/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

Upcoming Events

/icup/: Infinity Cup 6 Day 3, Sun August 15th, matches start 11:00 AM PDT / 1:00 PM CDT / 2:00 PM EDT / 18:00 UTC

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB


(used to delete files and postings)

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children

The Coming Family-State Blackshirt 07/15/2020 (Wed) 20:40:51 No.3518
>tfw you realize that "family values" fags are correct but that they don't realize that capitalism and feminism is destroying the family-structure The strengthening of the family is essential for the future. Effective familial relations are the root of both community and state. The family's are the ultimate source and ground of the political order. Atomized individuals and broken families are symptoms of a sick and degenerating society. The society has grown top-heavy. The individual finds face-to-face with the state with no intermediary associations. This too is unnatural. A truly strong state needs strong families, strong local communities and finally a strong and capable national leadership. The weakness of any of the three above is harmful for the others. How can the family be strengthened in future fascist societies? I think inculcating the people with Confucian-like ideas of role ethics, guidelines for conduct drawn from concrete familial and social roles would be one helpful educational policy, but the real problem is that Whites are totally spooked on the idea of the abstract autonomous individual, abstract universal principles and the idea of the state as something that restricts them.
>>4376 I will remain silent on such matters
Open file (1.28 MB 1050x821 new feet.png)
>>4378 I think the whole trinity is in their hands at this point
>>4354 So what is positive liberty?
>>4409 In contrast to negative liberty, positive liberty is more about the possibility of acting, or acting in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes.
What happened to the diaperfags, anyways? Did they go back to one of the 8shits?
>>4411 They're over on 8moe with a few of the other Julay boards
>>4410 Frankly I don't really agree with strict laws on things like gambling or sluts because then you end up with the same problems the Christians have where you just have a whole subset of people who pretend to be good people and practice their degeneracy in secret rather than out in the open where you can identify them and either publicly shame them or just avoid associating with them all together. Laws will not remove degenerates it will only make them better at hiding from you.
>>4421 The specific examples are beside the point. A better example that might resonate with you more is laws against miscegenation, an irrational and harmful act not in the best interest of the individual or, more importantly, the nation as a whole. >Laws will not remove degenerates it will only make them better at hiding from you. Degenerates have always existed, but what is new is the open toleration and promotion of them. In the 19th century the traditional value-systems of most people were totally destroyed as people were uprooted and turned into wage-slaves in urban environments. Eventually, little was left except a rootless mishmash of subhumans who eventually were turned into the egoistic materialists of today who live for the now, who "live and let live" regardless of the costs. Degeneracy was normalized. The kikes want everyone to be a degenerate. They want our kids to be homosexuals, racemixers and trannies. You're right that no mere application of laws will remove these people, what is needed is a new sense of collective purpose, something more than just living in the moment, living for pleasure, for "happiness" and whatever nonsense the Talmudvision is trying to sell the lemmings as a society.
>>4421 To be fair, everyone on /fascist/ is a degenerate to a certain extent. Isn't keeping it a secret better? I mean, we are humans after all. We can't entirely eliminate our degenerate tenancies forever.
>>4443 A lot of this revolves on how exactly one defines degeneracy. Some people are much more lax, others (like myself) have more strict ideals. In my mind, when someone is a degenerate, they’re engaging in behavior or hold beliefs that are corrosive to man’s healthy instincts, well-being, improvement, (individually or in societal terms), environment or anything at all. What is natural and healthy is necessary for the well-being of an individual or group, what is degenerate degrades, weakens and harms all of these. I see degeneracy as superfluous and there's zero reason for it to exist in society. This sounds extreme (and it is), but if one looks at what I wrote closely, you’ll see that I don't see the future as being some sort of austere monastery though – this should be clear enough from how I mentioned "man's healthy instincts" above. I am no puritan, man has a sexual side, nudity is not inherently "evil" or "depraved" as Christfags would tell you it is, occasionally people can probably drink alcohol or eat shitty food without harming themselves in any significant way. We need to teach self-discipline and moderation. True freedom comes not from reckless indulgence in the lusts and desires, but from mastery of these "lower" instincts. Normalfags would never put up with what I do persnally without a great reason to. personally I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t do any sort of drugs, don’t watch pornograph, I don’t listen to music or to any forms of Jewish propaganda. On top of this I try not to associate with known degenerates. I don’t think most people are as autistic as I am in regards to things, but I think they bring more benefits to myself than indulging in them would. Though it does make you a weirdo to most people alive. I get called an “old man” a lot. Honestly though having some weird fetish is innocuous compared to what the Jews are blasting into our homes 24/7/365 through television, radio, newspapers, smartphones, and computers.
