No.1817924
>>1817921picrelated are my ancestors
No.1817932
>>1817924your ancestors are a bunch of faggot sycophants.
No.1817935
>>1817932It's an international board, westoid.
No.1817975
Someone might make fun of me for this but my interpretation is yes that's basically what happened. Though you also have to remember organised religion played a big role too
No.1818025
>>1818015Is this in TANS?
No.1818064
I thought this was common knowledge. Most monarchs are the descendants of warlords.
No.1818146
>>1817924If you're not Syrian or Iraqi no they aren't
No.1818149
im pretty sure that there are almost no material differences between monarchy and any other "form of government" (republican etc).
there have been "hereditary" republics and "elected" monarchies, which makes me think that the main differance is the semantic essentialism, and otherwise its just slight differances in context and preference, the really important bits are the class character of the form.
No.1818151
>>1817921there wasnt one discrete origin but the broadest answer you can reliably get is that it is an outgrowth of kinship systems (groups of extended families, clan members, eligible for marriage non-clan members, etc) that inherit the rights and obligations of their ancestors, and also develop a mode of production relying on the stratification of divisions of labor. this doesnt require a monarchy (tlaxcala, roman and athenian republics, possibly the indus valley civilization) but at that point its very easy for the wealth and influence of a certain clan/family/military leader within that system to "simplify" in times of crisis (or otherwise) and put one ancestry line as the top, while keeping the rest of the higher caste lineages happy enough with mutual debts of obligation, so even if they ultimately defer to one family the tradeoff is they dont have the risk & responsibility of belonging to the monarchs line
No.1818177
>>1818030Where is this from and why is it posted here so much when it is clearly propaganda against the squatters?
No.1818184
>some people care more about muh descendants than others
>the ones who do are more likely to pass any wealth/power to their descendants
>traits (genetic or cultural) that promote inheritance are favored, since the offspring of people with those traits do better
>once wealth and power start accumulating and able to pass down generations, it's easy to keep them going, to grow them, and to outcompete rivals
>positive feedback loop engaged
There's more detail but that's basically what happened.
No.1818185
>>1818181Just look at the characters and tell me who you think normies will consider to be the good one?
No.1818186
>>1818177>where fromDunno
>propaganda against squattersAre you retarded? It is clearly an argument for appropriation of the wealthy's property.
No.1818188
>>1818185fat guy in a top hat talking about his estate is clearly bad guy coded
No.1818195
>>1818185>normiesI don't know what the definition of a normie is, but I would instinctively sympathize with the 5 unlanded dudes vs the one fat landed gentry guy.
No.1818209
>>1818186>>1818188>>1818195Imagine being some random middle class person who has worked his ass off all life to get some clay. Do you think that middle class person wants to be that random bunch of weirdo homeless people or do you think he wants to be the well-off guy?
Same for like 80% of the working class, who want some materialist goods, some easy life and that's that. They want to be the guy with the top hat and so the group of randoms are considered to be a source of chaos and violence.
No.1818215
>>1818209If they want to be the top hat guy fuck them. There are still 5 of us and 1 of them.
No.1818219
>>1818209oh well ok I guess we just need to rebrand socialism into thatcherism then so it doesn't alienate the middle class.
for gods sake, obviously there's a lot of bootlickers out there but even the average rightoid doesn't like old money aristocrats (unless they're 'based' obviously). just because someone wants to be rich doesn't mean they are or will be. hell I would love to be some aristo that never had to work for a living but that doesn't mean I empathise with them. sure the working class are easily tricked into siding with reactionaries but they aren't really /that/ bad in general
also the 'homeless people' are clearly just dressed as old timey poor people. yknow like the guy in the top hat is old timey.
No.1818244
>>1818219>oh well ok I guess we just need to rebrand socialism into thatcherism then so it doesn't alienate the middle class.Middle class AND working class AND upper class.
The culture has been tuned to make 95% of people want to be middle class or higher, mostly because of the partially easy life.
>also the 'homeless people' are clearly just dressed as old timey poor peopleI know, but if they aren't homeless, then this would make the situation even worse as normies are trained to feel empathy with those that don't have anything, but if those have their own place, then it just makes them "greedy" and "criminals" instead of "needy" and "homeless".
No.1818246
>>1818244I want to be middle class too, that doesn't mean I'm an anticommunist. I really think you're overthinking this anon, the cartoon just makes the correct argument that the rich got their property through force so it's hypocritical for them to cry about how violence is bad now.
