[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / doomer / g / leftpol / qsourcex / tingles / utoronto / vg ]

/monarchy/ - Past, Present, and Future

Monarchy news and discussion

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 66rd Attention-Hungry Games
/nothingness/ - R I S E U P

December 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Subject *
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 4 per post.

The King is dead! Long live the King!

File: 1425421801505.jpg (39.4 KB, 512x338, 256:169, bloodywhitebaron2.jpg)


Welcome to /monarchy/. I'm editing this top post in order to condense things. This is now the only sticky and a general meta thread. There has been no change in BO, I'm just trying to clean things up a bit more. I may delete out posts in this thread just because I would like keeping the >>1 post for tradition's sake.

Rules: https://8ch.net/monarchy/charter.html

About/Links: https://8ch.net/monarchy/about.html

More specifically, if there is a new BO or volunteer of /monarchy/, it's announced here. If there is a change to the rules, it is promulgated here. This is also a thread I'll use to be a little less aloof and talk about minor and meta stuff: general feedback, complaining about troll threads, accepting submissions for flags, banners, moderation, and rules, etc.. A court, if you will.

21 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at


File: 1427485651686.png (15.9 KB, 318x323, 318:323, ungern.png)


Can we get a Monarchist reading list?

I'll start with some:
Dante's De Monarchia
De Maistre's The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions
Filmer's Patriarcha
Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Liberty or Equality
76 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>Dante's De Monarchia

why did he suggest that humans strive for unity?

File: f6895ade892e915⋯.jpg (165.23 KB, 1527x868, 1527:868, Police_photograph_of_Geoff….jpg)


9 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Henri, the Orleanist pretender, beat him to it according to that article.

Also, he writes stuff like this:


…I'm quickly becoming unsure on where to stand on the Orleanist/Legitimist divide.



Whatever the case, a restoration in France would reverse the revolutionary tide in history and mark the end of an era. This is all anyone should desire.


From what I hear, Serbia is closer to a restoration.


File: e04f0d65734b8ee⋯.jpg (62.62 KB, 398x599, 398:599, 398px-Le_Prince_Jean_de_Fr….jpg)


He recently passed away.

My condolences.

There is a new head.





The King is dead. Long live the King.

File: 4e2820acc7fa95e⋯.webm (3.3 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1490219655218367592.webm)


why dont you believe in synthetic theory of evolution?

9 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: a458f883d6e9ebf⋯.jpg (32.35 KB, 236x355, 236:355, aac804b2ab61858ad0fdfa16ed….jpg)


The King needs to dub you Aristocrat for this service to the fatherland.


are most monarchy supporters theists?



They certainly cannot be atheists.



isnt Curtis Yarvin an atheist?



I do not know, but there certainly is a strong connection between religion and monarchism. There are some pretty interesting older threads on the board you might want to dig up.


It's possible, hard, but possible.

File: 2572ea7b30278f9⋯.jpg (35.26 KB, 412x550, 206:275, the-death-of-robespierre-2….jpg)


What is there to boast about?

Something to counteract those who talk of guillotines.

>pic related Robespierre sent to the guillotine

5 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>be a weirdo

>be happy that long ago other weirdos were killed



weirdo =/= devil worshiping heathen


File: ec5c4b0637ed26a⋯.jpg (41.25 KB, 485x597, 485:597, Maximilian_by_Winterhalter.jpg)


Even when monarchs lose, they win. Losses are only when they perform ignobly.


File: 98a441ede735c24⋯.gif (431.88 KB, 700x1063, 700:1063, 285c7db908b5ab24e8b9eb9dec….gif)


>Even when monarchs lose, they win.

I am not sure about this mentality, but I do think that Emp. Maximilian I has the benefit of a heroic death. There are those who simply flee Mexico and live a life of luxury. Here Emp. Maximilian I was a fair emperor, rational and affectionate towards his subjects. Died with his compatriots when he could have fled.


File: 68848dceb4f32c1⋯.png (1.97 MB, 600x2554, 300:1277, Royalist-banner01.png)

Taunting Royalist banners.

