/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

'Mussolini'
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.

'Giovanni Gentile:'
>It must be a will that cannot allow others to limit it. It is, therefore, a sovereign & absolute will. The legitimate will of citizens is that will that corresponds to the will of the State, that organizes itself & manifests itself by the State's central organs

'Giovanni Gentile:'
>The Fascist State is a sovereign State. Sovereign in fact rather than words. A strong State, which allows no equal or limits, other than the limits it, like any other moral force, imposes on itself.

The Fascist State is a sovereign state: a sovereign or majestic State, like Bodin's sovereignty.

'Fascist corporatism:'

'Thomas Hobbes'
>And though in the charters of subordinate corporations, a corporation be declared to be 'one person' in law, yet the same has not been taken notice of in the body of a commonwealth or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union

Hobbes testifies, the same had not been taken notice of the body-politic, neither had innumerable writers of politics beforehand observed such a union: that the political or state would be a corporation of one person, a monarch.

'Giovanni Gentile:'
>It is the State that possesses a concrete will & must be considered a person.
>The State, for us, has an absolute moral value–as that moral substance whose function it is to render all other functions valuable.

'Thomas Hobbes: Definition of a Commonwealth:'
>And in him consisteth the Essence of the Commonwealth; which (to define it,) is -- 'One Person', of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.

'Giovanni Gentile'
>Both Nationalism & Fascism place the State at the foundation–for both, the State is not a consequence, but a beginning.
>For nationalists, the State is conceived as prior to the individual.

'Mussolini'
>In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. 
>It is not the nation which generates the State
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

'Giovanni Gentile:'
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps, "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.

This necessary synthesis, that Giovanni Gentile talks of, of State and Individual, is none other than the monarchical pre-eminence, that groundwork of sovereignty or majesty: where the individual is insufficent; the political sufficient; monarchical pre-eminence puts the individual on par with the political, the person with majesty has the relationship of the whole to the part, like Aristotle describes. Yet Hobbes started individual, to know ones' self, then ended individual in the State or Leviathan as a corporation of one person, that's why I tend to respect his legacy as a monarchist.

This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly–

>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.
-Bertrand De Jouvenel

<'The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:'

Giovanni Gentile mentions how nationalists place the whole prior to the part, or state conceived as prior to the individual.

'Aristotle:'
>Further, the State is by nature clearly prior to the family & individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part.

Yet for Fascism, Gentile says–
>For Fascism, on the other hand, the State and the individual are one, or better, perhaps,  "State" & "individual" are terms that are inseparable in a necessary synthesis.
Imo this builds off Thomas Hobbes. It was Thomas Hobbes aspiration to build a foundation for monarchical pre-eminence on popular sovereignty that allowed him to make individual and state inseperable: in the same way he would justify his monarchical pre-eminence by making the King and the People one and all, making the King's majesty also the totality of the people, united in one monarchical person.

That famous portrait of Mussolini with the Si, si, si, si, reminds me of the total consent of the multitude into one person, w/ Mussolini's persona being representative. 

'Thomas Hobbes: Generation of a Commonwealth or Leviathan'
>The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industry, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills [si, si, si, si[, by plurality of voices [si, si, si, si], unto one Will [si, si, si, si]

What about this passage Mussolini says, that the State generates the people? Well, Bossuet likewise borrowed from Hobbes: since the Leviathan or State is one person, formally called The People, it is the sovereignty that makes the people.

'Mussolini'
>In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. 
>It is not the nation which generates the State
>Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

'Bossuet:'
>To imagine now, with M. Jurieu, in the people considered to be in this condition, a sovereignty, which is already a species of government, is to insist on a government before all government, and to contradict oneself. Far from the people being sovereign in this condition, there is not even a people in this state. There may be families, as ill-governed as they are ill-secured; there may well be a troop, a mass of people, a confused multitude; but there can be no people, because people supposes something which already brings together some regulated conduct and some establshed law – something which happens only to those who have already begun to leave this unhappy condition, that is to say, that of anarchy.

'Joseph de Maistre'
>If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereign is necessary to make a people. It is as impossible to imagine a human society, a people, without a sovereign as a hive and bees without a queen: for, by virtue of the eternal laws of nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together; it is impossible to separate these two ideas. Imagine an isolated man: there is no question of laws or government, since he is not a whole man and society does not yet exist. Put this man in contact with his fellowmen: from this moment you suppose a sovereign. The first man was king over his children; each isolated family was governed in the same way. But once these families joined, a sovereign was needed, and this sovereign made a people.

Let's talk about the so-called Fascist concept of life & its totalitarian character & immanentism.

In other words, biopolitics.

Mussolini
>The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
>Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, & the Fascist State – a synthesis & unit inclusive of all values.

Giovanni Gentile:
>The first point, therefore, that must be established in a definition of Fascism, is the totalitarian character of its doctrine, which concerns itself not only with political order and direction of the nation, but with its will, thought and sentiment.

Giovanni Gentile:
>A conception of integral politics, a notion of politics which does not distinguish itself from morality, from religion, or from every conception of life that does not conceive itself distinct & abstracted from all other fundamental interests of the human spirit

Mussolini:
>The State guarantees internal & external safety of the country, but it safeguards & transmits the spirit of the people, in language, its customs, its faith.
>Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation.

Giovanni Gentile:
>Morality & religion, essential elements in every consciousness, must be there, but they must be subordinated to the laws of the State, fused in it, absorbed in it.

Mussolini:
>The Fascist conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual & raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

Giovanni Gentile:
>Thus, its formation is a product of the consciousness of each individual, & thus of the masses, in which the power of the State consists.
>That explains the necessity of the Fascist Party & propaganda and of education to foster the political & moral ideals of Fascism.

Giovanni Gentile:
>To be a Catholic meant to live in the Church & under its discipline. Therefore, it was a necessity for the Fascist State to recognize the religious authority of the Church; a political necessity, a political recognition, w/ respect to the realization of the State itself.
>The ecclesiastical politics of the Italian State must resolve the problem of maintaining its sovereignty, intact & absolute, even before the Church, w/o casting itself athwart the Catholic consciousness of Italians, nor Church that consciousness is subordinated.
>It's a grave problem, as the transcendent conception that rules Catholicism contradicts the immanentist character of the political conception of Fascism.
>Far from being a negation of liberalism & democracy,  Fascism aspires to be a perfection of liberalism & democracy.

This is the totalitarian character of Fascism: it is concerned with the total, the whole, the general power. This is fostered in part due to actual idealism & its immanentism. This makes Fascism very heterodox, but monarchical absolutism was heterodox in its own ways. This Fascist concept of life is the Leviathan holding both Sword & Crosier, the political AND spiritual power, imo, & the immanentism helps justify it -- it justifies and allows it for the modern world to easily digest without an overt clericalism that modernism openly disdains.

Evola & his traditionalists in general tends to look down on the political, whereas Fascism, like monarchical absolutism, uplifts the civil power and the political authority. Also contradicts Fascism's immanentism that embraces life and enables its totalitarianism w/o directly stating it wants Sword & Crosier, thereby enabling it to work within the modern world w/o appearing too anachronistic.

What about Fascism's unitary beliefs?

Giovanni Gentile:
>The Fascist State, in order to penetrate & direct the consciousness of its citizens, wishes to organize them in national unity; a unity possessed of a soul.
>That unity would manifest itself as a unitary being, possessed of powerful will, & conscious of its own ends.

Thomas Hobbes:
>For the Sovereign, is the public Soul, giving Life and Motion to the Commonwealth [State].
>[The Sovereign] relation to the City is not that of the head, but of the soul to the body. For it is the soul by which a man has a will, that is, can either will, or nill.
>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth
>The error concerning mixed government has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

Jean Bodin
>For that as of unity depends the union of all numbers, which have no power but from it: so also is one sovereign prince in every Commonweale necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend
>Wherefore what the unity is in numbers, the understanding in the powers of the soul, and the center in a circle: so likewise in this world that most mighty king, in unity simple, in nature indivisible, in purity most holy, exalted far above the Fabric of the celestial Spheres, joining this elementary world with the celestiall and intelligible heavens

Fascism's unitary being, a unity possessed of a soul, is none other than our sovereignty, 

Could Fascism not be more monarchical? yes, in the leadership principle fascists have.

Giovanni Gentile:
>So that the thought & will of the solitary person, the Duce, becomes the thought and will of the masses.

You might ask yourself, Fascism couldn't sound anymore like monarchical absolutism, right? or as anachronistic to appeal to something like the divine right of kings or something–?

Giovanni Gentile:
<That Leader advances, secure, surrounded in an aura of myth, almost a person chosen by the Deity, tireless and infallible, an instrument employed by Providence to create a new civilization.

You need to understand that even before Hobbes the English had the distinction of the natural and political person of the King with the great seal. In the same way Catholics ex cathedra. Which is indeed like Warhammer 40k and the god emperor seated on the throne, much akin to that is the artificial person of the commonwealth styled that mortal god.

