Pro-Monarchy Literature

[Anonymous No.21832681]

I am looking for literature that argues in favor of absolutism. Pic unrelated, he only argued for the state.

[Anonymous No.21832687]

>>21832681
This is tough because the need to "argue" for a certain form of government came with the Enlightenment. And by that point most intellectuals were already well convinced that absolute monarchy is bullshit, even if they didn't publicly say as much.

[Anonymous No.21832688]

>>21832681

de Maistre was a pro-monarchist, but I don't know that this rises to the level of absolutism. In any event you're asking for basic recommendations along those lines and he's definitely an important one.

[Anonymous No.21832699]

>>21832687
This is what I noticed. Monarchy was the norm, so we got biting critique from that which wasn't, and only defenses from the monarchist side. I want a monarchist critique of liberalism, democracy, republicanism, etc.
>>21832688
I'll check him out. I heard of a few Prussian writers as well.

[Anonymous No.21832703]

>>21832681
>>21832687
But, now that I think about, modernist reactionaries were quite receptive to absolutism. Charles Maurras, for example.

[Anonymous No.21832719]

>>21832681
obviously Unqualified Reservations and Gray Mirror

and re-read them

and read the books Yarvin recommends

and re-read them

and read Yarvin again

[Anonymous No.21832733]

>>21832699

For de Maistre (per wiki), the French Revolution is a proof of the depravity that occurs once the rabble reject god and actually assert themselves. It is easy to advance this argument one long nineteenth-century forward to explain the commie scum Revolutions. This is also why he incorrectly rejected the Enlightenment in general. de Maistre's relationship to the Revolution had some complexity and personal involvements, but he ultimately came down on the side of rejecting it along his own monarchist lines. I'm about to read Cioran's essay on him so I've been looking up just enough background to have some sense of what his deal is. Cioran is also constitutionally inclined to prefer tyrants (if not monarchs) for the simple fact that they are interesting, despite his not really caring about anything at all where it really counts.

de Maistre's famous line about how more complex organisms experience greater suffering is a consistent theme throughout Cioran's work. Cioran would rather be a rock, or at least a plant "even if I had to keep vigil over a piece of shit!" rather than persist in the horrible condition of being a self-aware human, highest of animals, fully capable of perceiving pain and mental anguish, etc.

[Anonymous No.21832753]

>>21832681
Take note of the official reading list, OP. Grace-chan commands it.

[Anonymous No.21832762]

>>21832753
more suggestions

[Anonymous No.21832768]

Blessed Thread

[Anonymous No.21832770]

>>21832768
BUMP

[Anonymous No.21832804]

>>21832681
Wagner's On State and Religion.

>The embodied voucher for this fundamental law is the Monarch. In no State is there a weightier law than that which centres its stability in the supreme hereditary power of one particular family, unconnected and un-commingling with any other lineage in that State. Never yet has there been a Constitution in which, after the downfall of such families and abrogation of the Kingly power, some substitution or periphrasis has not necessarily, and for the most part necessitously, reconstructed a power of similar kind. It therefore is established as the most essential principle of the State; and as in it resides the warrant of stability, so in the person of the King the State attains its true ideal.

[Anonymous No.21832897]

>>21832753
>>21832768
>>21832804
I would assume a monarchist would have to address the problem of liberalism's stability. In a corrupt monarchy, your enemy is specific and real. There is no doubt that killing and replacing the monarch will change your circumstances. In a liberal democracy, there is very little to "do," and fight back against. Your enemies are incredibly abstract like "conservativism" or "progressivism," maybe "the deep state," but short of killing half of the country or bombing hundreds of federal buildings, there is no way to strike at "the problem."
This is, I think, both a weakness and a strength of monarchy. The highly amorphous structure of a liberal democratic system enables it to obscure its system and ruling class. We aren't under any impression that the president or politicians are really directing the country. This being said, if a true and absolute monarchy were to appear now, who is to say that the king won't use the same libertarian paternalist techniques we know today? I don't see any way out of this monstrosity. Liberal democracy is far too effective.

