- disorder itself.
Open file (444.42 KB 1400x1011 versailles-1668f.jpg)
ON THE NOBILITY WITHIN A ROYAL MONARCHY Any royal monarchy exemplifies the ideal of a despotate, 'the great household' -- this is why royals build palaces, but also why royal monarchs build great palaces like Versailles or the pyramids. To build a nation like a great household is part of the royal soul and an extension of the monarch's will to form a bond with his people. The nobility, or virtuous few under a royal monarch, are members of a kin like brothers over younger siblings or servants. But noteworthy enough, the nobility are household managers under a patriarch or despot. If you want a HMvL, it starts with honouring their patriarch and not scheming to kill him or attacking the ideals of a royal household (like its hereditary rights). The monarch's spirit and wisdom should not be ground into dust by the regulations of an oligarchy, but preserved in their laws and extended by the jurisprudence of a monarchical ruler. Otherwise, it would be an injustice to the monarchy to deprive it of its personal ambition and soul, its judgment, and its household. Treasonous behavior, or a revolt against the royal estate, will not be easily forgiven when the monarchy is the victor.
>>1456 >because aristocracy must sit and have meetings/councils Why do you assume this? In feudal monarchy (the most common "aristolarp" which crops up around here) there are no meetings or councils. Each feudal lord settles matters which concern his land and his vassals, and does not concern himself with the affairs of other lords. In the even of a conflict between lords, the king settles disputes between them, again by his own judgement and not through any administrative bureaucracy. Feudalism is in effect absolutism, but decentralized and with market prices.
Open file (72.06 KB 588x500 454875_original.jpg)
>>2020 >Why do you assume this? As its own animal, a few must have to get together to act as one. It's just a common talking point from a monarchist angle (found in Hobbes and that poem). Remember: In the Declaration of Independence. >He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. A monarch doesn't need to convene at a certain place or time to act is the talking point. There's also the story of senators having to trot alongside Caligula to talk with him while he's getting a ride. >there are no meetings or councils I'm not sure about this. In a feudal electoral kingdom/empire, they do convene. I've read somewhere that the HRE was like a bunch of aristocratic states bundled into a monarchy. Hobbes makes the case that when one is elected, he acts more like a minister of a different power. And the way aristocratics talk, I assume they think of kings/emperors like that. >Each feudal lord settles matters which concern his land and his vassals, and does not concern himself with the affairs of other lords. Looking at them as their own individual and independent political entity, you could make that case like with democracy. But when it comes to distinguishing an aristocracy, it comes to seeing how they function as a few and not as one.
>>2020 >(the most common "aristolarp" which crops up around here) I bully them and call them aristocratics because that's what they do, not what I do. They're the ones bringing it up in conflict with monarchy. They're the ones taking the swings at monarchy, and I'm reacting to it. I wouldn't start assuming they are aristocratics more than monarchists if they didn't go about praising regicide (killing their monarchs) and talking from the perspective of a few and how superior it is to monarchy. Not only that, but they particularly have a sense of always talking about what an aristocracy is or from that angle of a few than a monarch. They always make the case (and this is a big deal for absolutists) that the aristocrats check the monarch and not the monarch checking the aristocrats. And when they talk about a mixed system, I just assume that's a cover up. I keep running into mere royalists who have that opinion and who talk antagonistically towards the concept of a monarchy. They see one man -- and they see Hitler! And they see any dictator or enlightened despot, but go on to praise the merits of the council/elite rather than a monarch or leader. It only goes on for so long that they keep hitting at monarchy over and over that I decide to just call them aristolarps... And they talk from aristocratic angles so often, like how I pointed about the dilemma between a monarch's individual wisdom verse the rule of law. I don't consider a monarch's judgment to be obsolete like these people do and place a great value in that royalist pov... Then there are the trads who don't really care about monarchy either way to begin with. They're more focused on how Medieval something is... And from what I've come to believe from Medievalists is that they're pro-democracy too and also happen to place their focus on popular sovereignty and regicide theories that Hobbes complained about (and also Aquinas in his own way). I've been harshly criticized for not being 'Medieval enough' and 'too modern', but that was never my objective. I am not focused on Medievalism, but monarchy. It goes the same for dialectical materialists who assume that feudalism = monarchy and make a misconception about that system and what royalism and monarchy are. It gets annoying when you talk about monarchy and people ridicule your standpoints as a 'stone age ideology' and have nothing to present for the world today. Liking things because they're old and Medieval only has its own merit for so long... until I drop the ball and stop caring--especially when they make the case that tradism and not monarchy is their thing. That isn't a complete rejection of the Middle Ages on my part because I still have time for a few Medieval writers like Dante/Aquinas, but it becomes apparent that it wasn't a 'monarchist-only' club. This is topped with the sentiment that to be 'anti-democracy' doesn't always translate to being 'pro-monarchy' from my pov. I keep running into aristocratic types who honestly hate both monarchy and democracy when they really express themselves. That's why I'm hesitant about anti-democratic for its own merit... Besides the point, I will confess that there are good aristocratic talking points and good democratic talking points. I've seen my fair share like not putting all your eggs in one basket. My problem is the abuse of monarchy as a bad thing... Or the consistent subjugation of monarchy, restraining of an individual power... to enable a few or many to act. That's what you see with the systems today, where they are content to have chained away tyranny, but enabled something else to have sway.