As remarked here, W.P. Esq:
>For he is a Corporation of himself, and has two capacities, (to wit) a Natural Body, in which he may inherit to any of his Ancestors, or purchase Lands to him, and the Heirs of his Body, which he shall retain, although he be afterwards removed from his Royal Estate; and Body Politick, in which he may purchase to him and his Heirs, Kings of England, or to him and his Successors, yet both Bodies make but one individual Body. Plowden

It's important to understand the context behind this in the English Civil Wars.

Thomas Hobbes notes here–
>[Roundheads furnished supplies] for the defence of the King and Parliament, (meaning by King, as they had formerly declared, not his person, but his laws)

See how they abused the political person of the king against the natural person of the king? the resolution Hobbes sought to resolve was trying to make them more united.

John Cook, regicide and lawyer from the trial of King Charles I.

Cook writes here
>Greater than any one, but less than all

This is in part related to the food for the table argument from Aristotle's Politics: that albeit one wise man could outsmart any one of an assembly, the assembly brings all the food to the table: this is a critical problem for monarchists – how to put the monarch or the individual on par with the people in general? that is the task of monarchical pre-eminence as a basis to justify monarchical authority – you must think like a monarchist to understand this.

Others have written about this issue John Cook brings up.

Francis Theobald
>That the King is greater than any particular single man, but less than the whole body of men in a nation.

>If there be any force in this way of arguing, by the same reason it will follow, that a flock of sheep are more excellent than a man, because the shepherd is found out for the sheep, and not the sheep for the shepherd; for if there were no flocks of sheep, there would be no need of a shepherd.

Thomas Hobbes' answer to this dilemma, how to start with one person and end with one person in monarchical pre-eminence on par with the strength of the people and indivisible from them is part of his genius. 

Thomas Hobbes
>This great Authority being indivisible, and inseparably annexed to the Sovereignty, there is little ground for the opinion of them, that say of Sovereign Kings, though they be Singulis Majores, of greater Power than every one of their Subjects, yet they be Universis Minores, of less power than them all together. For if by All Together, they mean not the collective body as one person, then All Together, and Every One, signify the same; and the speech is absurd. But if by All Together, they understand them as one Person (which person the Sovereign appears,) then the power of all together, is the same with the Sovereign's power; and so again the speech is absurd; which absurdity they see well enough, when the Sovereignty is in an Assembly of the people; but in a Monarch they see it not; and yet the power of Sovereignty is the same in whomsoever it be placed.

This is Thomas Hobbes' answer to John Cook. That is the magic of Leviathan, like pushing a camel through the eye of a needle.

The whole business of monarchical pre-eminence, or majesty, or sovereignty is the groundwork for justifying the supremacy of the monarch. How to give the monarch that relationship, as Aristotle puts it, of being that pre-eminent person who has the relationship of the whole to the part. Or as Louis XIV calls it, Nec Pluribus Impar, meaning, Not Unequal to Many, which was his personal motto, the very meaning of this was equivalent to saying – I am the State.

<Thomas Hobbes: The Multitude vs the People
<In the last place, it's a great hindrance to Civill Government, especially Monarchicall, that men distinguish not enough between a People and a Multitude. The People is somewhat that is one, having one will, and to whom one action may be attributed; none of these can properly be said of a Multitude. The People rules in all Governments, for even in Monarchies the People Commands; for the People wills by the will of one man; but the Multitude are Citizens, that is to say, Subjects. In a Democraty, and Aristocraty, the Citizens are the Multitude, but the Court is the People. And in a Monarchy, the Subjects are the Multitude, and (however it seeme a Paradox) the King is the People.
>The common sort of men, and others who little consider these truthes, do alwayes speak of a great number of men, as of the People, that is to say, the City; they say that the City hath rebelled against the King (which is impossible) and that the People will, and nill, what murmuring and discontented Subjects would have, or would not have, under pretence of the People, stirring up the Citizens against the City, that is to say, the Multitude against the People.

part 2 of an absolutist perspective on fascism.

Mario Palmieri explicitly maintains an absolutist view on monarchy; Mario makes the sovereignty indivisible & puts the 3 branches of govt in the king's sovereignty and lists Bodin's marks of sovereignty.

This is extremely unique to me b/c maintaining an absolutist stance like this is very antiquated and striking in the year 1936. It has to be very deliberate to revive the political absolutism: that is very striking to me about this Fascist work.

Mario Palmieri in Philosophy of Fascism:

Mario Palmieri
>While the King personifies the sovereign authority of the State, authority which in itself sums up all powers; executive, legislative and judiciary, the Head of the Government represents only the King in his relationship with the People.

>It is thus that in the Fascist reform of the State, the King is still the only one who has the right to declare war or to accept peace, the right of pardoning those condemned by the judiciary organs of the State, the right of stipulating in the name of the State, treatises of alliance with other states and, finally, the right to be outside and above all laws.

This is an absolutist stance on monarchy.

It unites executive, legislative, judiciary as offspring of an indivisible sovereign power summing up all the powers derived from Majesty. It lists Jean Bodin's marks of sovereignty (in a stunningly similar fashion to the Richard Knolles translation) – an absolute power above all laws – let's make the comparison with Jean Bodin.

Jean Bodin's Marks of Sovereignty:
>1. Make laws
>2. Declare war / peace
>3. Appoint magistrates
>4. Hear last appeals
>5. Give pardons
>6. Receive fealty & homage
>7. Coining of money
>8. Regulation of weights & measures
>9. Impose taxes
>10. The power of life & death; condemn or save, reward or punish

Jean Bodin
>So also is it proper unto sovereign majesty, to receive the subjects appeals, and the greatest magistrates, to place and displace officers, charge or exempt the subjects from taxes and subsidies, to grant pardons and dispensations against the rigor of the law, to have power of life and death, to increase or diminish the value and weight of the coin, to give it title, name, and figure: to cause all subjects and liegemen to swear for the keeping of their fidelity without exception, unto him to whom such oath is due: which are the true marks of sovereignty, comprised under the power of being able to give law to all in general, and to every one in particular, and not receive any law or command from any other

>Now let us prosecute the other part of our propounded definition, and show what these words, Absolute power, signify. For we said that unto Majesty, or Sovereignty, belongeth an absolute power, not subject to any law.

>It behooves him that is sovereign not to be in any sort subject to the command of another: whose office it is to give laws unto his subjects, to abrogate laws unprofitable, & in their stead to establish other: which he cannot do that is himself subject laws or others

In an older work, he lists them again.
>I see the sovereignty of state involved in five functions.
>One, and it is the principal one, is creating the most important magistrates and defining the office of each one; the second, proclaiming and annulling laws; the third, declaring war and peace; the fourth, receiving appeal from all magistrates; the last, the power of life and death when the law itself leaves no room for extenuation or grace.

Back to Mario.

Mario Palmieri
>Above all, foundation and mainstay of the Fascist reform is the theory that all powers of the State belong to the King who personifies the very authority of the State, and that he simply delegates the executive, legislative and judiciary functions to the very organs of the State.

>The King, in other words, not the people, is the true Sovereign of the Fascist State.

Mario Palmieri marks it out well: the discredit and ridicule of our political ideals:
>It is no more than a platitude to affirm that the birth of Fascism found the political world in a condition of anarchy and decadence.

>The theocratic principle of the autocratic state, which derived the authority of the Sovereign from the will of God, was not only discredited but ridiculed as well.

Benito Mussolini marks this out similarly in The Doctrine of Fascism:
>Fascism is opposed to Classical Liberalism which arose as a reaction to Absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became an expression of the conscience and will of the people
>Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts

Vincere, vincere, vincere
È la parola d'ordine
D'una suprema volontà

That supreme will, & word of order, in the song Vincere is the sovereign will, majesty, the highest power to command.

<Jean Bodin / Majesty
<Sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth [La Souveraineté est la puissance absoluë & perpetuelle d’une République], which the Latins call Majestas; the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; and the Italians segniora, a word they use for private persons as well as for those who have full control of the state, while the Hebrews call it tomech shévet – that is the highest power of command.

<Majesty or Sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth: Which the Latins call Majestatem, the Italians Segnoria, that is to say, The greatest power to command. For Majesty (as Festus saith) is so called of mightiness.

Alfredo Rocco in The Political Doctrine of Fascism also makes out a historical outlook sympathetic to ours:
>This innovating trend is not and cannot be a return to the Middle Ages. It is a common but an erroneous belief that the movement started by the Reformation and heightened by the French Revolution was directed against mediaeval ideas and institutions. Rather than as a negation, this movement should be looked upon as the development and fulfillment of the doctrines and practices of the Middle Ages. Socially and politically considered, the Middle Ages wrought disintegration and anarchy; they were characterized by the gradual weakening and ultimate extinction of the State, embodied in the Roman Empire, driven first to the East, then back to France, thence to Germany, a shadow of its former self; they were marked by the steady advance of the forces of usurpation, destructive of the State and reciprocally obnoxious; they bore the imprints of a triumphant particularism. Therefore the individualistic and anti-social movement of the 17th and 18th centuries was not directed against the Middle Ages, but rather against the restoration of the State by great national monarchies. If this movement destroyed mediaeval institutions that had survived the Middle Ages and had been grafted upon the new states, it was in consequence of the struggle primarily waged against the State. The spirit of the movement was decidedly mediaeval. The novelty consisted in the social surroundings in which it operated and in its relation to new economic developments. The individualism of the feudal lords, the particularism of the cities and of the corporations had been replaced by the individualism and the particularism of the bourgeoisie and of the popular classes.

