Do you read centuries old books, chuds?
Can I get that summarized in a TikTok
this board doesnt read shit
>>542098936>Don't go to war to a foreing land with diferent customs without a plan to make it your colony and return after 20 years thinking it would magically become american
>>542098886>Niccolo NormieavelliIf your book can be found in a modern bookstore, it is normgroid tier.The Biological Jew by Eustace Mullinshttps://www.eustacemullins.us/wp-content/works/Articles/Eustace%20Mullins%20-%20The%20Biological%20Jew.pdfSecrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullinshttps://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Eustace%20Mullins%20-%20The%20Secrets%20of%20the%20Federal%20Reserve.pdfCulture of Critique by Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.nationalists.org/pdf/culture-of-critique-kevin-macdonald-kindle-edition-2013.pdfThe Riddle of the Jews' Success by Theodor Fritschhttps://www.der-stuermer.org/english/Theodor%20Fritsch%20-%20The%20riddle%20of%20the%20jew's%20success.pdfEconomics for Helen" by Hilaire Belloc, the greatest economics primer ever writtenhttps://archive.org/details/economicsforhele0000bellThe National System of Political Economy by Friedrich Listhttps://archive.org/details/nationalsystemof00list/page/n6/mode/1upAddresses to the German Nation by Johann Gottlieb Fichtehttps://dn790001.ca.archive.org/0/items/addressestothege00fichuoft/addressestothege00fichuoft.pdfThe Servile State by Hilaire Bellochttps://legiochristi.com/static/lit/H_Belloc_The_Servile_State.pdfManifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest by Gottfried Feder https://archive.org/details/manifesto-for-abolition-enslavement-interest-on-money-gottfried-federPrinces of the Yen by Richard Wernerhttps://professorwerner.org/pubs/princes-of-the-yen-japans-central-bankers-and-the-transformation-of-the-economy/(can be found on Annas-archive)Hitler's Revolution by Richard Tedorhttps://archive.org/details/hitlers-revolution-expanded-edition-richard-tedor_20230406_2240NATIONAL SOCIALISM NOW! by William Joycehttp://www.mourningtheancient.com/joyce2.pdfTHE NEW UNHAPPY LORDS by A. K. Chestertonhttps://ia803109.us.archive.org/13/items/TheNewUnhappyLords1965/1965%20-%20New%20Unhappy%20Lords%20-%20A.%20K.%20Chesterton.pdf
>>542098886Every Italian is Machiavellian--every Italian is a nigger.
>>542098936You laugh but really most concepts should be easily describable and easy to surmize. Lots of books are filled with fluff or repeating the same idea in different ways of explanation/giving examples etc.
>>542098886currently reading a book of marcus tullius cicero letters
>>542098886Yes
If anybody is interested in liberalism in its earliest stage, read Cato’s Letters.
Last one I read
>>542098886Machiavelli was pretty stupid.>M-maybe Italians are b-b-bad at war, but the French are bad at diplomacy!>Swords and shields always defeat pikemen, look at the Spanish (who abandoned swordsmen in their pike formations a few years later and adopted the much more successful tercio)>I-it was a parody, bro>Only held an important position once>Formed a shitty militia and was quickly ousted from powerCardinal Richelieu's Political Testament is a far betterhttps://archive.org/details/political-testament-of-cardinal-richelieu/mode/2up
>>542099871>Machiavelli is stupid>He wrote>Don't go to war without replacing the king and befriending the nobles with gifts and blessings to be your vassals in your side>Americans go to aftganistan and Irak and make everything possible to insult the customs and symbols of the nobles>20 years, thousands death, billions lost>Machiavelli wrote this 500 years ago
Reading Leviathan now, recently finished Paradise Lost, The Iliad, and The Odyssey
>>542100121Wow, so insightful, and totally the reason America lost in Afghanistan.
>>542099532Delusional wog narcissism on full displayShitaly has never had a stable state
>>542098886Its satire idiot
>>542099301So why do all the professionals keep making the same dumb mistakes?The Art of War was made over 2000 years and is extremely rudimentary and yet we still have generals who fail the basics.
>>542100780>Subhuman negro thinks he can't learn from the wisdom from ancient wise manHuman condition is eternal, so their lessons can be still applied today.