File: 39e75bf5e512e85⋯.gif (150.32 KB, 400x267, 400:267, 39e.gif)


I know you peasants play video games. Let us share our favorite games and monarchy-related fantasies.

<what possible games could interest a monarchist?

Peasant, let me tell you. There are a variety of mods and historical themes for all games. Paradox games usually take the cake. For this audience, I am recommending Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword's mod called "English Civil War".


It is a fun mod and a hidden gem.

<how is this thread pertinent to /monarchy/

Because gamers are lurking and sometimes it is best to kickback and relax. We are peasants and aristocrats. There are many video games related to this subject matter across all genres. This is a possible frontier to have fun.

You are free to discuss /monarchy/-related games and usual stuff here.

27 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 27bf10680c44de3⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 106.93 KB, 500x565, 100:113, hey-guys-welcome-back-to-g….png)


But hey, it's just a theory

a LAME theory

Thanks for watching



Still shattered my expectations that they didn't paint the king as being a tyrant.


File: d7d7661948e59ba⋯.png (479.67 KB, 697x569, 697:569, horn.png)


How old are you, and when did you start using social media? When did you stop, if you did? How many seconds did it take for you to make that?



Who cares about tyranny nowadays.

Honestly, peasantanon, you should concern yourself with tyranny as much as /pol/lacks care about the Holocaust. Crybabies who whine about tyranny deserve to be hanged, drawn, and quartered for high treason, flogged mercilessly, shipped to Siberia to manual labor, and made into laughingstocks!

It's another trite comparison to all monarchy being all tyrannical. To hell with their games. Love tyranny and love being a madman.


File: 93089b5118694e5⋯.gif (3.84 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Satania Poses.gif)

When says tyranny, I laugh.

Who ever plays vidya as the good guy? People casually play GTA and massacre dozens of people. It is a great deal of fun to be comically bad in video games. Be an unapologetic imperialist. Be the villain. Do the most shameless powergrabs.

File: a93522f4ea7980f⋯.png (65.74 KB, 853x543, 853:543, 692.png)


I didn't see any in the catalouge so I decided to make a meme thread and see if it sticks.

pic related.

9 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: e2dca7a3407ccd5⋯.png (733.98 KB, 500x1000, 1:2, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 944a965dc39c912⋯.png (69 B, 1x1, 1:1, pixel.png)


Alternatively, you can attach an extra, unrelated image.



Nice trips.

There was another "ok bepis" meme someone on this board made, only it was with the Prussian line of descent or something.


File: 8c463c6a7daaf2e⋯.png (199.89 KB, 640x400, 8:5, the monarchists of monarch….png)


Updated the chart.


File: 7c82a99ea049beb⋯.png (84.16 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 153964075872.png)

File: b07d92ab97a4987⋯.png (54.05 KB, 796x342, 398:171, normies_can't_into_memes.png)



i dont understand that meme

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Let's evaluate the Congo Genocide and King Leopold II. What is your stance? Did King Leopold II and the Congo Free State kill 10 million and was King Leopold II solely responsible?

18 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


most blacks in Africa couldn't be arsed to built anything more than Republics long after the reign of Leopold II and Congo is still pretty much a shit hole. But lets look at the greater continent, even if most were Marxist-Leninist or Social Republics, it took a white man to show them that tyranny has value and garners respect.


File: 27f9cbf80c17f62⋯.png (49.85 KB, 180x191, 180:191, 1440347988305272588.png)

>Tippu Tip

>Zappo Zap




Sounds like Jazz musician stuff.


I'm sure the Belgian Congo provided them with schools, hospitals, and all that stuff. The horrors of colonialism? Conquest has never been fair, but sometimes it uplifts a people.