One of the major changes that needs to be enacted is a loosening of domestic violence laws. While I don't condone the excessive beating of women, a man needs to be allowed to keep order in his own home, and that sometimes means hitting a woman with an open hand, or smacking a woman on the buttocks with a paddle or rod. This actually used to be quite acceptable in America. One need only look at old John Wayne films to find this to be the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IXyf8CP6Fw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm9MEBPZkcU Or for that matter Sean Connery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm9MEBPZkcU Incidentally. The positive portrayal of corporal punishment of one's wife in mass media seems to have a strong positive effect on fertility. sauce: https://blog.jim.com/economics/fertility-and-corporal-punishment/
>>4514 I agree. Men today have been totally cucked in the home. You can't discipline either your own children or wife without it being seen as some sort of "abuse". Just as an unruly child sometimes need some sense slapped into him, so does a woman. The root of the problem comes from the idea that a marriage is an equal relationship, when this has traditionally never been the case - not because the men of the past were evil "women-haters", but because this is the natural dynamic of man and woman. The family is but the state in miniature. Women were traditionally subject to their father, and after marriage their husband, and after his death, her sons. The average twenty-something woman of today needs badly disciplined, and I'm not even trying to be edgy. They are entitled, bitchy, vile creatures. I can't find the video, but there was some video from Portland where a woman was screaming at the police and she was told not to come any closer. She screamed "OR WHAT" and lunged at the cops, and she was promptly shoved to the ground and arrested, screaming like a little girl. The perfect illustration
The ethnic state is a great family; the family is a small state
Lord of the Four Corners was a title of great prestige claimed by powerful monarchs in ancient Mesopotamia. Though the term "four corners of the world" does refer to specific geographical places within and near Mesopotamia itself, these places were at the time the title was first used thought to represent locations near the actual edges of the world and as such, the title should be interpreted as something equivalent to "Lord of all the known world", a claim to universal rule over the entire world and everything within it. Hammurabi (r. 1810–1750 BC) – referred to as the "king who made the four corners of the Earth obedient" This early empire-building was encouraged as the most powerful monarchs were often rewarded with the most prestigious titles, such as the title of lugal (literally "big man" but often interpreted as "king" King was simply "big man" or big guy. The household rule is something else overlooked... they sometimes call it despotism (they're right), but the name Lord of the Four Corners for universal and pre-eminent rule was based on household rule too... like one great household, as a house has four corners like a pyramid. The Japanese had Hakkō ichiu, meaning Eight Corners under One Roof, all the world under one roof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Four_Corners
Hakkō ichiu (八紘一宇, "eight crown cords, one roof" i.e. "all the world under one roof") or Hakkō iu (八紘爲宇, Shinjitai: 八紘為宇) was a Japanese political slogan meaning the divine right of the Empire of Japan to "unify the eight corners of the world." It was prominent from the Second Sino-Japanese War to World War II, popularized in a speech by Prime Minister of Japan Fumimaro Konoe on January 8, 1940. The term was coined early in the 20th century by Nichiren Buddhist activist and nationalist Tanaka Chigaku, who cobbled it from parts of a statement attributed in the chronicle Nihon Shoki to legendary first Emperor Jimmu at the time of his ascension. The Emperor's full statement reads: "Hakkō wo ooute ie to nasan" (八紘を掩うて宇と為さん, or in the original kanbun: 掩八紘而爲宇), and means: "I shall cover the eight directions and make them my abode". The term hakkō (八紘), meaning "eight crown cords" ("crown cords" being the hanging decorations of the benkan (冕冠), a traditional Chinese-styled crown), was a metaphor for happō (八方) or "eight directions". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokutai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_politic
Open file (99.80 KB 900x750 ramesses-ii-7.jpg)
Open file (89.51 KB 700x525 Pi-ramesse.jpg)
Open file (27.29 KB 360x251 EUvAtwkXQAEbyQE.jpg)
Pi-Ramesses (Pi-Ramesses Aa-nakhtu, meaning "House of Ramesses, Great in Victory") was the new capital built by the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt Pharaoh Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great, reigned 1279-1213 BC) at Qantir near the old site of Avaris.
