Any good Monarchist literature I should read?
Other urls found in this thread:
unqualified-reservations.org
twitter.com
Leviathan
All of robert filmers work. He BTFO'D locke but nobody knows about him :(
Joseph de Maistre
Cuckold Smut Complation Vol.5
>CLOTHES COST MORE THEN
>THEN
...
This is important..There is a reason the Romanov's stayed around for so long
Why do Angloids mistake "than" for "then"? They're literally different words.
The Prince
Lao Tzu
They're homophones in many American dialects.
He's a monarchist, not a grammer nazi.
My biggest problem with monarchy, while accepting it to be the best political system (besides anarchy), is the reliance on hereditary rule. It should be obvious to everyone that virtue does not 1:1 get bred into the next generation. I understand that it's supposed to be a gamble among high stock people, but I honestly think a meritocratic monarchy follow something like the path in Plato's Republic is better. The issue is you then have to establish a council of elders or some other impartial but highly educated people to decide who gets to be king next. I guess in terms of practicality and digestibility, hereditary ascension is easier for peasants to swallow.
Any how, I'm interested in this kind of lit too.
Take the epistocratic pill.
I was in Barnes and nobles the other day for the first time in years and that was the only interesting book I saw. I didn't buy it because it was ridiculously expensive but I'll probably buy it used soon
Spengler, Evola
There should be a copy of it on Libgen. If not I can upload it.
Keith Feiling's History of England.
>I go to Barnes & Noble once or twice a month to read my own books and to discreetly shoplift
I mean, if there ever was a place deserving of shoplifting it probably would be there or any other pretentious and over priced establishment. Apple, too, but you can't really steal floor models and get use out of them
Thanks bub
No but you can go to Apple and use their desktop computers like an Internet cafe. I booked an entire trip while I was in the Apple store 2 weeks ago
how would a monarch come about in a modern age?
are there any books that talk about alternate or unique monarchy?
You have allow a natural aristocracy to develop.
It would be hard to choose, you are right about that. However, it can be done. Look at the 5 Good Emperors. None of them were the child of the previous, and as soon as our boy Mark chose his son to succeed him, it all went to shit
that's easy. it's going to be the few white people left in America by 2021
>serfs
>reading
Go tend to your crops, nerd
>are there any books that talk about alternate or unique monarchy?
unqualified-reservations.org
Spend some time around the aristocracy and you'll start sharpening your guillotine. I absolutely refuse to believe anyone who not somehow connected to nobility or an amerifat can be a monarchist.
Yikes
you asked for it buddy, don´t complain
Fascism and monarchism are only divided by technology, prove me wrong
what questions should i ask myself after reading the prince. for better comprehension
set the demo computer's browsers homepage to blacked.com
>Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth & Leviathan
These two are perhapes the greatest pro-monarchy works.
>Robert Flimer's Patriarcha is an excellent work and eminently readable.
>The Book of Samuel, Proverbs and some of Paul's letters. all contain passages praising kingship, holding loyalty to kings as a virtue and so on.
Xenophone's Cyropaedia
>Oroonoko: or, the Royal Slave goes into detail about how divine right remains despite circumstances, written in 1688 about an African prince taken to the Americas as a slave quite important work for jacobites.
>Joseph de Maistre considerations on france. literally the origin of throne and altar.
Edmund Burke- you know the one.
King james's Basilikon Doron written by a king on how to be a monarch
King charles's Eikon Basilike same as above this one actually turned several die hard republicans into monarchist and not even miltion could make a convincing reply.
> The epic of Sunjata, lots on the relationship between a king and his people and the ultimate goal of monarchy.
>most Chinese legalist works
> Thomas cannmer- wrote lots of works on the rights of kings and most Anglican writters until the modern day followed in his footsteps with ideas such as the doctrine of passive obedience.
Earl of claredon- History of the civil war.