No.1818280
>>1818246>I really think you're overthinking this anonNo. It's the other way around. You look at the arguments and how just the situation is.
The vast majority of people simply "feels" it.
That's why you always see negative images of people who you are supposed to dislike in news and positive of those who the media wants you to like.
No.1818309
>>1818280So basically you think every argument about leftism should be delivered in the 'chad vs soyjak' formula.
No.1818440
monarchy arises out of agriculture, not le barbarian hordes
No.1818499
>>1818440Not sure how common it is, but there have been instances of this happening. The Assyrian kings for example.
No.1818504
>>1818499you still need an agrarian base, or some other means of producing a surplus with which to support a standing army
No.1818575
>>1817921>Is the origin of monarchy just a hereditary military dictatorship?According to absolutists, yes.
We see it all the time even in the present day.
The whole business with titles of Tsar and Kaiser? that comes from a literal populist dictator Julius Caesar.
Jean Bodin - First Monarchies by Conquest>For before there was either City or citizen, or any form of a Commonwealth amongst men, every master of a family was a master in his own house, having power of life and death over his wife and children: but after that force, violence, ambition, covetousness, and desire of revenge had armed one against another, the issues of wars and combats giving victory unto the one side, made the other to become unto them slaves: and amongst them that overcame, he that was chosen chief and captain, under whose conduct and leading they had obtained the victory, kept them also in his power and command as his faithful and obedient subjects, and the other as his slaves. Then that full and entire liberty by nature given to every man, to live as himself best pleased, was altogether taken from the vanquished, and in the vanquishers themselves in some measure also diminished, in regard of the conquerour; for that now it concerned every man in private to yield his obedience unto his chief sovereign; and he that would not abate any thing of his liberty, to live under the laws and commandment of another, lost all. So the word of Lord and Servant, of Prince and Subject, before unknown unto the world, were first brought into use.
>Yea Reason, and the very light of Nature, leads us to believe very force and violence to have given course and beginning unto Commonwealths. And albeit that there were no reason therefore, it shall be hereafter declared by the undoubted testimonies of the most credible historiographers, that is to say, of Thucydides, Plutarch, Caesar, & also by the laws of Solon, That the first men that bare rule, had no greater honour and virtue, than to kill, massacre and rob men, or to bring them in slavery. These be the words of Plutarch. Yet have we more also the witness of the sacred history, where it is said, that Nimroth the nephew of Cham, was the first that by force and violence brought men into his subjection, establishing his kingdom in the country of Assyria: and for this cause they called him the Mighty Hunter, which the Hebrews interpret to be a thief and robber…. Which thing also Philo the Jew, and Josephus by their testimonies confirm, viz. by his wealth and power to have first exercised tyranny.
<And it is not yet past seventy years that the people of Gaoga in Africa had never felt or heard of any king or lord whatsoever, until that one amongst them a travel or had in his travel seen and noted the majesty of the king of Tombut: and thereupon conceiving a desire to make himself a king also in his own country, he at first to begin withal, killed a rich merchant; and so possessed of his horses arms and merchandise, divided them amongst his nigh kinsfolks and friends, acquainted with his purpose; by whose aid he by force and violence subdued now some, and after others, killing the richest, and ceasing upon their goods: in such sort that his son became rich with the robberies of his father, made himself king, whose successor hath so continued after him in great power, as we read in Leo of Africa. This was the beginning of the kings of Gaoga, which in short time greatly increased.
>Wherefore a lawful or royal Monarchy is that where the subjects obey the laws of a Monarch, and the Monarch the laws of Nature, the subjects enjoying their natural liberty, and propriety of their goods. The lordly Monarchy is that where the prince is become lord of the goods and persons of his subjects, by law of arms and lawful war; governing them as the master of a family does his slaves. The tyrannical Monarchy, is where the prince condemning the laws of nature and nations, imperiously abuses the persons of his freeborn subjects, and their goods as his own. The same difference is also found in the Oligarchical and Democratic states: for both the one and the other may be lawful, lordly, and tyrannical, in such sort as I have said: for the greatest tyranny of all other is of Tully called the rage of the furious and turbulent people.
