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.
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.
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.