Open file (166.93 KB 1024x768 EUu23BgWkAUQfDu.jpg)
Open file (221.54 KB 552x940 egyptian_4_khafre.png)
Open file (4.06 MB 6724x4283 grace-despot.jpg)
King Khafra is attributed to be the face on the Sphinx and responsible for the 2nd largest Pyramid of Giza.
Open file (223.72 KB 378x499 ahkenaten.png)
Open file (66.52 KB 680x452 EUu_IakWAAAcYBW.jpg)
Akhenaten builds Amarna and moves to it as his new capital.
Open file (427.00 KB 1799x1285 EUutfZTWsAArCPo.jpg)
Open file (94.84 KB 400x600 EUutmycXQAU6roA.jpg)
Alexander the Great founding Alexandria.
Open file (123.43 KB 680x523 EUuwKNQWoAAXplY.jpg)
Open file (185.52 KB 940x784 EUuxOU5WkAA3pUC.jpg)
Romulus at the founding of Rome. Plowing marks the boundaries of Rome.
Open file (1.48 MB 1850x1105 EUvF3XIXYAEUrRU.jpg)
Open file (91.99 KB 898x643 EUvF4_oXYAAynpa.jpg)
Open file (151.92 KB 960x666 EUvGV0dXgAAQuPV.jpg)
New Jerusalem A temple is a holy house
Open file (168.33 KB 688x702 EUs5033XsAEEatt.jpg)
Constantine holding a model of Constantinople
Open file (310.95 KB 1100x1314 EUvCHEtXsAAEVG1.jpg)
Open file (146.45 KB 1066x920 EUvCK9YWsAAgNan.jpg)
Open file (1.23 MB 2880x2091 EUvCMZYXsAExKEr.jpg)
King Louis XIV 'le Roi Soleil' and the Palace of Versailles.
Open file (252.33 KB 485x657 EUurGDZWkAIAAZD.jpg)
Open file (664.18 KB 1254x793 EUusOzUXQAgyq99.jpg)
Open file (62.39 KB 750x560 EUusdmKWAAAVoee.jpg)
Emperor Peter I founding St. Petersburg
The Cathedral of Vasily the Blessed It was built from 1555 to 1561 on orders from Ivan the Terrible and commemorates the capture of Kazan and Astrakhan. It was the city's tallest building until the completion of the Ivan the Great Bell Tower in 1600. The placement of the church outside the Kremlin walls was a political statement in favor of posad commoners and against hereditary boyars Construction of wrap-around ground-floor arcades in the 1680s visually united the nine churches of the original cathedral into a single building. Earlier, the clergy and the public perceived it as nine distinct churches on a common base, a generalized allegory of the Orthodox Heavenly City similar to fantastic cities of medieval miniatures.