>>542100380Leviathan is an interesting read alongside Machiavelli and Thucydides--if you like the whole "realpolitik" outlook.Hobbes did a translation of Thucydides actually.If you aren't familiar with many of the conventions surrounding monarchy and its conflict with Aristotle and the overall religious conflict, you won't quite understand some of Hobbes' motives when he is trying to combat the traditionalist conventions of his day that were inconvenient.Hobbes is outraged at moral philosophy, because Christianity has inconvenienced kings with verses like Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:34-39 (hate your tribe, hate your father, divide a household) -- these Christian principles were social poison and really augmented with the Wars of Religion where the denomination of a king could utterly destroy legitimacy with a large chunk of the population, so even though Leviathan is lambasted for its Liberalism, materialism, and Enlightenment philosophy... the motives are easy to follow.The most notable thing in politics about Hobbes' Leviathan is he stridently advocates the State Corporatism that was advocated in Plato's Republic: the State should be organized as "one man" or as a "Leviathan" with such a power to compel all factions to stop their dissidence and surrender to an arbiter.
>>542100936Because people are stupid
>>542100936The art of war is like 4-5k years old.Niggas literally fail to grasp how is a book of fundamentals and Trump literally is failing at basic mistakes of it.
>>542098949Share some interesting things from this book.
A lot of people are mistaken to think Hobbes is the first... to advocate State Corporatism / unitary politics... while that unitary kind of secular politics combined with popular sovereignty of "The People" is new contrasted with the prior Medievalism and decentralization... Plato advocated State Corporatism contrary to Aristotle.Unitary / State Corporatism: All men as one man.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.And also from Hobbes:>And in him consists the Essence of the Common-wealth; 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.”Now compare with Plato Republic:>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.&>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”&>But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.”&>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 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
>>542098886About to start with Agrippa.>>542099521Holy based anon.
SO compare & contrast.Plato advocated a unitary / "state corporatist" politics -- "state should be organized like one individual man"--CENTRALIZEDWhereas Aristotle advocated a kind of political pluralism "partnership of clans"--DECENTRALIZEDPlato 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.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 possiblePlato Republic:>And the city whose state is most like that of an individual man.&>“The same,” he said, “and, to return to your question, the best governed state most nearly resembles such an organism.”&>But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts.
Aristotle's Politics:Aristotle / Since the nature of a State is to be a plurality>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.
Aristotle / state is a partnership of families and of clans in living well, and its object is a full and independent life.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;>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.
Aristotle Politics / Anti-State Corporatism / Anti-Absolute Monarchy>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 and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens.So Plato and Hobbes both opposed Aristotle in this area--they advocated the opposite notion of politics... that it should be corporate and unitary.This is one area that Hobbes opposes in Aristotle--there is a litany of passages in Leviathan in opposition to Aristotle and this one of them.
>>542101641Unfortunately it's abridged at this point and it's the only English translation publicly available but I found a few of the answers I was looking for in it.
Another area that is important to understand as far as the convention of monarchy... that political & economical are no different in science.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.Aristotle:>For some are of opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the sameAristotle writes in Politics,>Now there is an erroneous opinion that a statesman, king, householder, and a master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state.Aristotle:>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.
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.
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."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 [state] or city, nor have any of those innumerable writers of politics observed any such union&>A great Family if it be not part of some Commonwealth, is of it self, as to the Rights of Sovereignty, a little Monarchy; whether that Family consist of a man and his children; or of a man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants together: wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign.&>And as small Families did then; so now do Cities and Kingdomes which are but greater Families
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.
Hobbes is perhaps giving the strongest appeal throughout Leviathan to the necessity of an arbiter -- as opposed to Aristotle's appeal to concord of hosts.Hobbes: The Sixteenth, Of Submission To Arbitrement; [OR, the NECESSITY of an arbitrary power]>And because, though men be never so willing to observe these Laws, there may nevertheless arise questions concerning a mans action; First, whether it were done, or not done; Secondly (if done) whether against the Law, or not against the Law; the former whereof, is called a question Of Fact; the later a question Of Right; therefore unless the parties to the question, Covenant mutually to stand to the sentence of another, they are as far from Peace as ever. This other, to whose Sentence they submit, is called an ARBITRATOR. And therefore it is of the Law of Nature, "That they that are at controversy, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator."This is followed also by Plato in Laws.Plato Laws on the need for arbiters:>Athenian: And every man surely likes his own laws best, and the laws of others not so well.>Athenian: The next step will be that these persons who have met together, will select some arbiters, who will review the laws of all of them, and will publicly present such as they approve to the chiefs who lead the tribes, and who are in a manner their kings, allowing them to choose those which they think best. These persons will themselves be called legislators, and will appoint the magistrates, framing some sort of aristocracy, or perhaps monarchy, out of the dynasties or lordships, and in this altered state of the government they will live.From this perspective, unity comes first--there is no social convention or communication... without an arbiter or some kind of unity first. This understanding coincides with monarchy in that a monarch summoned the estates first, meaning that the estates -depended- upon the unity of a monarch first to draw out their social convention...