File: f17a8c24d07ab6c⋯.jpg (62.84 KB, 622x621, 622:621, a87c262ad2f55862cc213f4bdf….jpg)


There is so much propaganda around the time period and afterwards, that it is extremely difficult to paint a clear picture. Watch the series Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told (I'd give it an 8/10; definitely will give a new perspective on him, but as with most documentaries, some things are not entirely accurate; Hellstorm is emotionally-appealing propaganda trash, and One-Third of the Holocaust is better than both of them, though the narrator is very monotone), but don't blindly believe Hitler and the NSDAP were literally the Second Coming and worthy of absolute worship like ZOGbot nu/pol/tard kiddies do. It seems to me, that if one were to cut Hitler's life into sections, one would find that Hitler could possibly be canonized as a saint pre-political career, because of the instances that occurred in his time on the Western Front, but he may have become more atheistic or picked up pagan elements via the other political parties that merged with the NSDAP, and thus should not be seen as saintly; he may have committed suicide even if the Soviets did not actually find his body, and that is a mortal sin no pun intended. As I said before, it's extremely difficult to paint a clear picture, because for all I know his atheistic and pagan comments could be propaganda, because most normalfags at the time were Christian and painting the enemy as in need of Crusading would no doubt appeal greatly to the more devout of Christians. Either way, I do think Hitler was a good person, even if flawed.

Also you can generally tell by looking at their eyes, I think. It's why I believe Rasputin was as evil as they say he was, for his eyes stab the soul like daggers.


Answer 1: Don't think like that, that is begging for ignorance and stupidity, like the left-right ideological paradigm or the concept of "natural rights".

Answer 2: Not necessarily, and quite frankly that's a very dangerous assessment to have. For example, Napoleon was still pretty bad (though the britfags I've seen mention him seem to feel that he was literally HitlPost too long. Click here to view the full text.



> Hitler could possibly be canonized as a saint pre-political career, because of the instances that occurred in his time on the Western Front,

what instances?

File: eb9640dec8cdb32⋯.jpg (1.18 MB, 2189x1989, 2189:1989, rsz_52e7dc35103c575d43bb44….jpg)


Promoting this reading list for monarchists.

This is for any newcomers and readers.

>what else may this thread be for?

Passing other infographs, but really it's just to promote the latest edition.

12 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 28521bd12b23179⋯.jpg (1.29 MB, 2426x2676, 1213:1338, Liberty reading guide.jpg)

File: adc5b1047b29732⋯.jpg (132.86 KB, 520x543, 520:543, Public Education.jpg)


The problem with this list is that it lacks structure ironic considering the subject matter, there's no clear indication of what's a good starting book and what is not. Take this list from /liberty/ for example, it gives you pretty clear order for the best way to read these books, and to what aspect of lolbergism each one corresponds. For instance, if you were to split this list into branches, you could have one for libertarian monarchist sympathizers that starts with The God That Failed, then goes to von Kuehnelt's works. Maybe another branch for religious-based arguments, and one more for revolutions and counter-revolutions. Maybe one for works that are more about political theory in general (like The Prince and Aristotle's Politics) rather than monarchy specifically. Obviously there could be some overlap between these branches, as is done in the /liberty/ guide.



I grouped them together.

Honestly, there aren't enough hands on deck to do this and there's not really enough subject matter to split it into those categories. What I like about the infograph provided is the novice, beginner, and proficient levels. The reading list is just fine and I cannot get enough people to wager into creating a more organized one. By the standards of most reading lists, I would say the /monarchy/ is okay. There really wasn't a reading list before. I did contemplate making a beginners guide to reading a few of the books and having illustrations.



Oh, are they? I didn't realize, my apologies.


File: e88c38cc43561f6⋯.jpg (1018.5 KB, 1500x984, 125:82, Reactionary_lit.jpg)


Eh, reading lists for reactionaries are difficult to organize.


I'll come out and say I don't have the skill to make a fancy reading list.

File: a8eb9a61e88ccdd⋯.jpg (120.85 KB, 503x494, 503:494, Ecclesiastes.jpg)


Bring in the most iconic pictures.

Let's have a content dump for all images we cherish.

120 posts and 155 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Russian Tsar performing a martial ceremony in a blizzard.



But then why is one guy prostrate in the snow, while the two beside him are drawing sabers, and the regulars in the background look with curious apprehension? I assume the man is being sentenced, why? What happened to him?