Many traditionalists too prefer constitutionalism on the basis that it had precedence in the Middle Ages contrary to absolutism of the early modernity starting in the late 1500s. & ancaps today repeat the Tocquevillist mantra and see Medievalism and the Holy Roman Empire as an anarchy and decentralization they admire.

Alfredo Rocco brings up Dante Alighieri's De Monarchia & Aquinas De Regno:
>It was therefore natural that St. Thomas Aquinas the greatest political writer of the Middle Ages should emphasize the necessity of unity in the political field, the harm of plurality of rulers, the dangers and damaging effects of demagogy. The good of the State, says St. Thomas Aquinas, is unity. And who can procure unity more fittingly than he who is himself one? Moreover the government must follow, as far as possible, the course of nature and in nature power is always one. In the physical body only one organ is dominant—the heart; in the spirit only one faculty has sway—reason. Bees have one sole ruler; and the entire universe one sole sovereign—God. Experience shows that the countries, which are ruled by many, perish because of disc0rd while those that are ruled over by one enjoy peace, justice, and plenty. The states which are not ruled by one are troubled by dissensions, and toil unceasingly. On the contrary the states which are ruled over by one king enjoy peace, thrive in justice and are gladdened by affluence. 

>Italy in the Middle Ages presented a curious phenomenon: while in practice the authority of the State was being dissolved into a multiplicity of competing sovereignties, the theory of State unity and authority was kept alive in the minds of thinkers by the memories of the Roman Imperial tradition. It was this memory that supported for centuries the fiction of the universal Roman Empire when in reality it existed no longer. Dante's De Monarchia deduced the theory of this empire conceived as the unity of a strong State. "Quod potest fieri per unum melius est per unum fieri quam plura," he says in the 14th chapter of the first book, and further on, considering the citizen as an instrument for the attainment of the ends of the State, he concludes that the individual must sacrifice himself for his country. "Si pars debet se exponere pro salute totius, cum homo siti pars quaedam civitatis … homo pro patria debet exponere se ipsum." (lib. II. 8).

Mussolini in A Diary of the Will (1927):
>Yes. The State is that unitary expression, absolute will, of the power and of the consciousness of the Nation
>This executive power–is the sovereign power of the Nation. The supreme head is the King

Then Mussolini on his leadership doctrine for Fascist party members:
>Because in the subordination of all to the will of a Leader, which is not a capricious will, but a seriously meditative will, & proven by deeds, Fascism has found its strength.
>There should be no limits. We must obey even if the Leader asks too much.

The main difference between the authright perspective and libright perspective, imo, is the former authright sees State and Nation conjoined & of one being, whereas the latter they are more divorced with a chasm separating them. The former is like the household rule of Plato, no different from the State, but the latter is Aristotle's constitutional freemen of political character, divorcing the economical government from the political. 

In order to understand this perspective, it's important to see the classical political view of the city: the State is the city or polis, the political. The city has all the houses constituting it and all the people of those households. The economy is a term referring to economic, derived from household management. The economy is a bundle of houses, but what is the city but a bundle of houses? what are the Italian fascses but a bundle of rods united? that's what we have in common, I believe, with Italian fascism.

The problem with Italian Fascism viewed from the contemporary rightwing movements in the Anglosphere (which was always at odds) is primarily that statist doctrines are unpopular. It's justified.

What we have today isn't the strengthening and well ordering of the state, but the disorder and destruction of states towards anarchy. That's my apologia.

Like absolutism was bagged and loaded with stigma, fascism and national socialism are under a damnatio memoriae.

Damnatio memoriae hits hard.

Grace_laptop_transparent.png
[Hide] (741.4KB, 2000x2000) Reverse

istockphoto-647512421.jpg
[Hide] (16.9KB, 612x366) Reverse

Just to avoid confusion so nobody thinks I'm a stealth shill.
This post is brought to you by Grace /monarchy/. 
For the sake of integrity and transparency towards /fascist/.
I decided to study /fascist/ & fascism recently & this is what I cherrypicked.

I'll probably delete this post later b/c I don't want to burden /fascist/ with my autism.

(our boards had a bad relationship for a bit when anons were crossposting and got into fights).

>>2970
It will take some time to read through all of this, but it seems to be written in good faith. May as well leave it up.

Hitler on denominational factionalism in Mein Kampf:

But the movement we were successful in placing this problem before the German people in the light of an idea that would unite them in one struggle the Jew reacted. He resorted to his old tactics. With amazing alacrity he hurled the torch of disc0rd into the patriotic movement and opened a rift there. In bringing forward the ultramontane question and in the mutual quarrels that it gave rise to between Catholicism and Protestantism lay the sole possibility, as conditions then were, of occupying public attention with other problems and thus ward off the attack which had been concentrated against Jewry. The men who dragged our people into this controversy can never make amends for the crime they then committed against the nation. Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts' content, while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.

As a matter of fact we succeeded until the autumn of 1923 in keeping our movement away from such controversies. The most devoted Protestant could stand side by side with the most devoted Catholic in our ranks without having his conscience disturbed in the slightest as far as concerned his religious convictions. The bitter struggle which both waged in common against the wrecker of Aryan humanity taught them natural respect and esteem. And it was just in those years that our movement had to engage in a bitter strife with the Centre Party not for religious ends but for national, racial, political and economic ends. The success we then achieved showed that we were right, but it does not speak to-day in favour of those who thought they knew better.

In recent years things have gone so far that patriotic circles, in god-forsaken blindness of their religious strife, could not recognize the folly of their conduct even from the fact that atheist Marxist newspapers advocated the cause of one religious denomination or the other, according as it suited Marxist interests, so as to create confusion through slogans and declarations which were often immeasurably stupid, now molesting the one party and again the other, and thus poking the fire to keep the blaze at its highest.

He [George Schonerer] went into battle against the Church because he was convinced that this was the only way in which the German people could be saved. The LOS-VON-ROM (Away from Rome) Movement seemed the most formidable, but at the same time most difficult, method of attacking and destroying the adversary's citadel. Schonerer believed that if this movement could be carried through successfully the unfortunate division between the two great religious denominations in Germany would be wiped out and that the inner forces of the German Empire and Nation would be enormously enhanced by such a victory. 

For the future of the world, however, it does not matter which of the two triumphs over the other, the Catholic or the Protestant. But it does matter whether Aryan humanity survives or perishes. And yet the two Christian denominations are not contending against the destroyer of Aryan humanity but are trying to destroy one another. Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfills the Will of God and does not allow God's hadniwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His works wages war against God's Creation and God's Will. Therefore everyone should endeavour, each in his own denomination of course, and should consider it at his first and most solemn duty to hinder any and everyone whose conduct tends, either by word or deed, to go outside his own religious body and pick a quarrel with those of another denomination. For, in view of the religious schism that exists in Germany, to attack the essential characteristics of one denomination must necessarily lead to a war of extermination between the two Christen denominations.

I have no hesitation in saying that in those men who seek today to embroil the patriotic movement in religious quarrels I see worse enemies of my country than the international communists are. For the National Socialist Movement has set itself to the task of converting those communists. But anyone who goes outside of his own Movement and tends to turn it away from fulfillment of its mission is acting in a manner that deserves the severest condemnation. He is acting as a champion of the Jewish interests, whether consciously or unconsciously.

>>2977
My commentary:

I cannot help but sympathize with Hitler, but from a completely different perspective.

I find denominational disputes very frustrating in advancing a political agenda, especially in countries where there is an even split: like Germany or the USA, between the denominations, Protestant or Catholic. It impacts monarchists badly because it's unavoidable: there is a crown and since crowns are Christian emblems and will require a church to crown the monarch, -- monarchy suffers tremendously from denominational division. The question of which Church will crown place the crown means that there's no strictly political appeal: we cannot say, political interests first, denominational in-fighting second.

The only chance to have any semblance of monarchical authority at this point in those countries is better off under a political or secular dictatorship.

The republican-democratic model really succeeds in countries with a religious divide because it can adapt well: it has a secular model where either person of either religion can take their turn. 

I'm even more disappointed with the denominations because they always devolve towards secularism or milquetoast centrism: as evinced by all the Christian democratic or Christian liberal political parties. Like the Conservatives or Progressives partisans, they favor a multi-party system because it allows them to disavow unity and hold fast -- this problem between conservatives and progressives also greatly hinders a monarchical state since the most hardcore conservatives would prefer a multi-party system where they might have a seat and keep their foil, the progressive. 

I find that with denominations, it too has the entropy effect. 

I have a big problem with monarchists on this front.