>>542098886The people and their intentions haven't changed only the tech, that's why we live like we live and repeat the same mistakes. That's why that book is still valid.
Last important comparison here is how Plato's Republic talks about a community of pleasures and pains--and how Hobbes Leviathan tackles this.Plato Republic>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’Plato Republic - Community of Pleasures & Pains>And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains–where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow?>No doubt.>Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State is disorganized>And the chief cause of this is when the citizens do not utter in unison such words as ‘mine’ and ‘not mine,’
Mussolini's portrait on the Fascist HQ is probably the best IRL reference to this idea of Plato's that everyone should say "mine" and "thine" -- or "si" in unison in corporatist fashion.Thomas Hobbes The Generation Of A Common-wealth>The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will:&>This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unity of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, “I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.” &>This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence.So Hobbes draws all plurality of voices and reduces all wills -- unto one will and one voice. "This is more than consent or concord; it is the real unity of them all." --So that unitary vision of politics is achieved along with a community of pleasures and pains.As Hobbes says,>But in a Common-wealth this measure is false: Not the Appetite of Private men, but the Law, which is the Will and Appetite of the State is the measure. --So the discord of "mine" and "thine" by private men is canceled out... by the "mine" and "thine" of the State, achieving the Corporatist view of Plato.
Hobbes: Propriety Of A Subject Excludes Not The Dominion Of The Sovereign, But Only Of Another Subject>From whence we may collect, that the Propriety which a subject hath in his lands, consists in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their Sovereign, be it an Assembly, or a Monarch. For seeing the Sovereign, that is to say, the Common-wealth (whose Person he represents,) is understood to do nothing but in order to the common Peace and Security, this Distribution of lands, is to be understood as done in order to the same: And consequently, whatsoever Distribution he shall make in prejudice thereof, is contrary to the will of every subject, that committed his Peace, and safety to his discretion, and conscience; and therefore by the will of every one of them, is to be reputed voyd.So particular subjects are limited in their estate, all property is limited by an absolute power – as well as subordinate corporations – by a sovereign, who has in his cult of personality "thine" and "mine" of every subject in a plurality of voices brought unto one voice.Plato:>That the man who receives the portion should still regard it as common property of the whole StateWhich Hobbes does. The Sovereign / "The People" by a community of pleasures & pains as a whole says "Thine" & "Mine" in a wayHobbes writes,>Propriety of a subject excludes not the dominion of the Sovereign, but only of another subject.
If you are reading Hobbes' Leviathan, a good precursor read would also be reading Jean Bodin when it comes to understanding the concept of sovereignty, how it ties to monarchy, and a unitary idea of politics--the stress is on unity and the derivation of political order from unity coincides with this idea of sovereignty and monarchy.
>>542098886I read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire a long time ago. In every chapter there was at least one instance of a situation that sounded just like today. Took me a year to read the whole thing. Currently reading Foucaults Pendulum, it's very weird but entertaining.
The whole notion of "sovereignty" is supposed to be an answer to the question of monarchy's preeminence... The best explanation of this notion of "monarchical preeminence" and the qualities of it are found in Aristotle's Politics, IMHO, (which ARistotle refuses) -- but nonetheless it is maintained to justify monarchy.
>>542101059Interesting. I have some background knowledge of things you've mentioned but would not say i am truly educated on it all. i have my issues with it, and should have absolutely read more before jumping in, but i figure i will follow up on some other reads like the ones you've suggested and read Leviathan again at some point.
Yes.>>542098949>>542098936>>542099036>>542099172>>542099237
THE GREAT FOUNDER / PRE-EMINENT MONARCHYAs explained by Aristotle in Politics>Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the Whole. But He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because He is sufficient for himself, must either be a Beast or a God! A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.<& yet he who first FOUNDED the state was the GREATEST of benefactors!>But when a whole family or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the FOUNDER of all states… are accustomed to put forward … but accords with the principle already laid down. For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed. The Whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole [the State] to a part. But if so, the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always!Aristotle - Qualities of a Pre-eminent Monarch:>1. Agreeable to that ground of right which of the great founders of States>2. It would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person>3. [We should not] require that he should take his turn in being governed>4. He who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the Whole to a part>5. He should have the supreme power and subjects' obedience>6. Is like a demigod among men
Aristotle went on to say.>Any would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares.>For surely it would not be right to kill, or ostracize, or exile such a person, or… require that he should take his turn in being governed–the whole is naturally superior to the part, and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of the whole to the part. But if so the only alternative is that he should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always.>Such an one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in capacity; and for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law–they are themselves a law (living law).Of course, Aristotle after setting the bar this high (& increasing my suspicion of him as a monarchist) said that this was unattainable, and left it not to Greek kings but the kings of the East. –>Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree in which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general (having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds), so that the superiority of the governors was undisputed and patent to their subjects, it would clearly be better that once for an the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed
>>542098886i tried reading hobbes' leviathan. i gave up after 20 pages. i need to find a modern translation.
