#monarchism — Public Fediverse posts

The #MAGA Intellectual Who Prophesied a Queen Melania - The Atlantic

An ally of J. D. #Vance who has dabbled in #monarchism is now working for Viktor #Orbán.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/hungary-maga-orban-gladden-pappin-trump/686652/

Listening to Rana Dasgupta on @novaramedia. Talking about Nation States being an attempt at the sacralisation of the state and furnishing of quasi-religious authority onto the State was enlightening, I never understood whether Monarchists that call upon religious symbolism are for real or masking attempted power grabs through dogma.

It's interesting because both this religious mysticism and communism have a very similar critique of liberalism:

1. Legitimacy must be vertical. It must come from somewhere beyond human will and human consensus. In Leninism, it's the Party that supersedes the People until the proletariat is educated enough to take the reins of the Revolution, for Monarchists, kings are needed to treat the realm as property to be passed to their children rather than a resource to be strip-mined before the next election cycle. Democratic politicians are essentially short-term tenants in both of these cases.

2. The nation-state is an impostor. For Communism, the nation-state is fraudulent because it replaced genuine class solidarity with an artificial cross-class identity, the cure is to dissolve the nation into international proletarian solidarity, which is the real universal community obscured by nationalist mystification. For religious fundamentalists, the Nation State occupies the throne vacated by God and King but cannot actually fill it. Both critique the Nation State's demand for sacrifices (wars, taxes, conformity) to derive legitimacy (the State is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient).

3. The individual is not the basic unit of society. Liberal Democracy and Nation States demand society be composed of individuals with pre-political rights, preferences, and interests. The state exists to serve those individuals. Both communism and the reactionary traditions identify liberalism's individual as a fraud. The real unit of social life is something larger and prior to the individual, for Marx, it's the proletariat, for figureheads such as Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and his brand of religious mysticism, it's the _neam_: the ethno-spiritual people extending through time, including the dead and the unborn .

#PoliticalScience #Religion #Monarchy #Monarchism #Communism #Marx

Not sure about Andrew & Harry, but Charles Windsor, & most royals, should do OK without #monarchism which, with its inhumane inequality, the #UnitedNations should ban; &, as for Jesus Christ on this, my poem "AFTER PSALM 118:9 & MATTHEW 4:8-10" https://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.com/2010/02/walkaboutsverse-225-of-230.html

#BBColympics #MilanoCortina2026 Hopefully by the next #WinterOlympics, English, Scots, & Welsh will be competing for their own nations, & our #UnitedNations will have made #monarchism ILLEGAL; my #poem, with #phtos, "AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10" https://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.com/2010/02/walkaboutsverse-225-of-230.html

#TheKing Not sure about Andrew & Harry, but Charles Windsor, & most royals, should do OK without #monarchism which, with its inhumane inequality, the #UnitedNations should ban; &, as for Jesus on this, my poem "AFTER PSALM 118:9 & MATTHEW 4:8-10" https://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.com/2010/02/walkaboutsverse-225-of-230.html

#RoyalCarols Not sure about Andrew & Harry, but Charles Windsor, & most royals, should do OK without #monarchism which, with its inhumane inequality, the #UnitedNations should ban; &, as for Jesus on this, my poem "AFTER PSALM 118:9 & MATTHEW 4:8-10" https://walkaboutsverse.blogspot.com/2010/02/walkaboutsverse-225-of-230.html

@wdlindsy The weirdest thing about US politics is that literally anywhere else in the world, a protest against #Monarchism would be (correctly) called a '#Republican' protest.

#NoKings
#NoKings2
#USPol

Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin are both fascistic, monarchist hyperneoliberalists.

Political philosopher Vlad Vexler ranks both on all three scales, and notes that their evolution is convergent, not influential.

If we continue on this path, more Trumps and more Putins will keep coming out of the system and our politics will collapse into authoritarianism.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7_L6ZU3zxOc

#putinism #trump #putin #fascism #monarchism #neoliberalism #authoritarianisn #nafo

Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin are both fascistic, monarchist hyperneoliberalists.

Political philosopher Vlad Vexler ranks both on all three scales, and notes that their evolution is convergent, not influential.