>Now as concerning the lordly Monarchy, it is convenient for us first to entreat thereof, as of that which was first amongst men: for they are deceived which following the opinion of Aristotle, suppose that golden kind of men (more famous for the poets fables, then for that there were any such in deed) to have made first choice of their heroical kings: seeing we find, and all men are persuaded that the first Monarchy was established in Assyria, under the power of Nimrod, whom the Holy Scripture calls the Great Hunter; which is a common phrase of speech amongst the Hebrews, by which word they signify a thief, or robber. For the ancient writers, viz. Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon, have put robbery among the kinds of hunting, as we have elsewhere noted. For before the time of Nimrod no man is found to have had power and rule one over an other, all men living in like liberty; he being the first that took upon him the sovereignty, and that caused free borne men to serve: whose name seems to have been given him according unto his quality, for as much as Nimrod signifies a terrible lord. Soon after the world was seen full of slaves, Some one of the sons of Noe yet living. And in the whole course of the Bible, the Scripture speaking of the subjects of the kings of Assyria and Egypt, calls them always slaves: and not the Holy Scripture only, but the Greeks also, who always in their writings term themselves free, and the Barbarians slaves; meaning by the Barbarians the people of Asia and Egypt.
>But yet here might some man doubt whether the Lordly Monarchy be not a Tyranny, considering that it seems to be directly against the law of nature, which reserves unto every man his liberty, and the sovereignty over his own goods. Whereunto I answer, that of ancient time it was indeed against the law of nature to make free men slaves, and to possess himself of other men's goods: but if the consent of all nations will, that that which is gotten by just war should be the conquerours own, and that the vanquished should be slaves unto the victorious, as a man cannot well say that a Monarchy so established is tyrannical: seeing also wee read that Jacob the Patriarch, by his testament leaving unto his children certain lands that he had gotten, said that it was his own, for that he had got it by force of arms. And that more is, the rule that wills that the law of arms should take no place where there be superiours to do justice (which is put in practice against the greatest princes, and imperial cities of Germany, who be proscribed by the empire, for not making restitution of that which belonged to others) shows right well, that where there is no superiour to command, their force is reputed just. For otherwise, if we will mingle and confound the Lordly Monarchy, with the tyrannical estate, we must confess that there is no difference in wars, betwixt the just enemy and the robber; betwixt a lawful prince and a thief; betwixt wars justly denounced, and uniust and violent force; which the ancient Romans called plain robbery and theft. We also see tyrannical states and governments, soon to fall, and many tyrants in short time slain: whereas the seigneurelike states, and namely the Lordly Monarchies have been both great and of long continuance, as the ancient Monarchies of the Assyrians, the Medes, Persians, & Egyptians; and at this present that of Ethiopia (the most ancient Monarch of all Asia and Africa) whereunto are subject fifty kings as slaves, if we may believe Pau. Iouius, who all are, and term themselves the slaves of the Grand Negus of Ethiopia. And the reason why the Lordly Monarchy is more durable than the royal, is for that it is more majestical, and that the subjects hold not their lives, goods, and liberty, but of the sovereign prince, who hath by just war conquered themI have to say, that to also be a conqueror implies having virtue, to lead armies and succeed.
>>1818149>im pretty sure that there are almost no material differences between monarchy and any other "form of government" (republican etc).I'll agree to this–
That the terms Republic / Commonwealth / State / Kingdom are mere semantics on simply other words to mean -State-.
>there have been "hereditary" republics and "elected" monarchies, which makes me think that the main differance is the semantic essentialism, and otherwise its just slight differances in context and preference, the really important bits are the class character of the form.A truly sovereign monarchy is the rule of one pre-eminent person.
It doesn't matter what you call it or what coat of paint.
Some kings wear Christian crowns, but others don't have that coat of paint, or let alone a crown at all.
In the age of political ideologies and totalitarian regimes, monarchies will look different, that's for sure, compared to traditionalist Christian royalism.
That is really the source of confusion, imo, is people can't look past the coat of paint or acknowledge what monarchy formally is without the decorations (that don't signify monarchical form, but the ideology it upholds).
>>1818440Others say that the first king was a lucky soldier, or that the first soldier was paid by a king.
t. Maistre
No.1818598
What happens is so-called lordly monarchies settle down and become established so-called royal monarchies (according to this). The retain the power of lordly monarchy in origin, but permit a return to liberty under their guidance and protection.
I'm a bit more partial to Hobbes' view, b/c imo it is more consistent: the rights of sovereignty are the same in monarchy by institution (royal monarchy) and monarchy by acquisition (lordly monarchy). It is consistent with the ground that a household and state are fundamentally no different, so that's why I like Hobbes' stance.