>>542103328I'd say when it comes to any absolute monarchist, think of it like a checklist.What Aristotle says here >>542103431 & >>542103486 is what a monarchist writer is trying to meet tit for tat -- and when they talk about sovereignty... it is their way of expounding on their notion of a kind of preeminence....When Hobbes talks about Leviathan as a "Mortal God" under the "Immortal God" -- that's to counter what Aristotle says, that such a sovereign is a demigod among men... and that when Aristotle says "who who has this preeminence is in relation of the whole to the part" -- that is also something Hobbes is trying to redress, he makes his sovereign "The People" thereby making his sovereign in relation of the "whole" to the "part"... that is, in relation of the entire state....Also when it comes to Aristotle, the idea that political & economical are no different--justifies monarchy--because Aristotle says monarchy should be limited to an economical estate and not political in nature... that idea stipulates that monarchy has no right to govern the whole state... hence the conflcit with parliamentarians... but if they are the same science "political/economical no different" then a monarchy can possibly govern the state and has knowledge to.
>>542101641>Agrippa.>"Everything is poison, nothing is poison">"Depends on the dosage"Wasn't he more of an alchemist than "occultist" (like Crowley)?
When it comes to the nature of monarchy preeminence, it is supposed to be "without comparison" -- Hobbes stresses this.Non est potestas super terram quae comparetur ei", which translates from Latin to "There is no power on earth to be compared to him".This is Hobbes' appeal to that idea, that a preeminent monarchy is without comparison, so such a monarch is a superior.>>542103550Don't read Hobbes Leviathan as "traditionalist" lit, but as an Enlightenment text btw -- a lot of people make that mistake because they see monarchy and think "trad" but Hobbes is setting the foundation for Liberalism in opposition to mainstream Christianity.Hobbes is very anti-Catholic, anti-Presbyterian, anti-Clerical in general--and aimed to kind of keep what Henry VIII set down with the king being the sole governor of the CofE.The two images of the Sword and Crosier stress the unity of political & spiritual powers -- in contrast to the Catholic & ultramontanist notions of "spiritual sword > political / temporal sword".
>>542103328I would say thoroughly read my posts because what I'm saying is coming from years of personal study that I'm pretty much summing up.This quote for example--is great in context of the text below.Since Hobbes claims that sovereignty is the "soul" of commonwealth, so all life depends upon the soul/unity, and not so much on the composite and pluralistic nature or concord. (This is to advance that unitary outlook as opposed to Aristotle's "partnership of clans").--Think one-party states as unitary/corporatist, whereas multi-party democracies are that ideal of a "partnership of clans" -- same with the absolute monarchy (one royal estate over all estates) versus the neofeudalist stress on nobility and their noble estates / decentralization -- that is Aristotle's partnership of clans. You see this in Catholicism with Pope vs the decentralized Orthodox clergy, so absolute monarch vs decentralized noblesBodin says,>Now the sovereign prince is exalted above all his subjects, and exempt out of the rank of them: whose majesty suffers no more division than doth the unity itself, which is not set nor accounted among the numbers, howbeit that they all from it take both their force and power…. being indeed about to become much more happy if they had a sovereign prince, which with his authority and power might (as doth the understanding) reconcile all the parts, and so unite and bind them fast in happiness together.<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
>>542103965that's paracelsus, i think
That same conflict is seen in other places--like federalists versus confederacy.Federalist idea is more unitary, stressing the federal government over the states' rights--whereas the confederate idea is Aristotle's partnership of clans, stressing concord over the unity-based thinking.Hobbes adequately sums this up,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
>>542098886I don't check a book's age. In fact the earlier it is written and isn't academic the more likely it belongs in the garbage
>>542104505Great stuff, saving a bunch of the text. Any poignant thoughts on what Hobbes would say/think about the current state of US government/politics. I think most my trouble with Leviathan is having a sort of modern and lived bias towards the ideas being presented.
>>542098886Yes. If you have an inner monologue, and thus an ability to create a world in your mind from good prose/verbiage, then there's nothing like it. Though, I often find myself enjoying discussions and interpretations thereof just as much. They are wells to go back to again and again.