It looks more to me like it is Tsar Nicholas II being sent into internal exile. The troops are waiting for the train to arrive. The men in the foreground look like the traditional Cossack guards of the Tsar. They are visibly upset at this turn of events. The man prostrate in the snow has let the sadness overcome him and the same is happening to the peasant on the left who has fallen onto his knees. Their sabers should be held in a salute, i.e. drawn and resting upright against their shoulders, but they are having difficulty doing so. The soldiers in the background are getting one last look at the Tsar. And in the left background, a red banner is being raised by the man on the step ladder.



It's obvious that they are there to appreciate the Tsar's epic gains and to worship his majestic body which looks jacked and juicy af, but the cossack on the left is actually Lenin in disguise, who has drawn his weapon to strike at the unsuspecting Tsar, and having noticed that, the other cossack bros take out their music instruments to prepare for the theme music of the epic upcoming anime battle.


File: 7c4f46bfe9dc3b4⋯.jpg (103.61 KB, 853x479, 853:479, 1541863279625.jpg)

File: 6cdda2618c88804⋯.jpg (171.7 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1541871171054.jpg)

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Contribute music, preferably monarchy-related.

Marches, songs, and contemporary music.

WebM, mp4, and Youtube.

Music inspires.

329 posts and 318 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 8d381b04d5588e8⋯.mp4 (13.81 MB, 640x360, 16:9, 「抜刀隊」_※battotai※.mp4)



but they lost war with huge loses m8


File: 108dc27cbc43217⋯.mp4 (2.94 MB, 480x360, 4:3, videoplayback (2).mp4)

File: 370af84c83dc1b9⋯.mp4 (8.2 MB, 640x360, 16:9, videoplayback (1).mp4)

Some Russian Music


File: 156eae50c88084c⋯.mp4 (5.05 MB, 640x360, 16:9, videoplayback (3).mp4)


File: ec989f50c70c910⋯.mp4 (3.15 MB, 480x360, 4:3, 今日の日はさようなら.mp4)

File: e3c9d5bc683eb80⋯.jpg (4.07 MB, 3328x2288, 16:11, 00God,_suspended_in_the_cl….jpg)


Sorry for the simple topic but I wanted to ask,

Is your monarchy religious or secular? Or would you prefer a different approach, like the monarch deciding it?

126 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Yes. The absolute lack of any virtue-signaling on the part of the yellow people is the funny part.



>Animals like chimps or dolphins don't do cannibalism when they aren't disorded. Homosexuality is also either not at all prominent in the wild or not what cucks like you say it is

Wrong again. Chimpanzees regularly practice cannibalism when fighting with other tribes of chimps. Dogs commit homosexual acts all the time and it doesn't matter what reason it's for.

>Arabs have Nigger blood from mingling with slaves. The Far East Asians are more homogenous. They also have less garbage societies overall.

The Arabs sterilized their black slaves and that's why there isn't a populace of distinctly blacks Arabs in the middle east the same way there is in America. And besides that, racemixing is against nature's law, remember? And look at all the studies you yourself provided proving that that people of different races tend not to mix well.

Japan has plenty of it's own problems, particularly involving suicide and infertile men and don't even try to make China look good, you double nigger.

>The Romans didn't accept unconditionally mingling with non-Romans. Caesarion was distrusted for his ancestry.

Has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

>How do you think men became hostile to racemixing if it's not from nature's law

Because it's immoral to mix together what God/the gods created to be separated. If there is no God, there is no natural law, only chaos and whoever can immortalize themselves through reproduction is in the right.

Let me repeat myself one last time. If the struggle between the cultures is reduced to the struggle between genes to replicate themselves, racemixing will be not only be incentivized but justified for the less attractive members of any given race. Since man is just an animal, the only reason for his existence is to pass on his genetic legacy, racemixing is a means to accomplish this therefore racemixing is justified and the one committing the deed cannot be faulted because he is only an animal carrying out his biological programming. And before you winge like an edgy faggot about how the less desirable Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Pantheist. No atheists allowed.



not an argument



>Christians are subservient to jews

>who are Marcion Of Sinope, St. Paul, and Russian Orthodoxy.