There are three big factions in e-monarchist circles:
The Constitutionalists, The Traditionalists (primarily Ultra-Tradcaths), The Right Libertarian Hoppeans

The general rift is between the more secular r/monarchism constitutionalists and the ultra-tradcaths. Between the very democratic variety and the ultramontantists -- but neither favors a strong political monarchical authority, so that's why I'm personally discontent. The former constitutionalists are discontent with our ideal of majesty, the latter ultra-tradcaths tend to be ultramontantists supporting the Pope's universal spiritual monarchy (or the Habsburgs) than any other political monarchy. So it's a no win scenario for me with this divide. Both factions have their problems.

I witnessed the MoA (Monarchists of America) divide with TAR (The American Royalists) divide. Both are rather strongly Catholic. The latter TAR very ultra-tradcath splintered away from the former. 

All these problems with the denominational divided became evident to me watching this. It's bad enough that they were monarchists. It's extra bad they're lead by the tradcaths for a historically Protestant country like America. 

We would be better off with a dictatorship to gain any semblance of a monarchical authority than this -- where the country is divided in terms of religion (unlike Spain or Protestant countries) -- it is a big obstacle.

Requesting to delete this thread.
The captcha system is too difficult.

>>2980
Request considered.
It's high effort and is good fodder for discussion, why do you want to delete it?

>>2981
I'll keep the thread.
If I find anything else related to thread discussion, I'll bring it here.

88c2c2b12166a50b899cd1cf5b3b09db50861a8a689a837e6c059423a074566a.jpg
[Hide] (94KB, 1360x768) Reverse

North-Korea-1200x853(1).jpg
[Hide] (190.9KB, 1200x853) Reverse

Jean Bodin / Noblemen had to ask permission to leave
>So that oftentimes the subject dare not so much as to depart out of the country without leave, as in England, Scotland, Denmark, and Sweden, the noble men dare not to go out of their country without leave of the prince, except they would therefore loose their goods: which is also observed in the realm of Naples, by the custom of the country. As also it was forbidden by the emperour Augustus to all Senators to go out of Italy without his leave, which was always right straightly looked unto. And by the ordinances of Spain it is forbidden the Spaniards to passe over into the West Indies, without the leave of the king of Spain:

>But in such places and countries as wherein tyrants rule, or which for the barreness of the soil, or intemperature of the air are forsaken by the inhabitants; not only the citizens, but even the strangers also are oftentimes by the princes of such places prohibited to depart, as in Muscovy, Tartaria, and Ethiopia

Here is blood and soil.

People are tied to the land. Tied to the land and people are scared to come in.

Aristotle / Suckled by the same milk, of the same blood
>And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk']

Ants and bees are called royal animals because in monogamous colonies they are all offspring of one queen and share a blood relationship. 

Blood signifies the heart, and the heart sovereign power and lifeforce. 

So when a queen ant dies, the lifeforce subsides and the colony decays.

The blood relationship in royalism is adopted spiritually rather than politically in Christianity. Since Christ is their King and Christians drink his blood, they share a blood relationship and kinship with each other. There are many portraits of Christ pointing to this heart.

This post is aimed more at ethno-nationalists.

In the West, the greatest caricature is of Liberty vs Despotism. The former ideology of constitutional freemen, I believe, is derived from Aristotle. This post will persuade my audience why even the caricature of despotism is inadvertently preferable to the ethno-nationalists and will grant them blood and soil.

Some point to the Far East and say that bugmen are like ants or bees. 

My sincere opinion is the White man would be better off anyways adopting those values: filial piety and ancestor worship.

8c7390818f8c0bf03fb89c0ecca7c6ba.jpg
[Hide] (95.9KB, 864x612) Reverse

republic-of-lucca-historical-flag-lucca-italy-ancient-preunitary-country-xiii-century-1799-vector-illustration-2HCB6H2.jpg
[Hide] (121.4KB, 1299x1390) Reverse

Compare this to the Statue of Liberty.

In free cities (which were the ideal), they would write LIBERTAS on their gates.
>There is written on the Turrets of the city of Luca in great characters at this day, the word LIBERTAS;

With liberal democracy comes free movement, so rapid immigration becomes a problem. Their wealth also is like honey attracting foreigners. So while it's said that it's better to be a foreigner than a citizen in despotic regimes, that also means that no foreigners would want to reside there and become citizens, but only temporary guests or a few select foreigners taken there. 

Look at the Republic of Venice:
Jean Bodin in the late 1500s says on the Republic of Venice
>Then authority, magistrates, and honors do not make happy citizens, much less too great liberty, which brings ruin even to a well-constituted state. Servitude is base; yet sinful license is even more base. Still, if it is servile to bear the authority of a king, it ought also seem servile to obey one's parents. 

>The Venetian state suffers also from the danger that when they admit a countless multitude of foreigners and resident aliens, they risk being driven from control by these newcomers.

>This danger, therefore, is to be feared in the case of Venice. For when a census of the whole city was taken in the year 1555, there were counted 159,459 resident aliens in addition to the patricians. Women and boys over six years were included in this number. About 1,500 patricians controlled these people, for the juniors under 25 years are not admitted to the assembly and to a share in power, except a few occasionally. The Venetians do not seem to have acted wisely in counting the people; first, since by divine law it is forbidden; then, when strangers and poor people understand their numbers and strength, of course there is danger lest they form some plot against the optimates. When the senate of Romans once decreed that the slaves should be distinguished from the freeborn citizens by ornaments and clothing, Seneca said it would become dangerous if the slaves started to count their number.

Now this is playing devil's advocate.
Counter-talking points:
1. What about Saudi Arabia and how it has foreigners coming in on visas for projects? 
- That's what I notice -- it's usually the creme of the crop or not as much. This is still preferable compared to the passages on the Statue of Liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
2. What about Caracalla who gave universal citizenship to Rome?
- This is a hard one and probably has ground, but there were other Roman Emperors who would tie people to the land. Plus there were different ranks of citizenship.
3. Alexander the Great and his cosmopolitan ideas of Greeks and Persians? 
- Some are more cosmopolitan than others. Compare the late Habsburgs to the Russian Empire or State Shinto: these two monarchies were more nationalistic than the Habsburgs (which, in part, I think is due to the Catholicism of the Habsburg regime). I think the Habsburgs are particularly more cosmopolitan than other dynasties & still persisted in supporting projects like Pan-European Union and WEF. Imo, if Hitler were born in another country than Austria and not the Habsburgs, his opinions on dynastic patriotism wouldn't be as bad b/c the Habsburgs (and Catholicism) were particularly opposed to nationalism way more than other monarchies.

Another talking point I anticipate--
4. What about re-making for a democracy so they can govern themselves?
This is all building off Aristotle, imo, rather than Plato's foundation. 
Because even in democracies, the people in particular are said to be governed by the people in general and swearing their allegiance to the greater body. 
All my prophets (as Mussolini calls them) disavow Aristotle on this point.

Plato / There won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household & the bulk of a small city
>Visitor: Well then, surely there won't be any difference, so far as ruling is concerned, between the character of a great household, on the one hand, and the bulk of a small city on the other? – Young Socrates: None. – It's clear that there is one sort of expert knowledge concerned with all these things; whether someone gives this the name of kingship, or statesmanship, or household management, let's not pick any quarrel with him.

Bodin / A household or family, the true model of a Commonwealth
>So that Aristotle following Xenophon, seems to me without any probable cause, to have divided the Economical government from the Political, and a City from a Family; which can no otherwise be done, than if we should pull the members from the body; or go about to build a City without houses… Wherefore as a family well and wisely ordered, is the true image of a City, and the domestical government, in sort, like unto the sovereignty in a Commonwealth: so also is the manner of the government of a house or family, the true model for the government of a Commonwealth… And whilest every particular member of the body does his duty, we live in good and perfect health; so also where every family is kept in order, the whole city shall be well and peaceably governed.

Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.

>Suarez proceeds, and tells us that 'in process of time Adam had complete economical power'. I know not what he means by this complete economical power, nor how or in what it doth really and essentially differ from political. If Adam did or might exercise in his family the same jurisdiction which a King doth now in a commonweal, then the kinds of power are not distinct. And though they may receive an accidental difference by the amplitude or extent of the bounds of the one beyond the other, yet since the like difference is also found in political estates, it follows that economical and political power differ no otherwise than a little commonweal differs from a great one. Next, saith Suarez, 'community did not begin at the creation of Adam'. It is true, because he had nobody to communicate with. Yet community did presently follow his creation, and that by his will alone, for it was in his power only, who was lord of all, to appoint what his sons have in proper and what in common. So propriety and community of goods did follow originally from him, and it is the duty of a Father to provide as well for the common good of his children as for their particular.

Hobbes / That a Family is a little City
>Propriety receiv'd its beginning, What's objected by some, That the propriety of goods, even before the constitution of Cities, was found in the Fathers of Families, that objection is vain, because I have already declar'd, That a Family is a little City. For the Sons of a Family have propriety of their goods granted them by their Father, distinguisht indeed from the rest of the Sons of the same Family, but not from the propriety of the Father himself; but the Fathers of diverse Families, who are subject neither to any common Father, nor Lord, have a common Right in all things.