Open file (263.49 KB 962x655 1461778976380.jpg)
If there's one thing I disagree with Aristotle on, it is this one small issue on his advice to tyrants: >Also he should impoverish his subjects; he thus provides against the maintenance of a guard by the citizen and the people, having to keep hard at work, are prevented from conspiring. The Pyramids of Egypt afford an exampleof this policy; also the offerings of the family of Cypselus, and the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the Peisistratidae, and the great Polycratean monuments at Samos; all these works were alike intended to occupy the people and keep them poor Because imo it is an extension of household rule, and part of a monarch's genius and glory to build and manage a city/nation like a household, not only to make them all poor (that could be one political dynamic)... As far as I agree, Aristotle says you could have a decent half-wicked, or half-virtuous tyrant. I think that is ideal from my perspective. I think like other monarchists, I have mixed views on what I take from Aristotle, and that there are some aspects I reject like other people do (Hobbes, for one). But I also don't see him as the only ancient authority... I like handful of things Aristotle says about royal rule, but another handful I don't. He must have been influenced by Egyptians, like I said--other ancient authorities. Pharoah did mean 'Great House', so Egyptians knew that royal rule was household rule... and he did report that the older Greeks had heroic kings... had kingdoms that were united in blood, with a fatherly royal monarchy. But the monarchies decision and ambition to make these grand construction projects other views to strengthen a people rather than just impoverish them. This might be my tyrannist cope, but that is my justification.
DPRK's motto 'All for one, one for all' is a strange synergy of how monarchy should be the public authority, but also the individual power that unites them. Why is it that monarchs must build and manage entire nations, cities, households and palaces like despots (lords of the house)? >And yet HE who first founded the state was the GREATEST of benefactors. This line directly mentions the pre-eminent man, the monarch, who becomes the founder... We all have reverence for the great founders of states (like founding fathers). One monarchical act to prove this pre-eminent virtue is to literally try to build entire cities or make a display of great household rule like it was with Versailles--because the city was the whole for them (and Hobbes made the point that a monarch a city were one)... When a monarch has the power to build entire cities like this, then there is no doubt about being pre-eminent. ...because a private individual man... is not much, and it is believed only the city treats him like a mere part in relation to the whole... but the pre-eminent monarch is so great, like the whole to the part, builds entire cities: >For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all statees, whether aristocratical, or oligarchical, or again democratical, are accustomed to put forward (for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although NOT the -same excellence-), but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would NOT be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed. The WHOLE is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in relation of the whole to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. Remember that line: For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all states... are accustomed to put forward (for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although NOT the -same excellence-), but accords with the principle already laid down. Kim II Sung is pretty much like the definition of one of the great pre-eminent personal ruler, the man with extraordinary virtue (the way they treat him in DPRK).
Open file (149.15 KB 227x343 ClipboardImage.png)
>>4953 You should check out "Japan's Holy War" by Walter Skya for some good info on the ideology that the author calls "Radical Shinto Ultranationalism". The book covers the development of the emperor ideology in the Meiji period and the debate between constitutional monarchy and absolutism that happened in the period, as well as many other issues. What I wrote here >>4754 is paraphrasing Hozumi Yatsuka who described Japan as a large national household with a father-emperor ruling over his child-subjects, all sharing the same blood and ancestors, and revering their parents and ancestors
Open file (839.16 KB 995x826 leviathan.png)
Open file (3.85 MB 7645x4329 grace patriarcha.jpg)