If we continue on this path, more Trumps and more Putins will keep coming out of the system and our politics will collapse into authoritarianism.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7_L6ZU3zxOc

#putinism #trump #putin #fascism #monarchism #neoliberalism #authoritarianisn #nafo

Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin are both fascistic, monarchist hyperneoliberalists.

Political philosopher Vlad Vexler ranks both on all three scales, and notes that their evolution is convergent, not influential.

If we continue on this path, more Trumps and more Putins will keep coming out of the system and our politics will collapse into authoritarianism.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7_L6ZU3zxOc

#putinism #trump #putin #fascism #monarchism #neoliberalism #authoritarianisn #nafo

Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin are both fascistic, monarchist hyperneoliberalists.

Political philosopher Vlad Vexler ranks both on all three scales, and notes that their evolution is convergent, not influential.

If we continue on this path, more Trumps and more Putins will keep coming out of the system and our politics will collapse into authoritarianism.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7_L6ZU3zxOc

#putinism #trump #putin #fascism #monarchism #neoliberalism #authoritarianisn #nafo

Donald Trump & Vladimir Putin are both fascistic, monarchist hyperneoliberalists.

Political philosopher Vlad Vexler ranks both on all three scales, and notes that their evolution is convergent, not influential.

If we continue on this path, more Trumps and more Putins will keep coming out of the system and our politics will collapse into authoritarianism.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7_L6ZU3zxOc

#putinism #trump #putin #fascism #monarchism #neoliberalism #authoritarianisn #nafo

fyi icymi @parismarx on Yarvin

I am so repulsed by these brain fried assholes as Y & co, being this privileged and this evil, i can't quite comprehend how to get there, fascists really #fascism #monarchism #oligarchy

https://www.techwontsave.us/episode/244_the_dark_elf_leading_techs_extreme_right_w_julia_black

Guys like Yarvin exist just to prove to the outside world that Trump and the MAGA movement have nothing to do with Populism and even less with Democracy. This is a pro-authoritarianism, pro-dictatorship, pro-centralization movement. The end-goal is absolute power for the Sovereign.

"A decade on, with the Trumpian right embracing strongman rule, Yarvin’s links to élites in Silicon Valley and Washington are no longer a secret. In a 2021 appearance on a far-right podcast, Vice-President J. D. Vance, a former employee of one of Thiel’s venture-capital firms, cited Yarvin when suggesting that a future Trump Administration “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people,” and ignore the courts if they objected. Marc Andreessen, one of the heads of Andreessen Horowitz and an informal adviser to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has started quoting his “good friend” Yarvin about the need for a founder-like figure to take charge of our “out of control” bureaucracy.
(...)
Back in 2011, Yarvin said that Trump was one of two figures who seemed “biologically suited” to be an American monarch. (The other was Chris Christie.) In 2022, he recommended that Trump, if reëlected, appoint Elon Musk to run the executive branch. On a podcast with his friend Michael Anton, now the director of policy planning at the State Department, Yarvin argued that the institutions of civil society, such as Harvard, would need to be shut down. “The idea that you’re going to be a Caesar . . . with someone else’s Department of Reality in operation is just manifestly absurd,” he said.

In another timeline, Yarvin might have remained an obscure and ineffectual internet crank, a digital de Maistre. Instead, he has become one of America’s most influential illiberal thinkers...”"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile

#Authoritarianism #Dictatorship #Trump #USA #MAGA #Monarchism #Reactionarism #Populism #SiliconValley

Guys like Yarvin exist just to prove to the outside world that Trump and the MAGA movement have nothing to do with Populism and even less with Democracy. This is a pro-authoritarianism, pro-dictatorship, pro-centralization movement. The end-goal is absolute power for the Sovereign.

