Thread 520765171

Royalist reasoning sounds odd to modern ears, but please recall that most people who have ever lived have lived under monarchies, and, in those cultures, sacrificing armies and large portions of society, as well as destroying other nations, was a rational and equitable response to an egregious attack on the royal family like assassinating the heir to the throne. Yes, in royalist reasoning, or in the way of thinking that prevails in an established monarchy that has existed long enough for this way of thinking to become established, even an insult to the king or a prince is cause enough to go to war and end a hundred thousand lives of commoners and mere nobles.
The king, and his entire family -- royalty itself -- is preeminent such that even the highest of nobles is utterly incomparable with the majesty of the monarch or the majesty of any one of his family.
Only a royal has majesty, which is the highest earthly quality a human can have, and this is why "Majesty" is only used in royal titles and not in the titles of nobles.
The preeminence and majestic dignity of the monarch and his family, who share his majestic royal blood, places the monarch as the highest being on earth by far, not just different from all other, lesser humans in degree, but differing in kind, for only the royals have majesty and are absolutely preeminent among human beings. The greatest non-royal duke is, to a kind or a royal family member, like the lowest peasant or even outcast is to a noble duke.
They belong to entirely different orders of being, utterly different ranks of existence.

>>520765171 (OP)
It is an artifact of equalitarian republican or democratic (power to the people, or enfranchising the commoners) ways of thinking, as prevailed during the Enlightenment when Jefferson wrote that "All men are created equal," which statement was a direct attack upon the majesty or utterly special rank of royalty (monarchs and their families), to find it strange that so many lives should be sacrificed to avenge the wrongful taking of one life, or to find it strange that men and women should be expected to give up their earthly lives to avenge an insult committed against a royal, i.e. a monarch or sovereign and his or her family who all share in the royal blood.
Only equalitarian sentiment, upon which republics and democracies are based, which systems of government and social ordering make all members of society by giving all of them the vote, are at odds with the position that it is right and good and even a duty of the commoners and nobles to sacrifice themselves to uphold the majesty of the royal family.
In royalist systems and societies, the royal family is anointed by God to be the upholder of God's laws and morals within their realm, such that the monarch is the head of this preeminent and anointed family and all his relatives, from children to cousins, are heirs, in a strict line of succession, to the sovereignty possessed by the monarch.
As the divinely anointed or God's elected leader for a nation, the monarch and the royal line in fact speak and act for God, or on God's behalf, within their realm, which they own completely, such that the monarch owns all real property and every parcel of land held by anyone else within the realm, from the highest noble to the lowest commoners, is in fact the king or queen's own land, own real property, and the holder of that parcel, which is a granted fief, holds that fief at the monarch's pleasure, and it is the monarch's God-given right to repossess anyone's granted land within his or her realm at any time.

USURP THE ROYALS
BECOME GOD EMPEROR

>>520765230
The fact that the sovereign allows lords and ladies and even commoners to hold any land in trust, such that a fief or a house with some yard around it is passed on from generation to generation even while the monarch can reclaim that land and evict its tenants at any time, is a testament to the generosity of the monarch, who owns all things within the realm and yet allows others use of them, so that his or her subjects may survive and even thrive, even though the monarch, as exclusive owner of the entire realm and everything in it, could just as well decide not to allow any subject any access to what is ultimately the monarch's own property in perpetuity. All subjects of a king or a queen regnant live and thrive only from the grave of the king or the queen regnant, whose power is so absolute, that is is this preeminent person's God-given right to take away access to any resource within his or her realm, at any time, from any subject.
This is why sovereigns and their families are paid such deep respect. It is by their grace alone that their subjects even have access to the means of subsistence like land on which to grow food. So we kneel and bow to the king or queen regnant, and to all of their family, in gratitude for sharing with us what portion of their own realm they are allowed to access for their own survival and wellbeing.

>>520765447
This is the natural order of things, the way the cosmos is constructed such that the closer we approximate its perfection, the better we are and the more good we are doing and the more good there is in the world.
The Great Chain of Being has some precedents in Aristotle's De Anima, where he ranks the Prime Mover, then Man qua rational being, then animal, vegetable, and mineral, each with their own kind of essence, and it also has overtones of Plato's Theory of Forms, such that the true nature of reality is not the sensible world we experience but the perfect models of things that physical things do better or worse in approximating. So, the more out societies align with the natural order as clarified in the Chain of Being the closer to perfection, to ideal reality, which is true reality, we are.