>>4969 I have usually been of the absolutist persuasion... maybe giving the constitutionalists one or two points in their favor (making the whole of forms together and the point that powerless royals don't usually don't get conspired against). But like I said, I think that a half-wicked tyrant is where I settle... Another point I have to make is that there are no "absolutist" or "constitutionalist" forms of monarchy--there is simply just "monarchy" as a form. Constitutionalists mistakenly attack monarchy under the guise that it is "absolute monarchy"... but really monarchy is MONarchy (rule of one). A constitutionalist is usually an advocate of mixed govt with a royal (that being monarchy, oligarchy, democracy)... hitting "absolute monarchy" also impacts "constitutional monarchy" because monarchy in a mixed constitution is simply monarchy, as much as monarchy is in an "absolute monarchy"... The absolutist position is that the monarch becomes more like a whole rather than a part in a constitution... while constitutionalists assert that absolute monarchy is like taking a part in spite of a whole... The accusation is "pure monarchy" although I would contest that even a great monarchy has some oligarchy, some democracy even, in relation to the whole that is the monarchy, embodying the whole body-politic. The absolutist position imo starts with Aristotle's debate from the royalist angle that the best man should rule... Or, Let there be one lord, one king... the advocates of royalty saw in monarchy an immense personal power rather than a mere institution, and argued that while laws had generally been good, certain circumstances call for personal power. The reviled, taboo absolutism imo is a defense of the personal power, based off the term 'absolute' meaning absolved... as it is originated from Roman civil law and Ulpian, with the line that the princeps is absolved to act (while still keeping the general principle that laws are generally good, but contest man-made law)... In this hindsight, the royalist appeal is to gods moreso than laws, because gods are a personification of nature rather than an institution (as laws of nature)... this is the royalist contention imo. ... The other case is that Jean Bodin makes the case that there are three forms of government. He makes the case that Herodotus also admitted that while his contemporaries saw mixed forms, he also saw three forms... Sometimes I agree with Hobbes' contention against the tyrannophobia... and Bodin who makes the case that sometimes a half-wicked tough tyrant is necessary (a strong man). Constitutionalism w/o the personal and divine majesty surrounding royal monarchy seems lackluster... it really does treat the royal like a nobody... without the divinity (well, sacredness in this case) like it was in the Meiji Restoration, I think they become like royal eunuchs. Like Evola says, Evola on Monarchy >After what we have said, it is clear that we do not share at all the idea that monarchy at this point should be democratized, that the monarch should assume almost bourgeois features 'must come down from the august heights of the past and present himself and act in a democratic way,' as Loewenstein claimed. That would simply destroy his dignity and his raison d'être, as we indicated. The king of the north European countries who carries a valise, who goes shopping in the stores, who consents to letting radio or television display his well-behaved family life to the people including his tantrum-throwing children, or else the Royal House that is provided for the curiosity and gossip of the news magazines, and whatever else one thinks, might make people close to the king, including, in the end, a good-natured paternal appearance (if the father is conceived in a bland bourgeois form), all this cannot avoid damaging the very essence of the monarchy. The 'Majesty' then really becomes an empty epithet of the ceremony. >If one is really a monarchist, one cannot concede that the monarchy becomes reduced to a simple decorative and representative institution, a kind of nice furniture or, according to the image mentioned by Loewenstein, something like the golden figure that was put on the bow of a galleon; the State, in concrete terms, would remain that of the republican parliamentary democracies, concerning the king only to countersign, as would a president of the republic, whatever the government and parliament decide. >The constitution and the law should not be made into fetishes. Constitution and law do not fall ready-made from heaven, they are historical formations and their intangibility is conditioned by the normal course of things. When this course fails, when faced with emergency situations, a higher power must assert itself positively. I personally think most are royalists, and felt the term "monarchist" was a more extreme word for people who actually advocated the position, "Let there be one ruler, one king".
Open file (3.85 MB 7645x4329 grace patriarcha.jpg)
Open file (6.38 MB 720x404 qin.mp4)
>>4969 I would look into that book. I'll write it down. The dynasties in ancient China are also a point of interest for me. >paraphrasing Hozumi Yatsuka who described Japan as a large national household with a father-emperor ruling over his child-subjects, all sharing the same blood and ancestors, and revering their parents and ancestors I really try to hammer this point into the heads of royalists, but they're too confounded with feudalism and oligarchic principles to really appreciate that idea... it makes people too equal to all be united under one ruler, and to also be like one family... (at least, they'd contest).
This image wont' upload properly. Hope it is readable.
>>4977 This pic is related to >paraphrasing Hozumi Yatsuka who described Japan as a large national household with a father-emperor ruling over his child-subjects, all sharing the same blood and ancestors, and revering their parents and ancestors this response... I had to use an online service to downsize it so it'd upload... grumble.