>>542106379IDK, I think he would be kind of horrified in some ways, but there are many modern ideas in his works. He was a nominalist and advocated the primacy of the secular politics which is more common today with nationalism as opposed to the kind of Christian theocracy and clericalism.It's only his preference for absolute monarchy & authoritarianism that seems off-putting, but you have to consider that in his time the denominations were a kind of factionalism on steroids in the context of the English Civil Wars.Just about any faggot could have a "private revelation" and start a civil war--think of the Taiping Rebellion where some random Chink says he has had a personal revelation and is the brother of Jesus and starts a civil war killing--that is what Hobbes is trying to deal with.
>>542106703Thats fair. its just a situation of being difficult to always see his point of view while living in weimerica, but civil war england is another episode of the shitshow that i just dont have the personal experience with. Will review ideas you've mentioned while getting in my pages today, thanks anon
>>542107219He has a work called Behemoth where Hobbes talks about his stress about factionalism.Hobbes Behemoth:The seducers were of diverse sorts…1st faction: The Presbyterians>One sort were ministers; ministers, as they called themselves, of Christ; and sometimes, in their sermons to the people, God's ambassadors; pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.2nd faction: The Papists / Catholics>Secondly, there were a very great number, though not comparable to the other, which notwithstanding that the Pope's power in England, both temporal and ecclesiastical, had been by Act of Parliament abolished, did still retain a belief that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the vicar of Christ, and, in the right of Christ, to be the governor of all Christian people. And these were known by the name of Papists; as the ministers I mentioned before, were commonly called Presbyterians.
3rd faction: Fifth monarchy men & other low church protestants>Thirdly, there were not a few, who in the beginning of the troubles were not only discovered, but shortly after declared themselves for a liberty in religion, and those of different opinions one from another. Some of them because they would have all congregations free and independent upon one another, were called Independents. Others that held baptism to infants, and such understood not into what they are baptized, to be ineffectual, were called therefore Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ's kingdom was at this time to begin upon the earth, were called Fifth-monarchy-men; besides diverse other sects, as Quakers, Adamites, etc, whose names and peculiar doctrines I do not well remember. And these were the enemies which arose against his Majesty from the private interpretation of the Scripture, exposed to every man's scanning in his mother-tongue.4th faction: The Intellectuals / School-men / Educated Elite & Parliamentarians>Fourthly, there were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth having read the books written by famous men of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths concerning their polity and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by that glorious name of Liberty, and monarchy disgraced by the name of Tyranny; they became thereby in love with their forms of government. And out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons, or if they were not the greatest part, yet by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest.5th faction: Londoners & Other Urbanites>Fifthly, the city of London and other great towns of trade, having in admiration the prosperity of the Low Countries after they had revolted from their monarch, the King of Spain, were inclined to think that the like change of government here, would to them produce the like prosperity.
6th faction: The Grifters / Lumpenproles>Sixthly, there were a very great number that had either wasted their fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good parts they thought were in themselves; and more there were, that had able bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their bread. These longed for a war, and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had the greatest plenty of money.Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant & didn't care>Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty, as that not one perhaps of ten thousand knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth, for which he was to part with his money against his will; but thought of himself to be so much master of whatsoever he possessed, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to, with the help of riches; they had no rule of equity, but precedents and custom; and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament, that was most averse to the granting of subsidies or other public payments.Hobbes sums this up with pessimism.>In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government, so as they need not have taken arms for it. For I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.
>Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side.- Celsus
>>542098886El principe is to international geopolitics as elementary pre-calculus is to hodge-theory.
>>542098886old novels, yes. old essays, i've tried but my power level is too low. i failed several attempts at reading Hobbes' Leviathan.
Hobbes saw "pretense" or virtuosos in moral philosophy in the Machiavellian way--as hyenas, as scheming bastards hiding behind pretense to justify their wanton desires. He didn't see "good" and "evil" as much more than that these people "liked" or "disliked" this--they call a man a "tyrant" & in Hobbes view... it didn't mean they were a tyrant, but that that person was simply namecalling and didn't said the person he said was a tyrantHobbes was of the opinion as Machiavelli--it is better to be feared than loved.Tho. Hobbes>Look now, how great a prejudice these are, such, and so great is the benefit arising from this doctrine of morality, truly declared. How many Kings (and those good men too) have this one error, That a Tyrant King might lawfully be put to death, been the slaughter of?>How many throats has this false position cut, That a prince for some causes may by some certain men be deposed? And what bloodshed hath not this erroneous doctrine caused, That Kings are not superiors to, but administrators for the multitude? Lastly, how many rebellions has this opinion been the cause of which taught that the knowledge whether the commands of Kings be just or unjust, belongs to private men, and that before they yield obedience, they not only may, but ought to dispute them?>Besides, in the moral philosophy now commonly received, there are many things no less dangerous than those, which it matters not now to recite. I suppose those ancients foresaw this, who rather chose to have the Science of justice wrapt up in fables, than openly exposed to disputations: for before such questions began to be moved, princes did not sue for, but already exercised the supreme power>They kept their Empire entire, not by arguments, but by punishing the wicked and protecting the good; likewise Subjects did not measure what was just by the sayings and judgements of private men, but by the Laws of the Realm; nor were they kept in peace by disputations, but by power and authority:
>>542098886Im watching The Account 2.