Most famous of all is William the Conqueror.
>All Estates of Land Proceed Originally – From the Arbitrary Distribution of the Sovereign – In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land itself: wherein the Sovereign assigns to every man a portion, according as he, and not according to any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good.
>And though a People coming into possession of a land by war, do not always exterminate the ancient Inhabitants, (as did the Jews) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as of the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour.
Hobbes on Lordly / Royal Monarchy, by terms of Sovereignty by Acquisition / Institution
<Soveraigne, And Subject, What
>And he that carryeth this Person, as called SOVERAIGNE, and said to have Soveraigne Power; and every one besides, his SUBJECT.
>The attaining to this Sovereign Power, is by two ways. One, by Natural force; as when a man makes his children, to submit themselves, and their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse, or by War subdues his enemies to his will, giving them their lives on that condition. The other, is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. This later, may be called a Political Common-wealth, or Common-wealth by Institution; and the former, a Common-wealth by Acquisition. And first, I shall speak of a Common-wealth by Institution.
<First therefore, seeing Soveraignty by Institution, is by Covenant of every one to every one; and Soveraignty by Acquisition, by Covenants of the Vanquished to the Victor, or Child to the Parent;
<A Common-wealth by Acquisition, is that, where the Soveraign Power is acquired by Force; And it is acquired by force, when men singly, or many together by plurality of voyces, for fear of death, or bonds, do authorise all the actions of that Man, or Assembly, that hath their lives and liberty in his Power.
Wherein Different From A Common-wealth By Institution
>And this kind of Dominion, or Soveraignty, differeth from Soveraignty by Institution, onely in this, That men who choose their Soveraign, do it for fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this case, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do it for fear: which is to be noted by them, that hold all such Covenants, as proceed from fear of death, or violence, voyd: which if it were true, no man, in any kind of Common-wealth, could be obliged to Obedience. It is true, that in a Common-wealth once Instituted, or acquired, Promises proceeding from fear of death, or violence, are no Covenants, nor obliging, when the thing promised is contrary to the Lawes; But the reason is not, because it was made upon fear, but because he that promiseth, hath no right in the thing promised. Also, when he may lawfully performe, and doth not, it is not the Invalidity of the Covenant, that absolveth him, but the Sentence of the Soveraign. Otherwise, whensoever a man lawfully promiseth, he unlawfully breaketh: But when the Soveraign, who is the Actor, acquitteth him, then he is acquitted by him that exorted the promise, as by the Author of such absolution.
The Rights Of Soveraignty The Same In Both
>But the Rights, and Consequences of Soveraignty, are the same in both. His Power cannot, without his consent, be Transferred to another: He cannot Forfeit it: He cannot be Accused by any of his Subjects, of Injury: He cannot be Punished by them: He is Judge of what is necessary for Peace; and Judge of Doctrines: He is Sole Legislator; and Supreme Judge of Controversies; and of the Times, and Occasions of Warre, and Peace: to him it belongeth to choose Magistrates, Counsellours, Commanders, and all other Officers, and Ministers; and to determine of Rewards, and punishments, Honour, and Order. The reasons whereof, are the same which are alledged in the precedent Chapter, for the same Rights, and Consequences of Soveraignty by Institution.
No.1818608
Imo, it is a consistent position with /leftypol/ because that's what Engels thinks.
The institution of private property came to secure the booty of war.
Engels
>Thus in the Greek constitution of the heroic age we see the old gentile order as still a living force. But we also see the beginnings of its disintegration: father right, with transmission of the property to the children, by which accumulation of wealth within the family was favored and the family itself became a power as against the gens; reaction of the inequality of wealth on the constitution by the formation of the first rudiments of hereditary nobility and monarchy; slavery, at first only of prisoners of war, but already preparing the way for the enslavement of fellow members of the tribe and even of the gens…
>Only one thing was wanting: an institution which not only secured the newly acquired riches of individuals against the communistic traditions of the gentile order, which not only sanctified the private property formerly so little valued, and declared this sanctification to be the highest purpose of all human society; but an institution which set the seal of general social recognition on each new method of acquiring property and thus amassing wealth at continually increasing speed; an institution which perpetuated, not only this growing cleavage of society into classes, but also the right of the possessing class to exploit the non possessing, and the rule of the former over the latter.