On that note, I would probably respect feudboys more if they actually talked about the merits of monarchy instead of making the case of how easy it is to depose the monarch as one of the main quirks of how great monarchy is. Or, if instead of talking about how great something like the HRE was for its aristocracy and decentralization--went on to compliment the Holy Roman Emperor and his part in their scheme. But far too often I see the talking points I dislike.
Open file (2.22 MB 3419x3096 Grace recites.png)
Now I'm not saying there can't be a feudalistic monarchy (there are examples), but feudboys tend to apply their views from an aristocratic angle rather than a monarchist one these days. I'm getting the impression they only like a superficial appearance of royalism (household structure) rather than the heart of monarchy (rule of one). And lately I think I'm the only anon who sees this and notices how these aristocratic types keep coming from the angle of an aristocracy and bashing monarchy.
Open file (110.87 KB 671x620 EOGtk14WoAE2Dka.jpg)
Dante says all good things exist in concord. While there is talk about decentralization, it should be generally remembered that everything has a center no matter how far you try to tear it out. Monarchs happen to be that center. It doesn't mean you can't have a fairly balanced system, seeing as a chest without limbs is likewise bad. However, this complete contempt for having a center, a monarch and central arch that holds the body together, I cannot understand. What would the HRE be without its Emperor? Could you even call it an empire?
Open file (105.19 KB 449x588 S2.jpg)
Somebody press CTRL + F and type in "absolut" and see how many times I bother talking about absolutism (the theory/that occasions call for general actions above the law) verse "monarchy". The aristocratics always resort to namecalling and saying 'that's despotism!' or 'this absolutism is o-out of control!'. I like absolutism in the sense that let alone it invokes the idea of a MONARCH without me saying anything.
1st pic: A monarch among an aristocracy 2nd pic: A monarch among a democracy. Neither side is necessarily evil to use (especially if it benefits the monarch). Whether it be monarch as an extension of aristocracy like a high priest or a leader to embrace a mass. However, my focus glues to the monarch when I describe these. King Richard II was able to lead an angry mob away in relative peace and safety. There is a kind of innate power to royal monarchs--between them and their subjects--that enables them to pull together a mass to strength. Looking at the concept of quantity alone, it has certain values that might benefit more than quality once in a while. Aristotle makes the case that the best way to spread out virtue for many is found in the military/combat. While a quality of few benefits a monarch to have disciples (disciplined men/who follow conduct) and co-ordinate and check. A few who do what many cannot do.
Open file (849.45 KB 604x720 Grace.png)
IDK what feudboys on this board want. I've been giving them breathing room here >>2029 and >>2030 here. To want a centerless mass without a monarchy as central to it seems strange to me. I really tend to dislike the words 'decentralization' and 'centralization' because of what I said >>2030 here. >It doesn't mean you can't have a fairly balanced system, seeing as a chest without limbs is likewise bad. However, this complete contempt for having a center, a monarch and central arch that holds the body together, I cannot understand. And also, >>2029 >Now I'm not saying there can't be a feudalistic monarchy (there are examples), but feudboys tend to apply their views from an aristocratic angle rather than a monarchist one these days.
>>2193 >To want a centerless mass without a monarchy as central to it seems strange to me To assume that feudalists have no desire for a center when they call themselves monarchists seems strange to me.
>>2197 To be totally disgusted by the concept of rule of one and call watch feudalists call themselves monarchists also seems strange to me. Why would they have all that contempt for that basic principle and yet call themselves something they're so revolted by? On a daily basis, it seems like >>2022 these screencaps everytime.
>>2199 >visiting /fascist/ Well, there's your answer. Were you expecting anything other than cringe from spergs who place aesthetics and purity spiraling above anything resembling coherence?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?