>>4975 >I would look into that book. I'll write it down. If you're anything like me you might prefer paper copies, but here >>3435 is a PDF that I already posted in another thread if you want to get a feel for it, in particular in the sections that are directly related to the Hozumi guy we've been mentioning since he was one of the most "extreme". >it makes people too equal to all be united under one ruler, and to also be like one family They are likely imagining a modern family more than anything, but even that is clearly hierarchical Since you seem to be really into this idea of the Family-State, have you read The Analects or anything Confucian? It fits in perfectly with this idea, especially since the king or ruler, as I understand it, has been traditionally seen as like a father to his people. In 2.21 of the Analects someone asks Confucius why he is not involved in government, and he replies that in being dutiful to parents, friendly towards brothers one is already contributing to the existence of government, and that the practice of the virtues of filial piety is taking part in government in a sense. I am reminded of Aristotle comparing the family to a monarchy by this.
>>4980 >have you read The Analects or anything Confucian? No, I mostly neglected it. I have read two Egyptian texts. Teachings of a Man for his Son is full of points favoring kings and Loyalist Teaching also. >For she accompanies and attends revered kings Whomever the daughters of mighty Zeus honor and see being born from kings nurtured by Zeus, upon his tongue they pour dew sweeter than honey and from his mouth flow soothing words. All the people look to him as he decides between opposing claims with straight judgments. He addresses them without erring and quickly and knowingly ends a great quarrel. For this reason, kings are wise, because for people injuring one another in assembly, they end actions that call for vengeance easily, appeasing the parties with soft words. As he walks in the marketplace, they glorify him as if a god with soothing deference, and he stands out in the gathering. >Such is the sacred bounty of the Muses to men. From the Muses and far-shooting Apollo are singers and guitar-players across the earth, but kings are from Zeus. ^This from Hesiod Theogony (conversation for another day). I am always looking for ancient sources that depict royal monarchy greatly.
Open file (1.32 MB 1648x2056 grace muse.png)
>>4969 Going to read your book recommendation now.
1. Every society has a center (a man/group/faction with the most influence). 2. Every society of note has an entrenched elite who pass on their wealth onto heirs. 3. All of them have a rule by one or rule by oligarchy.
>>5013 >muh tranime Doesn't it get old, posting this ad nauseam?
Open file (2.49 MB 2600x3718 grace unhappy.png)
>>5075 MODS!
Open file (59.77 KB 193x294 ClipboardImage.png)
Katō Hiroyuki believed that ultimate unity was enforced within the nation when strong leaders of kinship groups subordinated weaker members to themselves. At the lower level there is an instinctual need to form associations with other people. This subordination and coordination by the strong makes the communities able to subdue adversaries and become more powerful and organized. Eventually the leaders become kings and the nation is born. Katō believed in organicism, or the nation as a body politic or superorganism. The king is the "controlling organ" or "thought center", the state executive function. Other aspects of the nation are conceptualized as cells or "assisting organs" and they are subordinate to the "controlling organ", saying: >As auxiliary organs of the state the people have the duty and the right to be controlled by their leaders; and the leaders have the duty and the right to control the people who are their own auxiliary organs. It's clearly not classical monarchism, but as someone who served as the president of Tokyo University, he was offering a more naturalistic and scientific spin to classical ideas of the nation as a social organism
>>5087 I planned on making a compilation of pro-monarchy quotes, with these being the main centerpieces... But I have a bigger hurdle in the road to deal with first. >Schopenhauer quote related to organism
>>5093 That Schopenhauer quote is spot on. The more I read this stuff, the more I see how common such ideas were throughout history, as you have shown in your posts ITT. In particular I only recently learned that Hegel preached a sort of organicism and communitarian ethos which gave the whole society an overarching purpose (bound together by an ethical order / Sittlichkeit) and that these ideas later were supported by the facts being discovered in biology in that day regarding social structures and division of labor among some non-human animals. It's been a while since I read Giovanni Gentile's work on fascism, but if I recall correctly it lays out the same type of organicism.
>>5094 I planned on reading through Giovanni Gentile's work on fascism. I was surprised (from what I read) as he touched on the topic of royalism. I thought about compiling /fascist/ quotes on /monarchy/ and putting them on my board... Mostly to dismantle certain people's prejudice in my case.