All of Kipling
All of Charlotte Mary Yonge
>History of the 12 caesars
>Montagies essays few people actually read him hence his popularity amoungst Libs but he was quite the monarchist.
>Romance of three Kingdoms, it is a fictionalized essay on what makes a true king also fun.
Steven Koltkins Paradoxes of power is a must read as it shows how a monoarchy can still have the support of the population yet still be overthrown.
Emperor Meiji and his world- Another must read.
WOW dont tell me this convinced you???
Yeah i have the same reservations but i dont think that an elected monarchy would be any better. form a systematic POV it would encourage dissolute elections as being the literal once in a life time ticket to the gold roof lots of unscrupulous people would be willing to do some bad things to get in.
secondly election isnt a grantee of competence but merely of wealth and popularity.
Thirdly who chooses the elders and makes sure their impartial. the Canadian senate is suppose to be an impartial council of elders who act as a break on the young radicals ine parliament( you can run for Parliament at 18 with no other qualifications but you have to be 30 and have $2000 worth of landed property which has not been adjusted for inflation since 1870)
But since the Gov-general who appoints senates is herself appointed by the prime minister the whole thing has become a corrupt rubber stamp.
The early Islamic caliphate worked as an elective monarchy were the chalips were elected by ahle wal aqh, wise old men, and the first two were good especially the second one, the third started off good then became corrupt and the fourth was totally incompetent though personally virtuous. i should mention that the Fourth had third and failed to win the previous three elections and ended up ascending to the throne after the assassination of the third by the fourths supporters.
As for the five good emperors, the first was a non entity and the second was only good by a fluke having been forced on the first by the army antonius pious actually started the whole good emperor thing by waging few wars, premoting the worship of terminus the god of stable borders and massive building projects + be picked out and groomed Hadrian from a young age.
we could perhaps have the king be a eunuch such as the Attalids( so says livy) to prevent a son but eunuchs have a nasty tendency of being a bit short....sighted.
never realized that moldbug was such a terrible write. wow. literally quintessentially american essay - necessarily verbose, yikes-tier allegory, etc, etc. it was almost a pain to read, and contains little to no original content at all. literally 10 lines of greentext would've sufficed
I feel like elective monarchy, where patriarches of each dioceses get to vote - essentially voting for pope, but a secular ruler. the trouble is coming up with handful~dozen list of nominees - maybe some descendants of previous monarchs, higher up civil mandarins, military generals, chief-scholars, and patriarchs themselves? idk
Updated list from 8ch/monarchy/ board.
>while accepting it to be the best political system (besides anarchy)
what are you doing on my board
not really, its just food for thought
>Dune
>The Baroque Cycle
>Chronicles of Narnia
All of Shakespeare's history plays are meditations on what it means to be the King.
Any good introductions to Chinese legalism for a westerner with little knowledge of ancient China?
there's nothing wrong with hereditary rule
anything other then it is a corruption of monarchy
although there should exist a system to depose an incapable or malicious monarch, preferably by some sort of Pope figure
The Han fexi and the book of lord shang are available online. both are pivotal works in the legalistic tradition.
I am not so sure on that see for example the last four ottoman sultans all were deposed by fatwa of the sheik ul islam, who conspired with military or with factions with in the court. for example Adulhamid conspired with the British ambassador to get Midhat pasha's approval to replace his brother. And when Midhat pasha showed up for an interview with the perspective monarchy Adulhamid when in a rant about great democracy was, how much more secular he wanted the country to be and how much more European. of course when Adulhamid gained the throne he did the opposite of everything he cliamed, but his lies got the approval of the sheik ul islam who issed the fatwa.
Thats what i fear that over personal or small disagreements people can consider with pope type figure to overthrow a monarch.
there is even the issue of the election of the pope figure, such a figure will owe loyalty to who ever elected them and what if such people are hostile to the monarch or who hold sincere but detrimental beliefs about the direction of state.
what is to stop the pope figure from deposing rulers until he gets a pliable one.