"A decade on, with the Trumpian right embracing strongman rule, Yarvin’s links to élites in Silicon Valley and Washington are no longer a secret. In a 2021 appearance on a far-right podcast, Vice-President J. D. Vance, a former employee of one of Thiel’s venture-capital firms, cited Yarvin when suggesting that a future Trump Administration “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people,” and ignore the courts if they objected. Marc Andreessen, one of the heads of Andreessen Horowitz and an informal adviser to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has started quoting his “good friend” Yarvin about the need for a founder-like figure to take charge of our “out of control” bureaucracy.
(...)
Back in 2011, Yarvin said that Trump was one of two figures who seemed “biologically suited” to be an American monarch. (The other was Chris Christie.) In 2022, he recommended that Trump, if reëlected, appoint Elon Musk to run the executive branch. On a podcast with his friend Michael Anton, now the director of policy planning at the State Department, Yarvin argued that the institutions of civil society, such as Harvard, would need to be shut down. “The idea that you’re going to be a Caesar . . . with someone else’s Department of Reality in operation is just manifestly absurd,” he said.

In another timeline, Yarvin might have remained an obscure and ineffectual internet crank, a digital de Maistre. Instead, he has become one of America’s most influential illiberal thinkers...”"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile

#Authoritarianism #Dictatorship #Trump #USA #MAGA #Monarchism #Reactionarism #Populism #SiliconValley

Guys like Yarvin exist just to prove to the outside world that Trump and the MAGA movement have nothing to do with Populism and even less with Democracy. This is a pro-authoritarianism, pro-dictatorship, pro-centralization movement. The end-goal is absolute power for the Sovereign.

"A decade on, with the Trumpian right embracing strongman rule, Yarvin’s links to élites in Silicon Valley and Washington are no longer a secret. In a 2021 appearance on a far-right podcast, Vice-President J. D. Vance, a former employee of one of Thiel’s venture-capital firms, cited Yarvin when suggesting that a future Trump Administration “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people,” and ignore the courts if they objected. Marc Andreessen, one of the heads of Andreessen Horowitz and an informal adviser to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has started quoting his “good friend” Yarvin about the need for a founder-like figure to take charge of our “out of control” bureaucracy.
(...)
Back in 2011, Yarvin said that Trump was one of two figures who seemed “biologically suited” to be an American monarch. (The other was Chris Christie.) In 2022, he recommended that Trump, if reëlected, appoint Elon Musk to run the executive branch. On a podcast with his friend Michael Anton, now the director of policy planning at the State Department, Yarvin argued that the institutions of civil society, such as Harvard, would need to be shut down. “The idea that you’re going to be a Caesar . . . with someone else’s Department of Reality in operation is just manifestly absurd,” he said.

In another timeline, Yarvin might have remained an obscure and ineffectual internet crank, a digital de Maistre. Instead, he has become one of America’s most influential illiberal thinkers...”"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile

#Authoritarianism #Dictatorship #Trump #USA #MAGA #Monarchism #Reactionarism #Populism #SiliconValley

Guys like Yarvin exist just to prove to the outside world that Trump and the MAGA movement have nothing to do with Populism and even less with Democracy. This is a pro-authoritarianism, pro-dictatorship, pro-centralization movement. The end-goal is absolute power for the Sovereign.

"A decade on, with the Trumpian right embracing strongman rule, Yarvin’s links to élites in Silicon Valley and Washington are no longer a secret. In a 2021 appearance on a far-right podcast, Vice-President J. D. Vance, a former employee of one of Thiel’s venture-capital firms, cited Yarvin when suggesting that a future Trump Administration “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people,” and ignore the courts if they objected. Marc Andreessen, one of the heads of Andreessen Horowitz and an informal adviser to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has started quoting his “good friend” Yarvin about the need for a founder-like figure to take charge of our “out of control” bureaucracy.
(...)
Back in 2011, Yarvin said that Trump was one of two figures who seemed “biologically suited” to be an American monarch. (The other was Chris Christie.) In 2022, he recommended that Trump, if reëlected, appoint Elon Musk to run the executive branch. On a podcast with his friend Michael Anton, now the director of policy planning at the State Department, Yarvin argued that the institutions of civil society, such as Harvard, would need to be shut down. “The idea that you’re going to be a Caesar . . . with someone else’s Department of Reality in operation is just manifestly absurd,” he said.

In another timeline, Yarvin might have remained an obscure and ineffectual internet crank, a digital de Maistre. Instead, he has become one of America’s most influential illiberal thinkers...”"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile

#Authoritarianism #Dictatorship #Trump #USA #MAGA #Monarchism #Reactionarism #Populism #SiliconValley

Guys like Yarvin exist just to prove to the outside world that Trump and the MAGA movement have nothing to do with Populism and even less with Democracy. This is a pro-authoritarianism, pro-dictatorship, pro-centralization movement. The end-goal is absolute power for the Sovereign.