Yes. Body politic is an ancient idea, like I said... Medievalists are foolish to say it was mostly John of Salisbury who created it. But I object that it is ancient in its origin... That Egyptian text, Teachings of a Man for his Son demonstrates it. >Praise the king, may you love him, as a worker He makes radiant by the giving of his powers. He is greater than a million men for the one he has favoured... >He is the bodily health of the nameless, he exercises his body for him. He is the right arm of the man whose arms are weak. A person is buried (only) as one cleansed by him, and is made radiant and secure at his name. The anxious man finds peace at his pyramid, From the Loyalist text: >Praise the king within your bodies >embrace his Agency in your hearts >spread Awe of him everyday >he is insight into what is in hearts >his eyes probe every body >he is the one who brightens the Two Lands, more than the sun-disk >He is Khnum for every body, This statue from the Biblical story of Daniel depicting Nebuchadnezzar II. It has similarities to Plato's 'noble lie' with monarchs as the golden ones. Nebuchadnezzar II with a head of gold. It reminds me of Leviathan on the cover of Hobbes. King James I is also the person who re-introduced Patriarchalism (often attributed to Robert Filmer, but imo it was King James I who commissioned and wrote about it himself first). In his screencap, King James I calls the nobility his arm and refers to body-politic this way.
Open file (83.38 KB 171x259 ClipboardImage.png)
>>5095 His book's definitely worth checking out. I first read it in like 2016 or so and wasn't hugely into it, but a few times this year I have went to reference certain sections for one reason or another and found myself pleasantly surprised about much of what I read. I think I probably just intellectually matured. Also that quote compilation you mention in your last two posts sounds like it would be an interesting project.
Open file (92.82 KB 508x524 pvUGsLV3.jpg small.jpg)
>>5098 King James I makes the point here: >But for the Nobilitie, the Kings right arm, to prostitute and set as it were to sale the dignity of their King, AS IF the arm should THRUST unto the Head But also, why they cut off the Head of the monarch like it was with Louis XVI. It was more of a political statement than an execution to remove the head... Arguably, I would say that a monarch is a person for a whole people moreso than just a head, because the monarch embodies it all in himself... as it is said, "The state is me."
>>5098 I like how in that video, Pyramid 01, the introduction: >And it was from this Chaos, that the Sun God emerged onto a mound, and the Great Mound from which the Sun God created the universe and all its living things, became a shape of great creative power, sacred to all the world Reminder that a pyramid is also the fire symbol, pointing up like fire goes up. I think the most creative energy, and for a powerful monarch to keep in touch with his power base, was through household rule (this kind of despotism)... >"As if there were no difference between a GREAT Household and a small state…"
>>5101 This is found on the ceiling of the Hall of Mirrors in Versailles. And this is why it was a special place, but also a commentary on kingship. http://www.galeriedesglaces-versailles.fr/html/11/collection/galerie.html ^ it can be seen here 1. Louis XIV, Patron of Arts 2. Louis XIV, Making Peace 3. Louis XIV, Reformer (Code Louis) 4. Royal Piety & Giving Food to his People during Famine All these depictions show extraordinary virtue, but also become the pride of France through Louis XIV in his Hall of Mirrors... Mirrors as a reflection, looking through the mirror.
>>5104 1. Establishment of Hospital for invalids/veterans of war 2. King Louis XIV Re-establishment of Navigation/Commerce 3. Commemoration of the Canal du Midi, engineering marvel 4. Preeminence of France Reocgnized by Spain
>>5106 #1. Louis XIV portrait w/ France in the War Room at Versailles. He wears laurels. #2. Louis XIV going to war. These other two pictures show victories. This was all found in Louis XIV's Versailles... It is a great demonstration of royal rule, and how it is household rule... how a royal monarch could build up his people or connect with them.
>>5107 #1. The King governs by himself. Found in Versailles also. #2. Louis XIV btfos financial harpies. #3, War room ceiling. #4. Louis XIV receiving apology from the Pope... a pyramid was built in compensation for the incident of papal guards attacking his ambassador... he occupied certain territories and this was greatly embarrassing for the Pope.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?