<Yea they reverenced the supreme power, whether residing in one man or in a council, as a certain visible divinity;>Therefore they little used as in our days, to join themselves with ambitious, and hellish spirits, to the utter ruin of their State; for they could not entertain so strange a fancy as not to desire the preservation of that by which they were preserved;>in truth, the simplicity of those times was not yet capable of so learned a piece of folly.The end of a Golden Age–RUINED by Uranus/Cronus/Zeus castration & usurpation myth<Wherefore it was peace, and a golden age, which ended not before that Saturn being expelled, it was taught lawful to take up arms against Kings.Ixion, Zeus & Juno banquet>The Ancients not only themselves saw, but in one of their fables, they aptly have signified it to us; for they say, that when Ixion was invited by Jupiter to a banquet, he fell in love, & began to court Juno her self; offering to embrace her, he clasp't a cloud…>From whence the Centaurs proceeded, by nature half men, half horses, a fierce, a fighting, and unquiet generation;>Which changing the names only, is as if they should have said, that private men being called to Counsels of State desired to prostitute justice, the only sister & wife of the supreme, to their judgements, & apprehensions, but embracing a false & empty shadow instead of it, they have begotten those hermaphrodite opinions of moral philosophers, partly right and comely, partly brutal and wild, the causes of all contentions, and bloodsheds.
>>542108197Accountant 2*
I think it is difficult for most people to understand what Machiavelli's appeal to being feared rather than loved.Hobbes is of the opinion that the only way to achieve unity is with fear--either of what people will do to each other (that is, fear of an enemy) or fear of the sovereign, so that they don't revolt for factionalism.Because that is all Hobbes saw in "pretense" -- an excuse for factionalism. He saw men as constantly looking to attack one another with factionalism. & the only way to make all men who are in opposing factions unite together is with either a bigger common enemy or fear.Take for example--an argument for US hegemony in Europe is that Europeans fear that with their own nationalism they will start national wars against each other--that is Hobbesian in its appeal.In Halo CE, the marines and jackels are found dead in that one area with the Flood--they fought together and died, because the fear of the Flood united them.So Fear is the only reliable force to unite people in Hobbes' view.Whereas Virtue or Love is like a whore that people toss around, saying they'll surrender their lives and they don't care to die (when in reality they would bail and ditch the moment things get rough)--everyone says they're for the Truth but in reality it's like Truth Social and Donald Trump, a political slogan.
>>542098886I do. I am looking into Tataria and how the kike Rothchilds erased an entire empire.
This is written so much better it’s incredible>and the night and morning where the (x) dayThis makes the timing much more accurate, he started at night and created the morning, the entire concept is much more realistic than just the modern (x) day, and it’s gone from newer versions.There’s also a lot that’s easier to understand in real English. For instance before God made woman he remade every animal and had Adam name them, he didn’t only do this for the names as implied in the new versions but also to test their ability to help man, being unfit he created women.Every man should learn to read actual English.Reuifed=Revised
>>542109082were*. Fucking autocorrect
>>542108258But anyways, Hobbes' dislike of the castration myth was shared by Plato in Republic as well.Plato loathed that in the poets.Plato thought it was giving subjects and children "ideas" to castrate their fathers--Hobbes, in turn, saw it as giving the ideas to castrate kings.Both shared a mutual distrust of letting ordinary people get rowdy with ideas that way, because they were impressionable like children and could easily be mislead....But to sum up Hobbes, he is looking to have a simple formula that any leader can rely upon to get people's obedience.The basis of obedience is life preservation and protection.Whoever has the capacity to sustain your life and feed you--keep you from harm's way--has the obedience.This is a simple idea and reliable as opposed to virtue... because depending on the denomination, either Protestant or Catholic or Pagan... people could say your virtue wasn't enough and Hobbes really saw how easily the divine right of kings apologists were being undermined either by catholics or low church protestants looking to kill the kings, so he reduced their legitimacy to a much more simple basis that cannot be disputed as easily.