We go back to the comparison of natural slaves or bugmen like ants or bees. I'd say it's the plight of the White race that we're scattered like grasshoppers rather than bees or ants. Bees might be more docile and hurdle together to stop an invader with their combined heat. Ants have worker ants and soldier ants serving their common benefit: so if the slaves are serving a good purpose and their self-preservation, it's not so bad.

>Base Locusts, Grasshoppers, Insects, and Flies,
>Who have no King, by their confusion dies.
>Others live long, as th' Ant and Royal Bee.
>A Guard who keeps, lives, dies in Majesty.
>Their Hives, Walls, Combs, Cities, Holes, Houses are,
>Stings are their Arms, one rules in peace and war.

I bring up Aristotle and constitutional freemen for this reason: Aristotle makes the distinction of the economical or household rule from the political or constitutional rule: the former has a master and slaves, the latter freemen: it's different to rule a household, Aristotle makes the case, from ruling the political and assembly of freemen and equals (who are heads of households themselves).

He describes a monarchy to be the basis for the economic household, and democracy to be the basis for the political city: the end of democracy, Aristotle says in Rhetoric, is liberty / freedom.

All the talking points about Liberty vs Despotism and decentralization and autonomy all descend back to Aristotle on this talking point, I feel. 

Aristotle:
>There is a fifth form of kingly rule in which one has the disposal of all, just as each nation or each state has the disposal of public matters; this form corresponds to the control of a household. For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations.

>The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals. The master is not called a master because he has science, but because he is of a certain character, and the same remark applies to the slave and the freeman.

It's a peculiar thing because while the basis for many right libertarian talking points have their origin in Aristotle, many of the statist talking points also have their origin in Aristole. 

Overall, while I tend to cherrypick a thing here or there from Aristotle myself, I lean towards disagreeing with him on a few of these fundamental things and following what my prophets here are saying.

Jean Bodin
>Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be.

That's why Jean Bodin remarks, They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, Nature.

Thomas Hobbes compares Aristotle's constitutional freemen to children:
>[The subjection of them who institute a commonwealth amongst themselves, is no less absolute, than the subjection of servants. And therein they are in equal estate; but the hope of those is greater than the hope of these. For he that subjecteth himself uncompelled, thinketh there is reason he should be better used, than he that doth it upon compulsion; and coming in freely, calleth himself, though in subjection, a FREEMAN; whereby it appeareth, that liberty is not any exemption from subjection and obedience to the sovereign power, but a state of better hope than theirs, that have been subjected by force and conquest. And this was the reason, that the name that signifieth children, in the Latin tongue is liberi, which also signifieth freemen. And yet in Rome, nothing at that time was so obnoxious to the power of others, as children in the family of their fathers. For both the state had power over their life without consent of their fathers; and the father might kill his son by his own authority, without any warrant from the state.] 

>[Freedom therefore in commonwealths is nothing but the honour of equality of favour with other subjects, and servitude the estate of the rest. A freeman therefore may expect employments of honour, rather than a servant. And this is all that can be understood by the liberty of the subject. For in all other senses, liberty is the state of him that is not subject.]

I know Aristotle tells Alexander the Great to treat his own subjects like family and foreigners like a master -- what Hobbes is saying is both family and servants are both subjects.

This is all important to understand not only for monarchists, but also talking with right libertarians. Their talking point about decentralization and autonomous regions is also like Aristotle's constitutional freemen before the city: but instead of constitutional freemen before the city, it's autonomous regions before the state.

Grace_wink_OC.png
[Hide] (814.8KB, 3000x3000) Reverse

Dog_in_top_hat.jpg
[Hide] (158.6KB, 640x898) Reverse

The first portion of my thread:
>>2962 (OP) 
>>2963
>>2964
>>2965
>>2966
>>2967
>>2968
Is for Italian Fascism

The second portion here:
>>2993
>>2994
>>2995
>>2996
Is for National Socialism / White Nationalists
TL;DR: 
The 2nd portion of my thread is about the whole Despotism vs Freedom business. A little bit why I say filial piety, ancestor worship, and dynastic patriotism are worthy of consideration (albeit Hitler himself disagreed about dynastic patriotism in particular, primarily due to the Habsburgs -- with the notable exception of HRE Joseph II, whom he praised).
But tbh, I really shouldn't bother. I know, for example, nobody here's going to rally behind the contemporary royalty and how they're bad. I'm speaking on an ideal basis and I know things are far from ideal.

Bees_Bee_Queen.mp4
[Hide] (8.7MB, 720x404, 02:28)

Mausoleum_of_King_Tangun(1).mp4
[Hide] (17.9MB, 480x360, 05:41)

For the white nationalists, I always bring up this specific passage.

Aristotle / Suckled by the same milk, of the same blood
>And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood [and suckled 'with the same milk']

This is sometimes literally the case with places where the country is lead by the ruling family. 

I toy with this idea and look at it in terms of race. Of course, Plato says, that the state is not like a beehive with a superior in body and mind.

There are passages that support the idea in other places.

Xenophon:
>Cambyses, a king of the Persians, and one of the Perseidae, who look to Perseus as the founder of their race
Perseus, the founder of the Persian race.

Dante:
>That the father of the Roman people was Aeneas, the famous king

>He [Aeneas] was in the empyrean heaven chosen for father of Rome our parent and her empire.

There is the mythology of kings being founders of races.

I believe the Japanese too also have a blood relationship and view of race tied to their mythology and imperial line.

Koreans also venerate King Tangun (or Dangun) as the ancestral father of their race.

By no means am I saying contemporary royalty are worthy of that ideal. It's all far from the potential of realizing this. For some reason royalists themselves also never take advantage of these ideals and almost renounce them.

>>2962 (OP) 
i dont get how your focus can be on hypothetical government structure instead of spirit and willpower if you've read all those books. im always amazed by how un-fascist all modern "Fascists" are, they act like communists, endlessly debating and examining theory without ever actually acting. and they get pissed when you point it out.

>>3044
Look at the first line of the OP one more time, retard.
>>2962 (OP) 
This is a non-fascist thread from an outsider.

oswald_mosley_and_benito_mussolini_1936(1).jpg
[Hide] (139KB, 750x561) Reverse

Oswald-Mosley-fascists-Bristol-Eng-1934_jpg(1).png
[Hide] (2MB, 1600x1265) Reverse

BF-1(2).JPG
[Hide] (62.9KB, 505x511) Reverse

Oswald Mosley
>It was not always so. In earlier times the King and his Government ruled the state and no man, however wealthy, could defy the King’s law and the ordinances of his ministers. Indeed, we now realize, despite the version of history taught us at school, that, when King Charles defied Parliament, he was, as he said at his trial, fighting for the freedom of the common people of England against the tyrannous demands of the purse-proud merchants of the City of London. Unfortunately, the national authority of Tudor England was broken on his scaffold, and ever since wealth has gained ever greater power over the people.

82Lwd_tz.jpg
[Hide] (515KB, 1462x2048) Reverse

kjLx9IYa.jpg
[Hide] (388.6KB, 1669x1155) Reverse

fo3EXyJc.jpg
[Hide] (378.7KB, 1669x1155) Reverse

Jean Bodin:
>Provided that they [the family] are joined together by the legitimate and limited rule of the father.
>I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the Family from the State
>That the latter [The State] has the final and public authority. 
>The former [The Family or Household] limited and private rule.

Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan:
<In All Bodies Politique [Any Corporation under the State] The Power Of The Representative Is Limited
>In Bodies Politique, the power of the Representative is always Limited: And that which prescribes the limits thereof, is the Power Sovereign. For Power Unlimited, is absolute Sovereignty. And the Sovereign, in every Commonwealth, is the absolute Representative of all the Subjects.

Mussolini:
>For Fascism the State is absolute, the individuals & groups relative.

yjicOp_h.jpg
[Hide] (505.3KB, 1669x1110) Reverse

Z48hEnjL.jpg
[Hide] (453.4KB, 1352x2048) Reverse

Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf on HRE Joseph II:
>More than any other State, the existence of the old Austria depended on a strong and
capable Government. The Habsburg Empire lacked ethnical uniformity, which
constitutes the fundamental basis of a national State and will preserve the existence of
such a State even though the ruling power should be grossly inefficient. When a State is
composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a population will
hold the Stage together and maintain its existence through astonishingly long periods of
misgovernment and maladministration. 

>The failure to see the truth of all this constituted what may be called the tragic crime of
the Habsburg rulers.

>Only before the eyes of one Habsburg ruler (Joseph II), and that for the last time, did the hand of
Destiny hold aloft the torch that threw light on the future of his country. But the torch
was then extinguished for ever.

>Joseph II, Roman Emperor of the German nation, was filled with a growing anxiety when he realized the fact that his House was removed to an outlying frontier of his Empire and that the time would soon be at hand when it would be overturned and engulfed in the whirlpool caused by that Babylon of nationalities, unless something was done at the eleventh hour to overcome the dire consequences resulting from the negligence of his ancestors.