<And this institution came. The State was invented
In a royal colony thread, I touched on how there is a debate between whether the heroic kings were truly monarchies or simply military generals commissioned by the people like a kind of "military democracy" Engels and Marx purports. It clashes with the monarchist view latent in Homer's maxim in the Illiad about there being "one ruler, one king".
The same is said for the Native American civilizations like the Aztecs were simply "military democracy" with a military strongman commissioned to lead, without consideration of monarchic virtue or pre-eminence.
I'm sure the same could be said with North Korea that it is a military democracy like Engels and Marx describe.
Engel's Footnote
>Like the Greek basileus, so also the Aztec military chief has been made out to be a modern prince. The reports of the Spaniards, which were at first misinterpretations and exaggerations, and later actual lies, were submitted for the first time to historical criticism by Morgan. He proves that the Mexicans were at the middle stage of barbarism, though more advanced than the New Mexican Pueblo Indians, and that their constitution, so far as it can be recognized in the distorted reports, corresponded to this stage: a confederacy of three tribes, which had subjugated a number of other tribes and exacted tribute from them, and which was governed by a federal council and a federal military leader, out of whom the Spaniards made an “emperor.”
Engels
<In the Iliad, Agamemnon, the ruler of men, does not appear as the supreme king of the Greeks, but as supreme commander of a federal army before a besieged town. It is to this supremacy of command that Odysseus, after disputes had broken out among the Greeks, refers in a famous passage: “Evil is the rule of many; let one be commander,” etc. (The favorite line about the scepter is a later addition.)
Marx
>Odysseus is here not giving a lecture on a form of government, but demanding obedience to the supreme commander in war. Since they are appearing before Troy only as an army, the proceedings in the agora secure to the Greeks all necessary democracy. When Achilles speaks of presents – that is, the division of the booty – he always leaves the division, not to Agamemnon or any other basileus, but to the “sons of the Achacans,” that is, the people. Such epithets as “descended from Zeus,” “nourished by Zeus,” prove nothing, for every gens is descended from a god, that of the leader of the tribe being already descended from a “superior” god, in this case Zeus. Even those without personal freedom, such as the swineherd Eumaecus and others, are “divine” (dioi and theioi), and that too in the Odyssey, which is much later than the Iliad; and again in the Odyssey the name Heros is given to the herald Mulius as well as to the blind bard Demodocus. Since, in short, council and assembly of the people function together with the basileus, the word basileia, which Greek writers employ to denote the so called Homeric kingship (chief command in the army being the principal characteristic of the office), only means – military democracy.
Engels
<In addition to his military functions, the basileus also held those of priest and judge, the latter not clearly defined, the former exercised in his capacity as supreme representative of the tribe or confederacy of tribes. There is never any mention of civil administrative powers; he seems, however, to be a member of the council ex officio. It is there fore quite correct etymologically to translate basileus as king, since king (kuning) is derived from kuni, kunne, and means head of a gens. But the old Greek basileus does not correspond in any way to the present meaning of the word king
Whereas if you asked monarchists, the maxim in Homer's Illiad is a monarchist connotation, so much so that Caligula would allegedly say it according to Suetonius (in context of monarchy, btw) – that example is from the heroic age, but closer. And Bodin's account is that these rulers worked with the state via commission. Some Greek kings were simply generals and not monarchical sovereignty, however, like the Spartan kings was more of an oligarchy.
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.
<But the Indians are not surprised that the kingdom of the French, unlimited by narrow swamps and extending far and wide, has flourished through incredibly glorious deeds for twelve hundred years.
–
>"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines… And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty."
<Caligula / Let there be one lord, one king!
>Chancing to overhear some kings, who had come to Rome to pay respects to him, disputing at dinner about the nobility of their descent, he cried:
>Let there be One lord, One king!
>And he came near assuming a crown at once and changing the semblance of a principate into the form of a monarchy.
No.1818611
>>1817921dunno, but I would like it if they got killed off and replaced with fresh ones if the nile doesn't flood in the rainy season.
No.1844876
>>1817921It’s actually very complicated, first off not all monarchies are the same, and there is no single origin for hereditary monarchies, it is a diverse ranges of ways of heading a state; Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism and Lineages of the Absolutist State are great books on the topic that span from the origins of Greco-Roman civilization to the end of feudalism in the 18th Century
No.1846708
>>1817921You would need religion to make people follow orders from inbreds.
No.1847094
>>1846708Kill yourself redditor faggot
No.1847201
>>1846708no but it helps a lot
Unique IPs: 24