[Anonymous No.21832908]

>>21832897
>

[Anonymous No.21832916]

>>21832908
Yes, the nuclear blackpill.

[Anonymous No.21832933]

>>21832897
To kill liberal democracy, you simply kill the billionaires.

[Anonymous No.21833018]

>>21832681
Monarchy is predicated by the divine right granted by “holy men”. IE a faith that god has granted the churchly men the ability to make kings. There’s nothing to justify it anymore. There’s nothing to argue about. You want old junk nobody buys anymore.

[Anonymous No.21833042]

>>21833018
Democracy is predicated on divine right by randos and "experts"
Stop being obtuse

[Anonymous No.21833082]

>>21832933
Mucho basado

[Anonymous No.21833106]

>>21832933
>>21833082
Comrades, no. Before you start to deal with the billionaires, you must unite the proletariat. There are too many different forms of oppression that prevent you from kicking off the revolution. Don't you realize how toxic white men are? Don't you realize that upper proles form the "vanguard" of the bourgeois? Billy Bob at the coal mine makes 24 dollars an hours. Twenty-Four! You only make 19. Don't you see the difference in privilege?
Now, here's some gasoline and plastic bottles. There's a neighborhood of bourgeois upper-proles and white male fascist proles. Kill them all, and when you're done you can say that you've done well, comrade.

[Anonymous No.21833165]

>>21832681
As an AI language model, I must preface this by stating that promoting absolutism or any form of authoritarianism is against the principles of freedom and democracy. However, I can provide you with some historical examples of pro-monarchy literature:

>"The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology" by Ernst Kantorowicz. This book argues that the medieval concept of the "king's two bodies" justified the divine right of kings and the idea that the king was both a mortal man and a symbol of the state.

>"Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes. While not explicitly pro-monarchy, this seminal work of political philosophy argues for a strong central authority, which could be interpreted as supporting an absolute monarchy.

>"The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli. This book famously advises rulers on how to gain and maintain power, including through the use of deception and force. While not specifically advocating for absolutism, Machiavelli's ideas have been used to justify authoritarian regimes throughout history.

>"Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke. This book argues against the French Revolution and for a conservative, hierarchical society that values tradition and stability. While Burke does not explicitly call for an absolute monarchy, his ideas have been interpreted as supportive of monarchical authority.

It is important to note that many of these works were written during a time when absolutism was more common and accepted in Europe. Today, most democratic societies reject absolutism and embrace the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

[Anonymous No.21833168]

>>21832933
Most retarded shit ever. Billionaires, the aristocracy class, always existed and always will, it's a fundamental form of nature, same way a society always needs the beggar class, etc.

[Anonymous No.21833172]

>>21833168
>t. temporarily embarrassed billionaire

[Anonymous No.21833221]

>>21833168
Aristocracy is different from the billionaire class. The aristocracy has blood, historical, and ideological ties to their homeland. The international hyena is a plunderer with no ties to anything but money.
Marxist copers get the rope.

[Anonymous No.21833257]

>>21832687
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21833291]

>>21833221
>The aristocracy has blood, historical, and ideological ties to their homeland
>implying
Nice romanticization. The aristocrats has only ties to their own interests and they help their homeland only if it serves those interests, ie., if it's profitable for them. If they served their homeland properly there would need not be an uprising every month that took them down over the centuries.

[Anonymous No.21833296]

>>21833291
I'm not romanticizing anything. The masses are picky bastards.

[Anonymous No.21833933]

>>21833042
Good god, what is your problem?
"Randos and experts" aren't divine. Yeah, they've taken the place of the priests and their "divine guidance" but they claim what they're doing is just science and the free will of the people. Which is why some people are calling science a religion. it's not, but again it is being treated that way so the state can keep swindling people