>>520765424
This mindset is liberal philosophy on steroids.
Liberalism is the ideology of freedom, and the desire for freedom is the desire to increase one's own social status rather than accepting one's natural role in the natural order of things.
This is why liberalism was born in a revolt against hereditary aristocracy and, above all, against the divine rights of kings.
And yes, both left and right, republican and democrat, are all liberal political tendencies.
They want more freedom but just have differing versions of freedom.
Fact is, no one cared about freedom until the 1600s when the first liberal philosophers began spouting off in an effort to erode the absolute monarchies of Europe.

>>520765742
If people followed your mindset we'd still be ruled by the Merovingians, not even the Karlings. The Romans knew that ambitious men can rise to the top

>>520765887
What's so great about progress? What have we gained from it that's truly worth keeping? And, will we lose it all anyway the next time civilization falls apart, as civilizations always do?
I do not see how life today is any better than life in AD 600, in fact I see many ways in which it is worse, like in the rampant egotism of a population that worships personal liberty/freedom and strives to maximize hedonistic pleasures rather than living according to a more or less internally consistent set of moral principles worked out over centuries of dedicated thought by the greatest minds our civilization, even borrowing from other civilizations, have produced.

>>520766800
Comparing your life to a medieval serf's on barbarian, feudal soil, you sound like a Romanticist, a Byron for vampiric concepts like blood worship and self deification. Guys like you would advocate for Prima Noctis

>>520767253
In fact I reject Romanticism for trying to reimpose medieval, feudal ideals on a modernizing society while not challenging the modern world itself.
What I advocate is the end of modern civilization altogether in favor of a Dark Age where all the "progress" since the Renaissance is done away with. Then we can get back to much more normal ways of living, by world-historical standards, far better aligned with out evolved needs and expectations for social life.

>>520767253
Basically, the Romanticists were larpers because they wanted bits and pieces of the medieval world while refusing to accept the basic socioeconomic and technological level that made those bits and pieces make sense.
No, we need a collapse, then we can get to work reestablishing a good way to live. When we're back to a medieval economy, those medieval ideals the Romantics so prized will reemerge naturally and necessarily.

>>520767723
>>520767561
Are you actually advocating for peasantry, serfdom and tenant farming, like is this something you want? Castes of burghers, nobles and priests that you can't even reach if you're not born that way?

>>520767822
Yes. This is how humans evolved to lived over many millennia of selection pressures that favored people accustomed to a feudal society led by a natural warrior caste that subsisted off the labor of a natural worker class.
We are in fact happier living according to our evolved nature than we are in the ever-tossing maelstrom of modernist social and economic change that is valued just because change is assumed to be good.

>>520768141
If we were to go back to our evolved nature we'd have to abandon serfdom and go back to hunter gatherer clans, are you man enough to admit this is the end point of your regressionism?

>>520768287
I am not convinced of that. Yes, the hunter-gatherer evolutionary programming remains strong in our brains and likely is the source of equalitarian and egalitarian political and general social tendencies, since hunter-gatherer/forager societies were devoid of social stratification and had only the most basic of hierarchies: leaders chosen on an ad hoc basis, with no ability to pass on status to their children, like because one man was the most skilled hunter at a certain time, and even then, he would lose his leadership role as soon as he grew too old (assuming he lived long enough) to be the best hunter any longer, or was injured, or became very ill.
During the Neolithic, a rapid new selection process occurred favoring those portions of the previous hunter-gatherer evolved population which were best suited to domesticated life, meaning life in stratified, i.e. intensively hierarchical and enabling of intergenerational inheritance of position, as well as specialized, societies, which emerged very rapidly, in the span of one or two millennia, after agriculture's earliest forms some 12,000 years ago after the glaciers receded and the climate warmed.
There is great evidence of widespread executions, of men and women alike, all throughout the history of Neolithic and then ensuing Bronze Age societies. What was happening is those humans who were unfit to live under the yoke of the new aristocracies were being genetically eliminated, thus a new social selection process was taking place that evolved a new kind of human being to supersede the Paleolithic Man and who was suited to civilized life, i.e. life in stratified societies with their extensive hierarchies and specialization of labor.
Now, the new Civilized Man sits atop Paleolithic Man inside of people's brains, such that the old Neolithic equalitarian programming remains, in bits and pieces, not having been exterminated wholesale in the violent selection process that occurred over ten or so millennia