>With superhuman energy this 'Friend of Mankind' made every possible effort to counteract the effects of the carelessness and thoughtlessness of his predecessors.

>Within one decade he strove to repair the damage that had been done through centuries. If Destiny had only granted him forty years for his labours, and if only two generations had carried on the work which he had started, the miracle might have been performed. But when he died, broken in body and spirit after ten years of rulership, his work sank with him into the grave and rests with him there in the Capucin Crypt, sleeping its eternal sleep, having never again showed signs of awakening.

>His successors had neither the ability nor the will-power necessary for the task they had
to face.

Adolf Hitler concerning Austria's political situation:
>Among the institutions which most clearly manifested unmistakable signs of decay, even to the weak-sighted Philistine, was that which, of all the institutions of State, ought to have been the most firmly founded--I mean the Parliament, or the Reichsrat (Imperial Council) as it was called in Austria.

>The pattern for this corporate body was obviously that which existed in England, the land of classic democracy. The whole of that excellent organization was bodily transferred to Austria with as little alteration as possible.

>There it was that Vienna encountered the first difficulty. When Hansen, the Danish architect, had completed the last gable of the marble palace in which the new body of popular representatives was to be housed he had to turn to the ancient classical world for subjects to fill out his decorative plan. This theatrical shrine of 'Western Democracy' was adorned with the statues and portraits of Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers. As if it were meant for a symbol of irony, the horses of the quadriga that surmounts the two Houses are pulling apart from one another towards all four quarters of the globe. There could be no better symbol for the kind of activity going on within the walls of that same building

>The 'nationalities' were opposed to any kind of glorification of Austrian history in the decoration of this building, insisting that such would constitute an offence to them and a provocation. Much the same happened in Germany, where the Reich-stag, built by Wallot, was not dedicated to the German people until the cannons were thundering in the World War. And then it was dedicated by an inscription.

>I was not yet twenty years of age when I first entered the Palace on the Franzens-ring to watch and listen in the Chamber of Deputies. That first experience aroused in me a profound feeling of repugnance.

>I had always hated the Parliament, but not as an institution in itself. Quite the contrary. As one who cherished ideals of political freedom I could not even imagine any other form of government. In the light of my attitude towards the House of Habsburg I should then have considered it a crime against liberty and reason to think of any kind of dictatorship as a possible form of government.

>A certain admiration which I had for the British Parliament contributed towards the formation of this opinion. I became imbued with that feeling of admiration almost without my being conscious of the effect of it through so much reading of newspapers while I was yet quite young. I could not discard that admiration all in a moment. The dignified way in which the British House of Commons fulfilled its function impressed me greatly, thanks largely to the glowing terms in which the Austrian Press reported these events. I used to ask myself whether there could be any nobler form of government than self government by the people.

>But these considerations furnished the very motives of my hostility to the Austrian Parliament. The form in which parliamentary government was here represented seemed unworthy of its great prototype. The following considerations also influenced my attitude:

>The fate of the German element in the Austrian State depended on its position in Parliament. Up to the time that universal suffrage by secret ballot was introduced the German representatives had a majority in the Parliament, though that majority was not a very substantial one. This situation gave cause for anxiety because the Social-Democratic fraction of the German element could not be relied upon when national questions were at stake. In matters that were of critical concern for the German element, the Social-Democrats always took up an anti-German stand because they were afraid of losing their followers among the other national groups. Already at that time--before the introduction of universal suffrage--the Social-Democratic Party could no longer be considered as a German Party. The introduction of universal suffrage put an end even to the purely numerical predominance of the German element. The way was now clear for the further 'de-Germanization' of the Austrian State.

>The national instinct of self-preservation made it impossible for me to welcome a representative system in which the German element was not really represented as such, but always betrayed by the Social-Democratic fraction. Yet all these, and many others, were defects which could not be attributed to the parliamentary system as such, but rather to the Austrian State in particular. I still believed that if the German majority could be restored in the representative body there would be no occasion to oppose such a system as long as the old Austrian State continued to exist.

>But I soon became enraged by the hideous spectacle that met my eyes. Several hundred representatives were there to discuss a problem of great economical importance and each representative had the right to have his say.

>That experience of a day was enough to supply me with food for thought during several weeks afterwards.

>The intellectual level of the debate was quite low. Some times the debaters did not make themselves intelligible at all. Several of those present did not speak German but only their Slav vernaculars or dialects. Thus I had the opportunity of hearing with my own ears what I had been hitherto acquainted with only through reading the newspapers. A turbulent mass of people, all gesticulating and bawling against one another, with a pathetic old man shaking his bell and making frantic efforts to call the House to a sense of its dignity by friendly appeals, exhortations, and grave warnings.

>I could not refrain from laughing

>Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.

>A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.

>A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.

>Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence.

>Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the filth of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire (Note 6), the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.

>I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to my notice when I was still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany at that time I might easily have found only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered what an illogical thing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easily have gone to the other extreme and believed--as many people believed, and apparently not without good reason--that the salvation of the people and the Empire could be secured only by restrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those who had this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and were blind to the aspirations of the people.

>In Austria one could not be so easily misled. There it was impossible to fall from one error into another. If the Parliament were worthless, the Habsburgs were worse; or at least not in the slightest degree better. The problem was not solved by rejecting the parliamentary system. Immediately the question arose: What then? To repudiate and abolish the Vienna Parliament would have resulted in leaving all power in the hands of the Habsburgs. For me, especially, that idea was impossible.

>Since this problem was specially difficult in regard to Austria, I was forced while still quite young to go into the essentials of the whole question more thoroughly than I otherwise should have done.

>The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.

>The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?

>Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?

>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?

>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered.

>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?

>What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

>In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

>Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

>Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

>Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

>But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristrocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

>The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

>The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority--which means the dunder headed multitude--hate nothing so much as a superior brain.

>For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is on a level with their own. Thus each one may have the opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers and, above all, each one feels that he may one day rise to the top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paul tomorrow?

>This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.

>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude

>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal energies at the disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn. They stand in a long queue, painfully and sadly counting the number of those ahead of them and calculating the hours until they may eventually come forward. They watch every change that takes place in the personnel of the office towards which their hopes are directed, and they are grateful for every scandal which removes one of the aspirants waiting ahead of them in the queue. If somebody sticks too long to his office stool they consider this as almost a breach of a sacred understanding based on their mutual solidarity. They grow furious and give no peace until that inconsiderate person is finally driven out and forced to hand over his cosy berth for public disposal. After that he will have little chance of getting another opportunity. Usually those placemen who have been forced to give up their posts push themselves again into the waiting queue unless they are hounded away by the protestations of the other aspirants.

The result of all this is that, in such a State, the succession of sudden changes in public positions and public offices has a very disquieting effect in general, which may easily lead to disaster when an adverse crisis arises. It is not only the ignorant and the incompetent person who may fall victim to those parliamentary conditions, for the genuine leader may be affected just as much as the others, if not more so, whenever Fate has chanced to place a capable man in the position of leader. Let the superior quality of such a leader be once recognized and the result will be that a joint front will be organized against him, particularly if that leader, though not coming from their ranks, should fall into the habit of intermingling with these illustrious nincompoops on their own level. They want to have only their own company and will quickly take a hostile attitude towards any man who might show himself obviously above and beyond them when he mingles in their ranks. Their instinct, which is so blind in other directions, is very sharp in this particular.

>The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of 'leaders'.

>The parliamentary régime in the old Austria was the very archetype of the institution as I have described it.

>Though the Austrian Prime Minister was appointed by the King-Emperor, this act of appointment merely gave practical effect to the will of the parliament. The huckstering and bargaining that went on in regard to every ministerial position showed all the typical marks of Western Democracy. The results that followed were in keeping with the principles applied. The intervals between the replacement of one person by another gradually became shorter, finally ending up in a wild relay chase. With each change the quality of the 'statesman' in question deteriorated, until finally only the petty type of political huckster remained. In such people the qualities of statesmanship were measured and valued according to the adroitness with which they pieced together one coalition after another; in other words, their craftiness in manipulating the pettiest political transactions, which is the only kind of practical activity suited to the aptitudes of these representatives.

>The whole spectacle of parliamentary life became more and more desolate the more one penetrated into its intimate structure and studied the persons and principles of the system in a spirit of ruthless objectivity. Indeed, it is very necessary to be strictly objective in the study of the institution whose sponsors talk of 'objectivity' in every other sentence as the only fair basis of examination and judgment. If one studied these gentlemen and the laws of their strenuous existence the results were surprising.

>There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

>It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well informed deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are dependent on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according to the evil meaning it has to- day, can be put into effect. And by this method alone it is possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never be brought to account for his actions. For under such circumstances none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may turn out for the nation as a whole, can be laid at the door of the individual whom everybody knows to be the evil genius responsible for the whole affair. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the Party as a whole.