File: 175422504d429fc⋯.jpg (35.07 KB, 280x349, 280:349, 0acc6188.jpg)


Remember that the political animals are all breeds of ideological charlatan. If they subscribe to an ideology, they are a political animal; a political animal is somebody who chooses to be other than man; he chooses to become an partisan or idealist. They see everything through the lenses of their -ism and think highly of plain things. Political animals destroy each other, lavishing to take any mantle of authority. They are dogs in the mud, trampling over each other.

Don't become a political animal. Think of authority, not anarchism. Think of people for who they actually are, not what they "should" be or what party. Be loyal to someone and not an ideal. Don't aspire for power and control, but become somebody of action and authority. Find strength, not slander of opponents. Think of honor, not false chants of liberty; because liberty is honorable and before people are truly free they must become responsible first. Before anybody has any liberty, they must find duty, or else they seek to have liberty without any responsibility – that is a demagogue's tyranny.

82 posts and 45 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



You know what lasts? Death.



This is /monarchy/ not /marx/ we don't worship death here.


File: 92bee76e6505898⋯.jpg (129.37 KB, 900x840, 15:14, C8mJeNiXgAE6W_9.jpg large.jpg)

Monarchomachism does the institution of monarchy no favors. It is believed that a strong aristocracy with the hapless monarch, will bring an idyllic state for prosperity. Or that a powerful democracy, with the rule of the People and a constitutional assembly, will become a utopia. Republican solutions to monarchist problems. Different lenses applied to monarchy (like Federal vs. Confederation). This is not the doctrine of aristocrats nowadays. It is the doctrine of parliamentarians. It is often the aristocrats, as opposed to proponents of democracy, that fear tyrants because, in their hearts, they love oligarchy. Meanwhile, they fear populism and Caesarism, and in turn spurn all royal authority (that of monarchy) as being tyranny alone.

<what do you mean?

Give each snout a squeeze. Each snout squeals in their interest of their group without realizing it. Aristocrats will argue in the favor of aristocracy and cry tyrant. Democrats will argue in favor of democracy and cry tyrant. What is tyrant? To the modern audience, it's basically Hitler and the characteristics of populism COMBINED with the royal legitimacy of monarchy. There are ways to try and separate "tyrant" from "monarch", but inevitably it is meaningless because it is not the root of the problem. Those who cry "tyrant" are often trying to pawn another form of government as "the answer".

>what about actual injustice?

Injustice is not limited to monarchy. It goes between all forms of government when they are good and bad. It is a dynamic relationship, not static, when monarchy is automatically tyranny. There are other political zealots out there with an objective end to promote aristocratic principles, or democratic principles, over the ends of monarchy and obviously they'll be crybabies and find the worst word possible.

>what about aristocracy and monarchy together?

Monarchy and aristocracy are not to be opposed. It doesn't have to be the scenario of "Monarch vs nobles" to find equilibrium. I just don't understand why anyone in this political climate doesn't realize that "aristocracy" (not in terms of wealth, but the few) comes to mean another end that has become very ignoble today.


File: e0f9433203afd7d⋯.jpg (151.15 KB, 320x486, 160:243, 6a010535ce1cf6970c01b8d2c5….jpg)


>At the heels of this ephemeral and contradictory school come the Socialist schools, which, while granting all its principles, deny all its consequences. The Socialists take from the Liberal and Rationalist schools the negation

of human solidarity in the political and religious orders. Denying it in the religious order, they deny the transmission of the sin and the penalty, and, moreover, the sin and the penalty themselves; denying it in the political order, they take from the Socialist and Liberal school the principle of the equal aptitude of all men for the offices and dignities of the State; but, advancing further, they demonstrate to the Liberal school that this principle logically carries with it the suppression of hereditary monarchy, and this entails the suppression of all monarchy, which, if not hereditary, is a useless and embarrassing institution.