"A decade on, with the Trumpian right embracing strongman rule, Yarvin’s links to élites in Silicon Valley and Washington are no longer a secret. In a 2021 appearance on a far-right podcast, Vice-President J. D. Vance, a former employee of one of Thiel’s venture-capital firms, cited Yarvin when suggesting that a future Trump Administration “fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people,” and ignore the courts if they objected. Marc Andreessen, one of the heads of Andreessen Horowitz and an informal adviser to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has started quoting his “good friend” Yarvin about the need for a founder-like figure to take charge of our “out of control” bureaucracy.
(...)
Back in 2011, Yarvin said that Trump was one of two figures who seemed “biologically suited” to be an American monarch. (The other was Chris Christie.) In 2022, he recommended that Trump, if reëlected, appoint Elon Musk to run the executive branch. On a podcast with his friend Michael Anton, now the director of policy planning at the State Department, Yarvin argued that the institutions of civil society, such as Harvard, would need to be shut down. “The idea that you’re going to be a Caesar . . . with someone else’s Department of Reality in operation is just manifestly absurd,” he said.

In another timeline, Yarvin might have remained an obscure and ineffectual internet crank, a digital de Maistre. Instead, he has become one of America’s most influential illiberal thinkers...”"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile

#Authoritarianism #Dictatorship #Trump #USA #MAGA #Monarchism #Reactionarism #Populism #SiliconValley

Russia’s Largest State-Backed Supremacist Movement Is Thriving Above the Law

Russia’s Largest State-Backed Supremacist Movement Is Thriving Above the Law

Russia’s Largest State-Backed Supremacist Movement Is Thriving Above the Law

#LGBTQ related #Wikipedia article created 11 hours ago

Action Française (post 1945)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Fran%C3%A7aise_%28post_1945%29

#Euroscepticism #Action #Monarchism

New Orleans signage: Retail Monarchism Edition.

1) Royal Furniture, St. Claude Avenue, Marigny
2) Hub Cap King, Broad, Broadmoor
3) Imperial Termite & Pest Control, Freret Street, Carrollton
4) Royal Castle - Fit for a King, Broad, Esplanade Ridge.

Photographed by Infrogmation of New Orleans

@noladon

#NOLA #NewOrleans #signs #Monarchism

The French government is now officially dissolving the far-right Catholic group Civitas, as requested by the minister of the interior in August.

Civitas was founded in 1999 and became a political party in 2016. In 2017, it ran a former National Front politician who had been suspended after a photo came out showing him giving a Nazi salute in front of a Nazi flag. (I swear, these people just can't resist.)

Among the reasons cited for the ban, a government spokesman pointed to assemblies in honor of Vichy collaborators, calls for war on the French republic, and antisemitic and Islamophobic discourse.

The immediate cause for the interior minister's request was antisemitic comments by a member who was quoted at a forum during Civitas' "summer school" as saying "naturalizing the Jews in 1791 opened the door to immigration" and that "maybe we need to go back to the situation before 1789", which earned him a round of applause.

https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/civitas-la-procedure-de-dissolution-actee-par-le-gouvernement-04-10-2023-EOBVEE7UHBABXD4BCQN3UWDPZE.php

#civitas #france #farright #catholic #integralism #monarchism

The French government is now officially dissolving the far-right Catholic group Civitas, as requested by the minister of the interior in August.

Civitas was founded in 1999 and became a political party in 2016. In 2017, it ran a former National Front politician who had been suspended after a photo came out showing him giving a Nazi salute in front of a Nazi flag. (I swear, these people just can't resist.)

Among the reasons cited for the ban, a government spokesman pointed to assemblies in honor of Vichy collaborators, calls for war on the French republic, and antisemitic and Islamophobic discourse.