>>520769045
after the dawn of agriculture and the Neolithic Revolution. No evolutionary process is 100% efficient, and so today's liberals are the remnants of equalitarian Paleolithic Man in the brains of today's population. Meanwhile, the selection process toward fitness for life in the new civilization of strict hierarchy and inherited power and wealth, and even widespread slavery, was nonetheless very efficient, such that most people today yearn for social order under intergenerationally situated classes of higher social rank than themselves. Most people today are hierarchists or proponents of social domination rather than egalitarianism, and this new programming, evolved into us through the selection pressures that naturally attended the dawn of civilizations (literally: the way of the cities) during the New Stone Age and the following Bronze Age, is the source of anti-egalitarian, elitist political tendencies seen today, as on the right wing in each society.
The left are the old Paleolithic-minded folks whose Paleolithic programming survived to some degree of intactness despite the new selection pressures and fitness standards after agriculture emerged, while the right are the new Neolithic-minded people who embody, to a much greater degree than their Paleolithic-minded counterparts, the new programming evolved into our DNA and, ultimately, that DNA's expression as our brains through the selection pressures and fitness standards that rapidly sprung up with the beginnings of farming.

>>520769045
So if there's enough killing everybody can move on? Think of today as natural selection in the same exact arbitrary way, those men who thrived under feudalism and serfdom are dying out, replaced by those who thrive on liberty and freedom, you soon won't have a population to appeal to

>>520765171 (OP)
fascism is the way

>>520769744
another

Is a ball room hosts balls

>>520765171 (OP)
if God doesn't exist, then all monarchies are frauds

since there is no evidence for God, you must naturally conclude it was all a sham and more than likely these "royalists" knew it

>>520769585
This new age of freedom or liberty is only a few centuries old. Yes, the old warrior caste, carefully genetically engineered through selection pressures like arranged marriages between families of proven battlefield efficacy and the ennobling of commoners with remarkable leadership skill in war, is under great selection pressure either to merge with the new bourgeois business caste of merchants through marriages between Old Money and New Money, as took place all over Europe in the 1800s, or else to die out and go away. Surely, the warrior caste's natural values of honor and loyalty are disappearing, or have already all but disappeared. But I would give it at least another millennium before we conclude that the Industrial Revolution, which enabled those selection pressures favoring merchants and disfavoring fighters, has the staying power that the Agricultural Revolution proved to have,
The Industrial Age, or Industrial Civilization altogether, may turn out to be a flash in pan in the big picture of the human past for several reasons, ranging from sociological to military (nuclear or biological warfare especially) to ecological to resource-depletion etc. to demographic. The jury is still out on whether the new Merchant Man will actually thoroughly evolve and become the master class of a long-lasting, meaning millennia long, era of the human story.

>>520770230
Well, we can wait and see, aren't you proud of the heights your nation has reached in its own model and method? Would you really throw it all away for a cabin in the woods?

>>520765447
>who owns all things within the realm and yet allows others use of them

Now kiddo that's not European monarchy at least like in your French meme pics, that's Authoritarian Patrimonialism, an Asian and Russian form of statehood where the Czar (premier, President, you name it) is the absolute and totalitarian ruler of the country, all power emanate from him, he is the sole owner of everything in the country and the nobles are nothing but his stooges, and his whim (ukaz) is the law.

No similar private land ownership as Feudalism in the West and no private property ownership as Capitalism could ever merge in such state.

>>520770788
My nation and its values are not my own. I have always been a foreigner in this land and, frankly, a foreigner in this age. I am not a modern person in outlook, values, goals etc.
So to answer your question, no am not proud of my nation and its achievements, neither am I any strong critic of these. I am indifferent on this matter and am seeking something very different.