I look at the last line. Monarchy, if not hereditary, is an embarrassing institution because then it has no unique guiding principles than your average republic.


File: 53a42a12aef98e3⋯.jpg (209.28 KB, 936x1108, 234:277, Evariste-Vital_Luminais_(1….jpg)

The roi fainéant, or "The Do-Nothing King" that these people want are more likely to be displaced or usurped than what we call "tyrants" in monarchy. While I mention this, it is important to remember that while monarchs can be displaced and new dynasties can come in, to never release legitimacy and succession as a proper principle of hereditary monarchy and the fact that it is not popular mandate that counts in these matters. It is important to preserve the dynastic line in monarchy and not weaken these foundations of monarchical civilization.

File: c02510e171fd2b7⋯.jpg (49.61 KB, 474x704, 237:352, th.jpg)

File: a0822efe15401c7⋯.jpg (255.99 KB, 1280x837, 1280:837, Cp8QpD2VIAAw-WW.jpg large.jpg)


For a reason unknown to me, the concept of a king alone aggros people on the board. Or, at least, it had brought about aggro in the past. What is absolute? A monarchy where the king is solely king and this authority is inviolable and typically unfettered and the top of temporal hierarchy. That is the easiest way I would clarify it. The rule of the monarch, at the top of the hierarchy, with the other members of the hierarchy. As Maistre defined it, 'a centralized aristocracy'. It isn't limited to Western civilization. Absolute monarchy comes in different forms. It has manifested itself throughout the ages. The sole role of monarchs as sovereigns is nothing new.

>absolutism is all about 'arbitrary' power, 'totalitarianism', 'big gubmit', 'the modern state', 'social contract theory'.

This is a big misconception. People tend to throw around a word salad without really defining their terms. Throwing words like 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' as if they were one and the same annoys me to death. Is monarchy an 'authoritarian' structure? Indefinitely, I think, because the institution relies on authority of great spiritual foundation, culture, justice, and the family. To despise all authority is to deprive all people of rights, actions as fathers, and their own self-autonomy. Authority is spread across the board, not limited to only the government, but the entire state of sovereignty. Parents have authority. People have authority over their property. Teachers have authority over students. People have authority in the things they produce and create. Authority is in initiative and intuitiveness. Authority is nothing limited to the state, but it does consist with hierarchy and control. Sovereignty extends to the entire state of living in a particular realm, not limited or separated to the government. It is propriety and authority across the board, vertical within a hierarchy and the dominion of monarchy, church, and people. It is right and wrong because the character of monarchies is so unrestricted to ideologies, even absolutism itself, that it really depends on the character of the monarch.

>absolutism is modernism/Enlightenment

This is right and wrong. It depends on how you view wPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

10 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 8b627a48232bfbd⋯.jpg (3.86 MB, 3048x4773, 1016:1591, louis xvi.jpg)





Moncom gang at it again.


File: d2403f15027fe96⋯.mp4 (521.85 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Ace_Ventura_cheeky_laugh.mp4)


That's an awful lot of words you've used to create such a murky cloud. If an Absolute Monarch doesn't have Absolute power, in what sense is his power Absolute? In what sense is he Absolute?. If he does, he is definitively a Tyrant, a Dictator, the law is in his mouth. Why you'd twist words so confuses me. If you love the idea of a state-father there's no reason you should have to muddle the issue. Perhaps you're just trying to make it more palatable to others. In any case, you're wrong.

>To despise all authority is to deprive all people of rights, actions as fathers, and their own self-autonomy

Here is some of your greatest work. Redefining freedom as slavery. Beautiful. Exactly what I'd expect from someone with your psychological complex. To despise people violating your rights is to have no rights at all, to despise any violations of your autonomy is to lose your autonomy. That is what you've said here. Terrific.



>Redefining freedom as slavery

<hey, it's not like… you want… George Orwell's BIG BROTHER, h-huh, OP?

>Absolute? In what sense is he Absolute?

Monarchy, the rule of one; absolutely regal, that's what!