The immediate cause for the interior minister's request was antisemitic comments by a member who was quoted at a forum during Civitas' "summer school" as saying "naturalizing the Jews in 1791 opened the door to immigration" and that "maybe we need to go back to the situation before 1789", which earned him a round of applause.

https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/civitas-la-procedure-de-dissolution-actee-par-le-gouvernement-04-10-2023-EOBVEE7UHBABXD4BCQN3UWDPZE.php

#civitas #france #farright #catholic #integralism #monarchism

The French government is now officially dissolving the far-right Catholic group Civitas, as requested by the minister of the interior in August.

Civitas was founded in 1999 and became a political party in 2016. In 2017, it ran a former National Front politician who had been suspended after a photo came out showing him giving a Nazi salute in front of a Nazi flag. (I swear, these people just can't resist.)

Among the reasons cited for the ban, a government spokesman pointed to assemblies in honor of Vichy collaborators, calls for war on the French republic, and antisemitic and Islamophobic discourse.

The immediate cause for the interior minister's request was antisemitic comments by a member who was quoted at a forum during Civitas' "summer school" as saying "naturalizing the Jews in 1791 opened the door to immigration" and that "maybe we need to go back to the situation before 1789", which earned him a round of applause.

https://www.leparisien.fr/politique/civitas-la-procedure-de-dissolution-actee-par-le-gouvernement-04-10-2023-EOBVEE7UHBABXD4BCQN3UWDPZE.php

#civitas #france #farright #catholic #integralism #monarchism

Annadurai cautioned Nehru in 1947 about motives behind sengol ‘gift’

For a government that starts out on a new path, will its governance be good if it gets a sengol from those who have made a business out of exploiting the mind and subsequently the lives of the people?

#sceptre #sengol #JawaharlalNehru #CNAnnadurai #NarendraModi #authoritarianism #adheenam #mutts #monarchism #NewParliament #hindutva #TamilNadu #DMK #india

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/annadurai-cautioned-nehru-1947-about-motives-behind-sengol-gift-177846

Gordon S. Wood on Republicanism and Monarchy in the Eighteenth-Century

“Educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…) Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed.” (Gordon S. Wood)

Gordon S. Wood argues, that Republicanism was not an underground ideology, or merely confined to European culture. It was an important current, that blended and mingled with the monarchical mainstream. The liberal of the eighteenth-century, while aiming for progress, loved and valued antiquity. To be liberal, also meant that the person was considered to be enlightened in the literary sense.

Gordon S. Wood, Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 13, 1990, pp. 17-19.

“The English thought they lived in a republicanized monarchy, and they were right. (…) Republicanism did not belong only to the margins, to the extreme right or left, of English political life. Monarchical and republican values existed side-by-side in the culture, and many good monarchists and many good English tories adopted what were in substance, if not in name, republican ideals and principles without realizing the long-run political implications of what they were doing. Although they seldom mentioned the term, educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…)

Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed†.

In the eighteenth century to be enlightened was to be interested in antiquity, and to be interested in antiquity was to be interested in republicanism. Certainly classical antiquity could offer meaningful messages for monarchy too, but there is no doubt that the thrust of what the ancient world had to say to the eighteenth century was latently and at times manifestly republican.

All the ancient republics—Athens, Sparta, Thebes-were familiar to educated people in the eighteenth century—their names had “grown trite by repetition,” said one American-but none was more familiar than Rome. People could not hear enough about it. “It is impossible,” said Montesquieu, “to be tired of so agreeable a subject as ancient Rome.” The eighteenth century was particularly fascinated by the writings of the golden age of Roman literature—“the First Enlightenment,” as Peter Gay has called it—the two centuries from the breakdown of the republic in the middle of the first century B.C. to the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the middle of the second century A.D.

These Roman writers—Cicero, Virgil, Sallust, Tacitus, among others-set forth republican ideals and values about politics and society that have had a powerful and lasting effect on Western culture. These classical ideals and values were revived and refurbished by the Italian Renaissance-becoming what has been variously called “civic humanism” or “classical republicanism”—and were carried into early modern Europe and made available to wider and deeper strata of the population.”