>>520765171 (OP)
I like monarchy. I don't know why, but I do. Because one man has the power to save your life or kill you. Maybe that's the way it should be. I thought I was a king, I thought I was a prince. I guess I'm not. But monarchy seems so homely. It just does.

>>520765528
>arguing in favor of the Aristotelians
all those words you wrote, brought down with a single one:

retarded.

>>520773216
Aristotle wrote thousands of pages of thoughts that survive today. A person can endorse some things he said and not endorse or agree with others.
If you think such a giant body of thought is true or false in its entirety then you are cognitively defective.

>>520772612
How long would you put up with the idea of being a medieval serf, peasant or slave? How long would it take for you to crack and want to come back to modern technological conveniences and the license to shitpost? I think that you're not politically conscious, you're akin to a merchant selling the rope with which he's to be hanged

>>520773170
Every society around the world throughout history has been a monarchy before the modern era except four: Athens, Rome, Florence, the Dutch Republic,
Absolute Monarchy by Divine Right is the natural state of civilized man.

>>520773771
Politics itself is not a universal thing, but is very particular: only existing in societies with enfranchisement or the right to vote.
Absolute monarchies have no politics, no appealing to the masses for their support, no parties. They have courtly intrigue, to be sure, but that is not politics because it involves no appeals to the masses.
Many today live worse than medieval serfs, far worse in fact, in poor countries especially but also in richer countries, and I mean in terms of working conditions and material living standards. I do not see how performing some labor for a lord is any different from working at Amazon in order to afford rent. Except the lord-peasant relationship was far more personal and less bureaucratic.

>>520774103
They don't need parties, they have feudal intrigues and bloodline concerns like pretenders to care for. Every system has its pitfalls, if absolutism was so perfect it would have won out. Fundamentally the people chose the end of sumptuary laws, food restrictions and caste systems, and right now are not campaigning for them back. The greatest hope you have is of you failing to accomplish your goals, otherwise you'd be breaking your back in your lord's field for the fucking courtesy to be alive and unmolested

>>520770856
Mutts, with their insatiable desire to slurp nigger cum, have this remarkable talent for coming up with the most mind-bogglingly retarded spins on things that you've ever seen. Crossing the Atlantic severed them from the light of Hyperborea and created a new, miserable, lower race incapable of understanding Aryan spirit.
>>520773856
You say this shit about absolute monarchy, while at the same time talking about how we must go back to le renaissance. Dumbass nigger, there's a reason why absolute monarchy is exemplified by Louis XIV who lived hundreds of years after the Renaissance. Feudal monarchies were a complex, anarchic tangle of burghers, peasants, yeomen, bishops, knights, barons and kings all competing to empower their social class at the expense of everyone else.

>>520774398
You are falling into the End of History fallacy, assuming that because an older system has gone away, that it is gone forever because "the people" chose in favor of something better and, because the new way is better, it is therefore permanent, Many assumptions are built into this way of thinking. And just because what prevails today, prevails today, does not mean it will continue permanently, especially when the modern way of life cuts against the grain of every premodern society ever to exist, all of which were monarchies and culturally conservative and deeply religious.

>>520774536
I said we must end the entire world as it began in the Renaissance. I did not say we must go back to the Renaissance.

>>520774782
As technology develops, atheism becomes more embedded, the understanding of a divine monarchy and as you would probably have it a Mandala system is becoming impossible unless civilization falls into a deep cataclysm, the only way feudalism comes back is if we all collectively start fucking up, do you really believe we're all happily going to listen to some fossil declare himself God Emperor?

>>520765171 (OP)
>Royalist reasoning sounds odd to modern ears
Only brainwashed ones. Saudi Arabia has a monarchy and despite being Arabs they're doing better than they'd be doing in a fake democracy.