>The parliamentary regime became one of the causes why the strength of the Habsburg State steadily declined during the last years of its existence. The more the predominance of the German element was whittled away through parliamentary procedure, the more prominent became the system of playing off one of the various constituent nationalities against the other. In the Imperial Parliament it was always the German element that suffered through the system, which meant that the results were detrimental to the Empire as a whole; for at the close of the century even the most simple-minded people could recognize that the cohesive forces within the Dual Monarchy no longer sufficed to counterbalance the separatist tendencies of the provincial nationalities. On the contrary!

>The measures which the State adopted for its own maintenance became more and more mean spirited and in a like degree the general disrespect for the State increased. Not only Hungary but also the various Slav provinces gradually ceased to identify themselves with the monarchy which embraced them all, and accordingly they did not feel its weakness as in any way detrimental to themselves. They rather welcomed those manifestations of senile decay. They looked forward to the final dissolution of the State, and not to its recovery.

>In the family circle of this new Habsburger the Czech language was favoured. The wife of the Archduke had formerly been a Czech Countess and was wedded to the Prince by a morganatic marriage. She came from an environment where hostility to the Germans had been traditional. The leading idea in the mind of the Archduke was to establish a Slav State in Central Europe, which was to be constructed on a purely Catholic basis, so as to serve as a bulwark against Orthodox Russia.

>As had happened often in Habsburg history, religion was thus exploited to serve a purely political policy, and in this case a fatal policy, at least as far as German interests were concerned. The result was lamentable in many respects.

Dog_in_top_hat.jpg
[Hide] (158.6KB, 640x898) Reverse

Song_of_the_Fascist_Worker_Canzone_dell'operaio_Fascista.mp4
[Hide] (4.5MB, 640x360, 02:58)

Hitler here criticizes parliamentarianism. So good, that I myself might hold onto this, lol.
The Fuhrer asks fundamental questions:
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?
Which I feel is a jab at Aristotle, who deems the whole composite: but renounces that the State should have a unitary being, that the Fascists set up an devised. Aristotle, who deemed that the political estate and houses altogether, cannot be like rooms in a household, and arranged this way. 
That had always been foundational for the constitutionalist pretenses, whether it was your more conservative republican or constitutional monarchist -- they both bleed the same, and have that foundation in Aristotle, along with many of the libertarians and their accusations of centralization -- again, like Hitler asks us here, is the composite brain of the free market, or the individual person of the State? the constitutionalism that separates the political from economical order, that Jean Bodin said, was like pulling limbs from a body--that pretends shelves stack themselves, but I say, not without ordination or a scheme, and someone who lays out the foundation: 
Sovereignty, that was our answer, and the foundation for the political estate, and its indivisible unity, that was not composite, but simple; a sovereignty that arranged and held together the State, touched upon every thing we take for granted, and origin of many corporations and institutions, and of the various emblems of the State (like money), from which proceeds the public order, for the economy and its general interests to be realized, and the laws: it all persists, and originates, in the sovereignty.
As the economy itself is a political body in a general sense, they were inseparable: much to the contrary of free marketeers, the economy has the interests of the State, and wants the State, and wants the public laws, and wants all these things that reconcile and allow one end of the city to meet the needs of the other end: which cannot be accomplished without this sovereign power. 
--
...
Now the Fuhrer says, that religion was abused by politics, to have a multicultural state:
>The leading idea in the mind of the Archduke was to establish a Slav State in Central Europe, which was to be constructed on a purely Catholic basis, so as to serve as a bulwark against Orthodox Russia.

>As had happened often in Habsburg history, religion was thus exploited to serve a purely political policy, and in this case a fatal policy, at least as far as German interests were concerned. The result was lamentable in many respects.

But I'd probably say it is otherwise, and for that reason -- I think everyone should be wary of the traditionalist doctrines, that merely put the political interests in the mundane (albeit all our virtuous leaders come from that realm, and it has all the affairs of our civil order) -- who simply considered politics not very considerable or a high ideal. -- What Hitler really ought to have slamdunked imo was that Catholicism took priority over the interests of the State, and the reason so many Habsburg royalty declined to work for the interests of the German State and race -- is they considered that secondary and unimportant: it's most obvious when you talk to hardcore Traditionalists to this day, that they're much more concerned whether you're Catholic than race: and the same goes for the political interests, that was merely mundane and secular, not important and ought to be subdued to Integralism within the Church first.
...
So imo what really happened is that Politics was exploited for some small religious gain that didn't really have the moral integrity of the State in mind, and never shouldn't have neglected -- which is why I agree with the Fascists like Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile over Evola: it was a mistake not only of Evola, but traditionalists as a whole, to think otherwise and put the political ideal (which from the testimony of some many people -- is the most noble, and great, and important aspiration concerning all and the totality of our people -- as a mere mundane and secularism, unworthy of consideration, and saying that how we arrange our society, and its integrity, which constitutes the field of politics -- as unworthy of high attention...) -- SO I warn people here to not adopt that attitude of traditionalism in this regard, and I think that's one of the main aspects of traditionalism people are forthright to criticize, and that only Fascism seemed to remedy in its totalitarian doctrine which makes politics inseperable from the moral integrity and religion, and fulfills our integrity.

>>3286
>What Hitler really ought to have slamdunked imo was that Catholicism took priority over the interests of the State, and the reason so many Habsburg royalty declined to work for the interests of the German State and race -- is they considered that secondary and unimportant
Which btw, I semi-suspect that Hitler didn't slam Catholicism here mostly to avoid denominational backlash or division.

The Fuhrer ends that remark with.
>Neither the House of Habsburg nor the Catholic Church received the reward which they expected. Habsburg lost the throne and the Church lost a great State. By employing religious motives in the service of politics, a spirit was aroused which the instigators of that policy had never thought possible.

Those traditionalists daydream about launching a crusade in the Holy Land or returning us to the Thomas Becket era (where the Church and authority of bishops far outweighed and nullified the political interest). We shouldn't let those types lead us around, first because going to the Holy Land and not concentrating on our own land is a misfortune: and for the latter, the church is a part of the political scheme and its within these interests to regard our upbringing: many of the priests themselves are raised in the State before they become involved in the clergy, and if we don't consider their upbringing, not only on Sunday, but every other day of the week -- it will obviously also disrupt the Church... in that sense, the political is paramount.
...
In defense of totalitarianism, it understood that it wasn't particularly about the priest hierarchy or warrior stratocracy: the household encompassed all values, the church was a holy house, and the military a barracks: all values and professions were realized by the household and economic.
The State was the grand total of all houses and ordered them: it was totalitarian in that it was concerned with the integrity of society as a whole and involved the total of this... as Mussolini puts it, to realize their moral unity.

RedeemedZoomer_Why_I'm_not_Anglican(1).mp4
[Hide] (15.7MB, 720x374, 03:09)

InspiringPhilosophy_Why_I_Am_Not_A_Christian_Nationalist(1)(1).mp4
[Hide] (5.6MB, 720x404, 01:49)

These two videos also illustrate the problem with the Christian traditionalist community: is that they bemoan secularism and how it is impacting society, but offer no solution: in order to truly redress these faults in society, it would demand working on our political accord and re-structuring it. Yet they seem it merely toilet business and don't want to.
...
At least totalitarianism offered to fix and give something more tenable for modern minds and modern problems.

hieropolitical_and_totalitarianism_debate.png
[Hide] (33.3KB, 1222x220) Reverse

Gentile_Fascism_concept_of_life_03.jpg
[Hide] (139.5KB, 643x380) Reverse

Gentile_Fascism_State_is_a_person_absolute_moral_value.jpg
[Hide] (129.7KB, 523x429) Reverse

I was reading this and it did conform my thoughts on totalitarianism, immanentism, and actual idealism as the Fascist concept of life is concerned, but although Giovanni Gentile stressed an absolute moral value in the State, also stressed a divine Absolute.
...
Apart from the total values encompassed in a household unit for all professions, and the totality of those for the State itself and as a statist doctrine, I partially believe Fascism is totalitarian also for the sake of its actual idealism immanentism, that justifies this totalitarianism to be concerned with the thought and sentiment of its people.

jean_bodin_clergy_commentary.png
[Hide] (56.1KB, 1340x260) Reverse

This reminds me of Jean Bodin too, who mentioned the importance of the clergy for the state.

Fascism_Catholic_01.jpg
[Hide] (170.9KB, 546x533) Reverse

I view Fascism as definitely about the primacy of the State moreso: and that clerical Fascists or integralists concerned with the primacy of the Church misunderstand Fascist ideology, which as Statists do consider the Church as a community in relation to the State and not independent, but as all communities serving the political good, also a part and necessarily involved for their own benefit. 
...
For that reason, I read how Giovanni Gentile stresses the Fascist State's recognition of the religious authority of the Church primarily as a political necessity, and also for the State's own realization, and talked about the business of reconciling the State's sovereignty, but also without pricking the conscience of Catholic Italians, which Giovanni Gentile said was a very tricky thing to do, and particularly for Fascism's immanentism.

Is totalitarianism unprecedented and an unusual doctrine for its emphasis on the State? 
...
Actually, contrary to popular belief, I don't think totalitarianism is. And truly, it's people's misunderstanding of what the State is, that contributes to their animosity with Fascism.
...
For proof of why I think this way, the ancients such as Aristotle and Cicero testify about the importance of the State, and Aristotle that it aims towards the highest good.