>>542098886I have a copy.
>>542099871His most known work The Prince was supposed to be a cover letter and a Medici butt kiss to get re-instantiated in his old position. However, he failed miserably at this. In Machiavelli's system a prince is a transistory figure that establishes a republic which is for him the most optimal form of governance
And people didn't like that--that simply protection was enough, or people thought that any criminal could revolt and take initiative based on how much he thought he was being protected or harmed, so people either see this idea of protection as a basis for civil obedience as either too hard to resist or even too lax.
>>542109341Machiavelli's motion was that some prince could unite Italy.I suspect the motive for why Machiavelli writes to ignore morals is because Machiavelli wanted a prince to ignore the Pope.A lot of Liberalism's appeal was to simply bypass the clergy/church.Niccolo Machiavelli:>This is that the Church has kept and keeps this province divided. And truly no province has ever been united or happy unless it has all come under obedience to one republic or to one prince, as happened to France and to Spain. The cause that Italy is not in the same condition and does not also have one republic or one prince to govern it is solely the Church. For although it has inhabited and held a temporal empire there, it has not been so powerful nor of such virtue as to be able to seize the tyranny of Italy and make itself prince of it. On the other hand, it has not been so weak that it has been unable to call in a power to defend it against one that had become too powerful in Italy, for fear of losing dominion over its temporal things. This has been seen formerly in very many experiences: when, by means of Charlemagne, it expelled the Lombards, who were then almost king of all Italy, and when in our times it took away power from the Venetians with the aid of France, then expelled the French with the aid of the Swiss. Thus, since the Church has not been powerful enough to be able to seize Italy, nor permitted another to seize it, it has been the cause that Italy has not been able to come under one head but has been under many princes and lords, from whom so much disunion and so much weakness has arisen that it has been lead to be the prey not only of barbarian powers but of whoever assaults it.
>>542098936What about a single sentence instead?
>>542109628He never got beat up in Juvy
Napoleon couldn't conquer Europe without Liberalism.Liberalism was a prerequisite to being able to bypass the various Christian princes and the Clergy and in one fell swoop Liberalism cut the Gordian Knot that allowed conquerors to sweep through.That is what this is all about--a gordian knot which was the patchwork of medieval europe, the princedoms and nobility and the clergy--that was a massive gordian knot stopping would-be alexanders, and liberalism helped cut this gordian knot.
>>542098886All I've been reading for the last ten years or so. Can't stop. Obsessed. 200 or so books in my physical library (all read) plus another 400+ pirated in my digital collection. Attempting to amass all the essential texts before they inevitably nuke the internet worse than it already is and make piracy harder so they can continue to destroy/rewrite our history. I feel more connection from reading the works of the ancients than I have from anyone alive today. Lmao. Nothing radicalized me more than reading Plato/Aristotle in particular and seeing them completely btfo all the absurd notions of faggy modern "political" discourse and doing so in spectacularly detailed form thousands of years ago. Post any ultimate lists/infographics of essential works of philosophy/politics/literature/esoteric/mythology/metaphysics from the classical world or otherwise if you got them, please!
>>542101185The most surprising knowledge that you could gain from it is that always the defender, by resisting, never the attacker by attacking, starts a war. If the defender, instead of resisting, chose to surrender immediately there wouldn't be an exchange of hostilities, no war that is. The attacker would just impose his political will on the attacked. The power that starts a war is only rarely to blame for it.
cris you are making at least a thread per day. stop
>>542098886I recommend Hume's Enquiry. He was far ahead of his time. Quantum physics vindicated him.https://fitelson.org/confirmation/hume_enquiry.pdf
>read by Napoleon >read by Hitler>author conceived of the atomix bomb before Sloppenheimer>>542110095Aristotle is based. I'm surprised schools are even allowed to teach Aristotle anymore.
>>542109834That really puts Napoleon in a context that makes sense. Especially in hindsight.
>>542110993DESU, the biggest inconvenience with traditionalism, IMHO, is Christianity itself, obviously being a Jewish derived religion.Traditionalism will never be a viable option so long as Christianity is the face of it.Even Rousseau makes devastating points about Christianity.I recommend reading Rousseau Social Contract pages 67 through 73.https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdfJean-Jacques Rousseau criticism of Christianity:>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’ >My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or restore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.