>>520774856
>What I advocate is the end of modern civilization altogether in favor of a Dark Age where all the "progress" since the Renaissance is done away with
So... in other words... you want us to go back to how we lived during or just before the Renaissance?
Anyway there's no point arguing with you really except for shits and giggles.
>>520774782
>especially when the modern way of life cuts against the grain of every premodern society ever to exist, all of which were monarchies and culturally conservative and deeply religious.
So here's the real issue here. You correctly identify the problem: modern life and modernist worldviews are an aberration that are showing their instability.
BUT you are also unfortunately the 60 IQ degenerate hellspawn of physical and spiritual miscegenation and therefore your brilliant idea to fix this is for us all to become the braindead, unthinking slaves of the man in the biggest hat. You completely ignore thousands of years of evolution in western civilisation and western thought and are basically advocating, as the Finn correctly pointed out, for a form of eastern despotism more familiar to the Chinese emperors and the Great Khan Chinggis than to an 11th century French knight.

>>520765230
Egypt is not a good example of a monarchy. The Pharaoh coerced his people to submit by concealing the truth. They dare not fall out of line, lest he "darken the sun" or cause the Nile to turn to blood. Once the truth is out, and it always reveals itself, the king is helpless. That is why the only way a monarchy can thrive is if the king and his family live by the noblesse oblige rule.

>>520775836
Pharaonic Egypt is the purest example of Absolute Monarchy by Divine Right in history.
The Pharaoh's rule was not based on lies. It was based on truth insofar as truth was understood at the time. The Pharaoh was ultimately responsible for maintaining cosmic balance and therefore ensuring the universe does not fall back into the primordial chaos from which it emerged according to Egyptians' understanding of cosmogony.
And every ruling class tells a few lies every now and then (just as commoners do) in order to maintain the social order. The Noble Lie (really the Noble Myth, since the fact that the different social classes have different natures is not untrue, but the gold, silver, and bronze souls explanation that Plato suggests we should sell to the masses so they better understand this fact is indeed a myth) is not necessarily a bad thing.
The different classes must be brought to understand that they each serve a vital function in the social order and that they are in the position they are due to their nature. Helping people understand this by giving them easily digestible myths (since commoners are not intelligent enough to understand a long treatise like Plato's Republic) is an act of kindness, an act of noblesse oblige we might even call it, since it helps commoners and even nobles who are unhappy that they aren't the sovereign better understand why they have the rank they do.

>>520765171 (OP)
Faggot tradlards face the wall beside commies. I know you love your jews.

>>520777091
>(since commoners are not intelligent enough to understand a long treatise like Plato's Republic)
It's both hilarious and depressing to read things like this. /pol/tards and Klaus Schwab style technocrats are literally on opposite extremes of the horseshoe, coming ultimately to believe the exact same thing. I hope you remember what you wrote today in 20 years when our wonderful, educated technocratic elite granted sovereignty by the divine grace of Science and Satan have ushered in a new techno-feudal dark age. Remember, you voted for it!

>>520778225
there's an underlying reality you are forced to contend with though: we didn't arrive where we are today because of tradition

it was the systematic deconstruction of tradition that left people atomized and unmoored. communist/fascist totalitarianism is only possible under democratic ideals. i don't think trads have any realistic plans for re-tethering to tradition that don't involve armageddon, but pretending not to understand their case only makes you sound less credible

>>520778561
>but pretending not to understand their case only makes you sound less credible
I understand his case perfectly, but I also think that he's retarded. He's going to get exactly what he wished for. Hierarchy, naturally ordained superiority of certain bloodlines and all those other lovely things that he seems to believe are so zased and trad are rapidly becoming vogue. I'm not sure whether he'd like his descendants to be paying off 200% interest debts to MechaBezos for the next 1,000 years but silly, ignorant little commoners like them don't have to worry about that kind of complicated stuff. Work and then die because that's their place in the world.

>>520778008
but all modernism and condemning the past comes from Jews?

>>520765171 (OP)
Royal lines are a cess pit of lies and rarely follow true bloodlines, therefore majesty isn't real in the sense of royalness

>>520765447
Such generosity doesn't exist. The land is granted as necessity to protect and enforce the monarchs interest. If robots can do the same they will. Further more all republica operate as secret monarchies even now. You are simply no longer allowed to know which jewking you are dying for at any given moment. And their consumptions of baby flesh is their chief moral """duty"""

>>520765171 (OP)
wooooooooo

>>520778225
There is nothing "techno" about the feudalism and Dark Age I seek. All modern tech would be lost in it and we'd be back to the plow, at least 90% of us aside from a few nobles, clerics, scribes etc.