In pre-christian Ethiopia the king was chosen by an animist pope figure who demanded that after a certain amount of time the king self immolate, this became a tradition. allowing the pope figure and his family to grow rich as any king who opposed them was sent to the ferry-man basically the pope figure had unlimited power as the king didn't dare go against him, until one royal prince had the courage to go an kill the pope figure and his whole family re-establishing royal supremacy.
some thing similar happened in France during te fronde were one pope issued an order ex cathedra to kill the king the next pope rescinded it and then the next pope reinstated it. none of this was done because of a lack of piety or especially tyrannical behavior on the kings side in fact he was often found in sackcloth's fallgating himself in the streets of paris or giving charity and all who knew him thought him a kindman but the pope cousin or something wanted to be king and so excommunication it was.
of course lets not forget Old Henry, who was an espically pious catholic ( the french ambasdor was rather put off by his 10 masses per day) but whos wife couldnt produce an heir, henry's own father had put a stop to a 30 year civil war that had raged over just that same reason and despite hernies pleads the pope refused to annul the marriage because he wanted to be on the king of Spain good side. now if henry had obeyed the pope civil war would have followed and so he did the right thing for his people and disobeyed and the pope issued a communique granting paradise to who ever killed him and telling the nobles to rise up and take the throne. according to your system the pope would be totally in the right to allow England to fall into civil war.
Now i admit the bad empore problem is devlish one but i think it can be sloved by having a senate or parliment who can overrule some of the monoarchs decesions. for example when jerobam son of solomon refused to lower taxes it was the elders whoes advice he was refusing and becuase of this he lost the richest and most populus part of his kingdom. if said elders could have over ruled him he would have kept the North.
so why not create a senate taking a que from Romulus and making it be fathers( patricians funnily enough out of Romulus army of 20,000 so says livy that only 120 men knew their own fathers these would become the origin of the patrician order and the rest the plebs) with the modern addition of Mothers( those who have given live birth) and another from mohammed by making them over the age of 40. 100 members will be selected by at random from all who meet the criteria. these people would then have the authority to overrule some of the kings decisions by a 3/4 vote but they could only over rule the same decision three times and in each time the king must give a space of 3 weeks before re-issuing the order.
a hoppean monarchy would be cool to see
>Virgin Fascist vs. Chad Monarchist
vs. Gigachad Aristocrat
Not gonna bother quoting everyone, but one solution to the problem of elective vs hereditary monarchy is to have a tiered system akin tobwhat the CCP does
>1st tier is elected officials, or might-as-well-be-elected officials representing various groups, interests, and areas of the country; let's say there's 625 of them
>they select 125 individuals to be the next tier
>they then select 25 to be the next tier
>they then select 5 individuals to fulfill a directory-esque system
The various tiers operate sort of like a parliamentary system where the legislatora are also embedded in the govt, but they ultimately follow orders from above. At certain times a grand meeting is held and the ideology and goals of the state/party are discussed. Because of democratic centralism this basically means every 5 years everything (EVERYTHING) is open for discussion and up for debate but the rest of the time you keep your trap shut and your head down and follow orders.
The directory system allows the "Five Kings" to each have a focus, and allows for Kings to be selected on merit (you could also throw in some necessary requirements: the king in charge of law, order, and the military must have been a cop or in the military).
Amazing list, thank you user
What do monarchists in this thread mean by the word 'monarchy'?
Any literature on Traditional African Monarchical Systems?
>African
>literature
It does not need to be written by an African, it can be written by a scholar of any country or race
>It should be obvious to everyone that virtue does not 1:1 get bred into the next generation.
Yes, that much is obvious. But, who is more fit to be the next King, if not the son of the current King who, from birth, is raised to play the part? As long as the current King is good (which he should be), there would not be much of a problem.
If your home was invaded by barbarians how would you deploy your forces to best defend it?
>Aristocrat
>Monarchist
same thing