>If he does, he is definitively a Tyrant, a Dictator, the law is in his mouth.

I don't care how you cry big bad wolf. A dictator is a speaker who speaks, and people listen and take command. A monarch receives the mantle of authority gracefully, uses command with a majesty like a lion, and has not only consent of other subjects but dynamic of divine right. It is about a different kind of power resonating with the monarch, not only the popularity of consent.



natural law has no meaning or rather is has the meaning you want it to have because it is not real, like god

File: 833430527d22183⋯.jpg (152.34 KB, 546x768, 91:128, gcga_1989.21.1604_1_2.jpg)


/monarchy/, what is the best way to deal with rebels? is it right to be civil and compromise as pragmatically as possible… or do all rebels deserves the noose? in other words, what to make of dissent, insurgents, and violent rebels? these require different responses. censorship? maybe. should there be lèse-majesté to respect the esteem and cultural significance of a monarch? let's discuss.

27 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



From what you said, you would probably agree with Jouvenal de Bertrand.

Read it here. Chapter 2. Authority.



File: 148cf6d1c6ed0dc⋯.jpg (31.94 KB, 770x433, 770:433, Jouvenel.jpg)

Unfortunately, all the libertarian monarchists that use him as a wedge on absolute monarchists made me grow hands-off on my complete fascination with this author. Bertrand de Jouvenel comes off as a liberal think tank looking into this subject and I can appreciate this on one end, but on the other – seeing the result with some people – it is a massive headache.

>such as?

I think Bertrand de Jovenel's take on absolute monarchy doesn't sit very well with me. I will stick with my Filmer, Maistre, and Bossuet. I don't need modern authors sticking to me with their revisionism and criticism of the modern state. The first thing that immediately stuck to me was his chapter on sovereignty taking it from Hobbes' pov.



>This is not an world where anarchy is everywhere. This is a world where authority is everywhere.

I don't consider those two to be mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, anarcho-capitalism is inherently hierarchical, dividing men through the brutal sieve of meritocracy, and is driven by entrepreneurs and promoters–men with authority. It is state systems, particularly democratic states, that try to subvert the natural order into some ill-advised attempt to achieve "equality."


>Read it here

Overall I don't have major issue with his ideas on authority. Obviously, I contend the notion that anarchy is in any way socialist or egalitarian, and I don't think a state is at all necessary to project authority. If anything, the creation of a state and taxation permits indolence within the auctor, and accelerates the degeneration of authority into mere power; resting on the laurels of guaranteed tax revenue removes the incentive to maintain those aspects of your institution that granted authority in the first place. Therefore, "anarchy" (really the free market) is in fact better suited towards projecting authority than any state can hope to be.


>Unfortunately, all the libertarian monarchists that use him as a wedge on absolute monarchists

I don't know what Jouvenel does in this regard, but as a libertarian that sympathizes with monarchists I can tell you it isn't true for me–absolute monarchism is most conducive to libertarian ends and the most economically viable style of monarchy, and as such it has my support above all other forms of monarchy.



>I don't know what Jouvenel does in this regard

He blames 17th-18th century monarchies for enabling the modern state and this is how absolutism gets the ire of those libertarian monarchists. In other fashion, I think he picks on the centralization of the time. It might be a fair analysis in one case for this kind of criticism.

I think the key term is centralization. I don't view absolute as centralism. I take a contemporary fashion as just being "absolved" and it's easy to make that case because often with powerful monarchs you do see centralization. This doesn't extend back to those latter centuries. It is a trend in history.

When I think of regal authority, I don't imagine only assent, but also a power residing with it being produced. It's not far from his terms. This is a power of a different nature and station. Kinda like what Bertrand de Jouvenel said with the lightning rod example. This is how I imagine divine right and that kind of command – in a mystical sense.



>He blames 17th-18th century monarchies for enabling the modern state

Well, correction; their downfall was centralization. But that's kinda the gist I get from those people who get angry at those monarchies.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / doomer / g / leftpol / qsourcex / tingles / utoronto / vg ]