Aristotle / The State or Political Community Aims at the Highest Good
>But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.

"So that you may be the readier to defend the Constitution, know this: for all who have preserved their fatherland, furthered it, enriched it, there is in heaven a sure and allotted abode, where they may enjoy an immortality of happiness." -Cicero

"For nothing happens in the world more pleasing to that supreme Deity, who governs all the universe, than those gatherings and unions of men allied by common laws, which are called states. From this place do their rulers and guardians set out, and to this place do they return." -Cicero

"Exercise this soul in the noblest activities. Now the noblest are cares and exertions for our country's welfare." -Cicero

"But when with a rational spirit you have surveyed the whole field, there is no social relation among them all the more close, none more dear than that which links each one of us with our country. Parents are dear; dear are children, relatives, friends; but one native land embraces all our loves; and who that is true would hesitate to give his life for her, if by his death he could render her a service?" -Cicero

So I do think people have to fall into this dichotomy of the secular and mundane, which they put the State under, and the spiritual and transcendent, which they put the Church under: and have totally rivaled these two worlds, albeit the priesthood themselves are born and raised under the state and are a community no less involved in this order. 
...
I deem this cataclysmic and self-destructive: not only does it severe the Church from the entirety of the public and rivals it, but it also cripples our understanding of the State and denies fundamental questions that are political, but also involved with the moral integrity of society. This leaves us split and crippled, that I have to disagree with Rene Guenon's analysis, that it was temporal power usurping spiritual: but rather their own divorce.
And this is why I've come to think that Fascism was in the right, and the traditionalists in the wrong concerning Fascism on this issue: and it's only evident the more I look at how impotent the Christian Right has come, and divided on the question of Christian nationalism, and whether they should even be involved in politics at all, albeit they see a secular society and want to redress it, but despite all their want don't out of principle.

That's why I disagree with Rene Guenon -- who condemned the merging of civil politics and religion. 
I have to agree with Hobbes of all people who resolved that it was a necessity to have both Sword and Crosier united.
People might say it is an injustice for such an authority to hold and determine this, but the same could be said for any authority and even a hierarchy: they still must set ordinations and guide their flock, that I don't see it as too fundamentally different like I said earlier about how the household accounts for both stratocracy and hierarchy.

Thomas Hobbes
>The error concerning mixed government [constitutionalism] has proceeded from want of understanding of what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifies not the concord, but the union of many men.

>The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth, as of a natural body, depend one of another. It is true they cohere together, but they depend only on the sovereign, which is the soul of the Commonwealth

Plato Republic:
>That the other citizens too must be sent to the task for which their natures were fitted, one man to one work, in order that each of them fulfilling his own function may be 'not many men, but one', and so 'the entire city may come to be not a multiplicity but a unity.'

Plato Republic:
>For factions… are the outcome of injustice, and hatreds and internecine conflicts, but justice brings oneness of mind and love.

To differentiate what Hobbes says about body-politic from Aristotle, there is no other passage from Aristotle's Politics that makes this more clear than here:

Aristotle Politics
>For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that ‘it is not good to have a rule of many,’ but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch…

This might also apply to Plato, where Aristotle disagreed with Plato about having Monarchy and Democracy in Laws (I think).

Plato Laws:
>That all men are, so far as possible, unanimous in the praise and blame they bestow, rejoicing and grieving at the same things, and that they honor with all their heart 'those laws which render the State as unified as possible'

This passage I found at the front of Karl Popper's book, I guess, pointing out the Leader principle in Plato's Laws:
>'The great principle of all is that no one of either sex should be without a leader'; nor should the mind of any one be accustomed to do anything, either in jest or earnest, of his own motion, 'but in war and in peace he should look to and follow his leader, even in the least things being under his guidance'; for example, he should stand or move, or exercise, or wash, or take his meals, or get up in the night to keep guard and deliver messages when he is bidden; and in the hour of danger he should not pursue and not retreat except by order of his superior; and in a word, not teach the soul or accustom her to know or understand how to do anything apart from others. Of all soldiers the life should be always and in all things as far as possible in common and together; there neither is nor ever will be a higher, or better, or more scientific principle than this for the attainment of salvation and victory in war. And we ought in time of peace from youth upwards to practise this habit of commanding others, and of being commanded by other.

Where Aristotle fundamentally disagrees in Aristotle's Politics:
>Further, as a means to the end which he ascribes to the State, the scheme, taken literally is impracticable, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, "That the greater the unity of the State the better." Is it not obvious that a state at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State? 'since the nature of a State is to be plurality', and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.

>These are necessary preconditions of a state's existence, yet nevertheless, even if all these conditions are present, that does not therefore make a state, but a state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life. At the same time this will not be realized unless the partners do inhabit one and the same locality and practise intermarriage; this indeed is the reason why family relationships have arisen throughout the states, and brotherhoods and clubs for sacrificial rites and social recreations. But such organization is produced by the feeling of friendship, for friendship is the motive of social life; therefore, while the object of a state is the good life, these things are means to that end. And a state is the partnership of clans and villages in a full and independent life, which in our view constitutes a happy and noble life; the political fellowship must therefore be deemed to exist for the sake of noble actions, not merely for living in common. Hence those who contribute most to such fellowship have a larger part in the state than those who are their equals or superiors in freedom and birth but not their equals in civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue.

So this is where one-party and multi-party states also tend to disagree in principle, like between Plato and Aristotle: Plato says that the nature of a state doesn't differ for a household and a small city; Aristotle, that they do differ. As Aristotle says the state shouldn't be like a household under one head which he gave for monarchy, but only properly for an economic unit: rather that Aristotle thinks the State should be a partnership of these estates in plurality with the concord-like character Hobbes describes for mixed government... the political being a composite of the estates and households, form the law with the convention of freemen for the sake of virtue. --Plato's justice is the maker of unity, and like how they depend on the sovereignty for Hobbes than the co-equals of Aristotle in composite-like character in partnership -- this justice makes them a city and unity. 
...
Those who say centralization misunderstand sovereignty, but they well understand Aristotle, I'd say, and his objections to making the State a unity.

https://habib.camden.rutgers.edu/talks/plato-and-aristotle/

>According to Plato, unity is the desired end of both individual and state constitution. 

>Plato’s overarching disposition towards unity asserts itself most pervasively and at every level, from the point of origin of a city to its formally articulated bureaucratic structure. What needs to be observed here is how unity — even more than the alleged goals of justice or the Good — is the ultimate teleological principle informing the interrelation of elements comprising the city’s overall constitution.

>Where the circularity of the concept of unity encompasses for Plato the origin and purpose of a state, Aristotle’s procedure in the Politics is strikingly different. To evince the overall contrast of both method and content between the two thinkers, it may be useful to consider firstly Aristotle’s metaphysical presuppositions, secondly his observations on the state in general, and finally his assessment of democracy as informed by these.

>To begin with, Aristotle’s self-proclaimed analytic and somewhat empirical method (I, i) is far less prone to the strategy of hypostatization which governs much of Plato’s thinking in the Republic. Aristotle’s method is to begin with the notion of a composite whole which is broken down into its smallest parts. Hence, where Plato sees democracy and the other forms of government as having a fairly determinate essence or set of defining characteristics, Aristotle is adamant that there are different types of democracy, oligarchy and aristocracy. In fact, his delineation of what he considers the best constitution, which he calls “polity,” is dependent on precisely this definitional malleability of each constitution and its ability to be mixed with other constitutional forms. More importantly, this analytic mentality underlies Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s view that the state should comprise a unity. Aristotle holds that a state is a composite whole made up of parts; he also defines the state as an aggregate of citizens large enough to secure a self-sufficient life; a further definition suggests that the state is an association of citizens in a constitution (III, i-iii). Aristotle’s entire text stresses the plurality of parts in any state and the need to reconcile these (IV, iii). Given these assumptions, Aristotle maintains, as against Plato, that the state cannot be a unity; unity, in fact, would destroy the state’s self-sufficiency given that the state harbours not only a plurality of numbers but different kinds of men existing in relations of reciprocal equivalence and mutually supporting diversity of function. The state’s plurality, and lack of natural unity, is further evident in the rotation of office whereby citizens take turns to rule and be ruled; Aristotle goes so far as to say that such rotation entails the same citizens becoming different persons at different times (II, ii), a view which contrasts sharply with Plato’s advocacy of a strict specialisation of function. Aristotle does not, of course, suggest that a state exists in a condition of unconstrained plurality; whatever unity a state achieves is given in its harmonisation of various interests and is also a function of education in the “spirit” of a given constitution, an education which entails training of both habits and the intellect (II, v).

cirno_laugh.gif
[Hide] (95.7KB, 368x399) Reverse

I don't understand most of what you're saying, but this is a very good thread nonetheless.
We have a /monarchy/ on the webring?

From what I understand he has philosophical differences with Monarchy, and he puts in effort, which I appreciate, so I let him have his thread,