#classicalRepublicanism #EnlightenmentEra #GordonSWood #Monarchism #politicalPhilosophy #politics #Republicanism

Gordon S. Wood on Republicanism and Monarchy in the Eighteenth-Century

“Educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…) Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed.” (Gordon S. Wood)

Gordon S. Wood argues, that Republicanism was not an underground ideology, or merely confined to European culture. It was an important current, that blended and mingled with the monarchical mainstream. The liberal of the eighteenth-century, while aiming for progress, loved and valued antiquity. To be liberal, also meant that the person was considered to be enlightened in the literary sense.

Gordon S. Wood, Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 13, 1990, pp. 17-19.

“The English thought they lived in a republicanized monarchy, and they were right. (…) Republicanism did not belong only to the margins, to the extreme right or left, of English political life. Monarchical and republican values existed side-by-side in the culture, and many good monarchists and many good English tories adopted what were in substance, if not in name, republican ideals and principles without realizing the long-run political implications of what they were doing. Although they seldom mentioned the term, educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…)

Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed†.

In the eighteenth century to be enlightened was to be interested in antiquity, and to be interested in antiquity was to be interested in republicanism. Certainly classical antiquity could offer meaningful messages for monarchy too, but there is no doubt that the thrust of what the ancient world had to say to the eighteenth century was latently and at times manifestly republican.

All the ancient republics—Athens, Sparta, Thebes-were familiar to educated people in the eighteenth century—their names had “grown trite by repetition,” said one American-but none was more familiar than Rome. People could not hear enough about it. “It is impossible,” said Montesquieu, “to be tired of so agreeable a subject as ancient Rome.” The eighteenth century was particularly fascinated by the writings of the golden age of Roman literature—“the First Enlightenment,” as Peter Gay has called it—the two centuries from the breakdown of the republic in the middle of the first century B.C. to the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the middle of the second century A.D.

These Roman writers—Cicero, Virgil, Sallust, Tacitus, among others-set forth republican ideals and values about politics and society that have had a powerful and lasting effect on Western culture. These classical ideals and values were revived and refurbished by the Italian Renaissance-becoming what has been variously called “civic humanism” or “classical republicanism”—and were carried into early modern Europe and made available to wider and deeper strata of the population.”

#classicalRepublicanism #EnlightenmentEra #GordonSWood #Monarchism #politicalPhilosophy #politics #Republicanism

Gordon S. Wood on Republicanism and Monarchy in the Eighteenth-Century

“Educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…) Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed.” (Gordon S. Wood)

Gordon S. Wood argues, that Republicanism was not an underground ideology, or merely confined to European culture. It was an important current, that blended and mingled with the monarchical mainstream. The liberal of the eighteenth-century, while aiming for progress, loved and valued antiquity. To be liberal, also meant that the person was considered to be enlightened in the literary sense.

Gordon S. Wood, Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 13, 1990, pp. 17-19.

“The English thought they lived in a republicanized monarchy, and they were right. (…) Republicanism did not belong only to the margins, to the extreme right or left, of English political life. Monarchical and republican values existed side-by-side in the culture, and many good monarchists and many good English tories adopted what were in substance, if not in name, republican ideals and principles without realizing the long-run political implications of what they were doing. Although they seldom mentioned the term, educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…)

Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed†.

In the eighteenth century to be enlightened was to be interested in antiquity, and to be interested in antiquity was to be interested in republicanism. Certainly classical antiquity could offer meaningful messages for monarchy too, but there is no doubt that the thrust of what the ancient world had to say to the eighteenth century was latently and at times manifestly republican.

All the ancient republics—Athens, Sparta, Thebes-were familiar to educated people in the eighteenth century—their names had “grown trite by repetition,” said one American-but none was more familiar than Rome. People could not hear enough about it. “It is impossible,” said Montesquieu, “to be tired of so agreeable a subject as ancient Rome.” The eighteenth century was particularly fascinated by the writings of the golden age of Roman literature—“the First Enlightenment,” as Peter Gay has called it—the two centuries from the breakdown of the republic in the middle of the first century B.C. to the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the middle of the second century A.D.

These Roman writers—Cicero, Virgil, Sallust, Tacitus, among others-set forth republican ideals and values about politics and society that have had a powerful and lasting effect on Western culture. These classical ideals and values were revived and refurbished by the Italian Renaissance-becoming what has been variously called “civic humanism” or “classical republicanism”—and were carried into early modern Europe and made available to wider and deeper strata of the population.”