>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.>The philosopher Hobbes is the only Christian writer who has seen the evil and seen how to remedy it, and has dared to propose bring the two heads of the eagle together again, restoring the total political unity without which no state or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that Christianity's domineering spirit is incompatible with his system, and that the priest's side of the divide would always be stronger than the state's. What has drawn down hatred on his political theory is not so much what is false and terrible in it as what is just and true…>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic–those terms are mutually exclusive.Rousseau is ultimately right about Christianity. It has turned itself against uniting policy and religion actually--because it started first from the discourse of "The Jews" versus "The Nations" and that transformed into "Clericalism" versus "The Nations". Christianity carries itself with the air of being a spiritual zionism and 2nd society just as evangelical zionists work for israel over their country.
HP Lovecraft:>In the later stages of decay Christianity undoubtedly did harm through its exaltation of softness, justice, and universal brotherhood, and its demand for the renunciation of earthly ties and loyalty; but it is a mistake to consider this the principal cause of decline, as some do. Rome would never have adopted this mawkish slave-religion if it had not begun to acquire the soft slave-mind and the subtle slave-religion of human equality. The nation, through other causes, had come psychologically unfitted for the traditional classic polytheism and the virile schools of philosophy. Itself decadent, it had begun to demand something like the slave-faiths and mystically consolatory cults of the long-decadent East.>It was pure accident that Christianity won–but once it did win, it undeniably did harm through its weakening effect on patriotism. It sapped at the vigorously nationalistic cast of the Roman mind, and made the people feel that the identity–or even the nature–of their earthly government was comparatively inessential.Machiavelli:>Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative more than active men. It has then placed the highest good in humility, abjectness, and contempt of things human; the other placed it in greatness of spirit, strength of body, and all other things capable of making men very strong. And if our religion asks that you have strength in yourself, it wishes you to be capable of more of suffering than of doing something strong.
you won't understand much. you gotta read someone else translating the ideas to you.
>>542109576The Pope was just another Italien prince for Machiavelli. For him the role model of a republic was the Roman republic which is in other words united Italy. The ideal prince who would establish a hegemony in Italy was supposed to found such a republic. The Prince is one of his short works. This is why you get less information out of it
>>542098886>century old booksuhh
>>542112591I don't deny Machaivelli was a republican.>The Pope was just another Italien prince for Machiavelli.Not the case.Machiavelli states,>The cause that Italy is not in the same condition and does not also have one republic or one prince to govern it is solely the Church. For although it has inhabited and held a temporal empire there, it has not been so powerful nor of such virtue as to be able to seize the tyranny of Italy and make itself prince of it. On the other hand, it has not been so weak that it has been unable to call in a power to defend it against one that had become too powerful in Italy, for fear of losing dominion over its temporal things.>Thus, since the Church has not been powerful enough to be able to seize Italy, nor permitted another to seize it, it has been the cause that Italy has not been able to come under one head but has been under many princes and lords, from whom so much disunion and so much weakness has arisen that it has been lead to be the prey not only of barbarian powers but of whoever assaults it.Machiavelli is diagnosing the Church/Pope as a princedom that is truly incapable of political unity, unlike other princes, and even worse--because it divides spiritual and political territory and sets itself against the nations... utterly blocks political unity.
>>542098886I started reading Darwin's Origin of Species.Wish me luck, bros.
>>542098886>il principeContrary to popular belief, Machiavelli, the inventor of political science, was not a monarchist!In fact, he wrote that book to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. Machiavelli's main goal with this dedication was to regain the favor of the Medici family and secure a political position in the new government after he had been exiled and accused of conspiracy.His masterpiece instead. The book instead where he put his - very republican - political principles is pic related
>>542113052DESU, even though Machiavelli is a republican, I think Machiavelli is a valuable read for a monarchist anyways and even the discourses.
The only books worth reading
>>542112930Popes at that time weren't just some random bishops from around the world like today. They were Borgia's and Medici's themselves and therefore they were involved into the politics of their families.
>>542099555>digitsnice anonthanks for the wisdom
>>542101185War is an Art not a Science.
>"Machiavelli says that any disinterested Power which might be found among the ambitious Powers would certainly end by perishing. I regret it, but I am forced to admit that Machiavelli is right.">"Princes are bound to have ambition, but it must be prudent, measured, and illuminated by reason. If the desire of self-aggrandizement does not procure acquisitions for the prince-statesman, at least it sustains his power, because the same means which he prepares for offensive action are always there to defend the State if defense proves necessary, and if he is forced so to use them."- Frederick the GreatIf even Frederick makes concessions to Machiavelli, then I think monarchists themselves shouldn't discount realpolitik.>>542113751IDK what to tell you, anon, but you have Machiavelli's own words that popes are neither strong enough or of the kind of virtue to unite Italy and yet have been sufficiently strong enough to oppose other princes from dominating.Yes, the Pope is a prince, but the kind of prince that stalls other princes.