#classicalRepublicanism #EnlightenmentEra #GordonSWood #Monarchism #politicalPhilosophy #politics #Republicanism

Gordon S. Wood on Republicanism and Monarchy in the Eighteenth-Century

“Educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…) Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed.” (Gordon S. Wood)

Gordon S. Wood argues, that Republicanism was not an underground ideology, or merely confined to European culture. It was an important current, that blended and mingled with the monarchical mainstream. The liberal of the eighteenth-century, while aiming for progress, loved and valued antiquity. To be liberal, also meant that the person was considered to be enlightened in the literary sense.

Gordon S. Wood, Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 13, 1990, pp. 17-19.

“The English thought they lived in a republicanized monarchy, and they were right. (…) Republicanism did not belong only to the margins, to the extreme right or left, of English political life. Monarchical and republican values existed side-by-side in the culture, and many good monarchists and many good English tories adopted what were in substance, if not in name, republican ideals and principles without realizing the long-run political implications of what they were doing. Although they seldom mentioned the term, educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…)

Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed†.

In the eighteenth century to be enlightened was to be interested in antiquity, and to be interested in antiquity was to be interested in republicanism. Certainly classical antiquity could offer meaningful messages for monarchy too, but there is no doubt that the thrust of what the ancient world had to say to the eighteenth century was latently and at times manifestly republican.

All the ancient republics—Athens, Sparta, Thebes-were familiar to educated people in the eighteenth century—their names had “grown trite by repetition,” said one American-but none was more familiar than Rome. People could not hear enough about it. “It is impossible,” said Montesquieu, “to be tired of so agreeable a subject as ancient Rome.” The eighteenth century was particularly fascinated by the writings of the golden age of Roman literature—“the First Enlightenment,” as Peter Gay has called it—the two centuries from the breakdown of the republic in the middle of the first century B.C. to the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the middle of the second century A.D.

These Roman writers—Cicero, Virgil, Sallust, Tacitus, among others-set forth republican ideals and values about politics and society that have had a powerful and lasting effect on Western culture. These classical ideals and values were revived and refurbished by the Italian Renaissance-becoming what has been variously called “civic humanism” or “classical republicanism”—and were carried into early modern Europe and made available to wider and deeper strata of the population.”

#classicalRepublicanism #EnlightenmentEra #GordonSWood #Monarchism #politicalPhilosophy #politics #Republicanism

Gordon S. Wood on Republicanism and Monarchy in the Eighteenth-Century

“Educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…) Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed.” (Gordon S. Wood)

Gordon S. Wood argues, that Republicanism was not an underground ideology, or merely confined to European culture. It was an important current, that blended and mingled with the monarchical mainstream. The liberal of the eighteenth-century, while aiming for progress, loved and valued antiquity. To be liberal, also meant that the person was considered to be enlightened in the literary sense.

Gordon S. Wood, Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 13, 1990, pp. 17-19.

“The English thought they lived in a republicanized monarchy, and they were right. (…) Republicanism did not belong only to the margins, to the extreme right or left, of English political life. Monarchical and republican values existed side-by-side in the culture, and many good monarchists and many good English tories adopted what were in substance, if not in name, republican ideals and principles without realizing the long-run political implications of what they were doing. Although they seldom mentioned the term, educated people of varying political persuasions celebrated republicanism for its spirit, its morality, its freedom, its sense of friendship and duty, and its vision of society. Republicanism as a set of values and a form of life was much too pervasive, comprehensive, and involved with being liberal and enlightened to be seen as subversive or as antimonarchical. (…)

Republicanism was never a besieged underground ideology, confined to cellar meetings and marginal intellectuals. On the contrary: there were no more enthusiastic promoters of republicanism than many members of the English and French nobility. (…) In essence, republicanism was the ideology of the Enlightenment. If the Enlightenment was, as Peter Gay has called it, “the rise of modern paganism,” then classical republicanism was its creed†.

In the eighteenth century to be enlightened was to be interested in antiquity, and to be interested in antiquity was to be interested in republicanism. Certainly classical antiquity could offer meaningful messages for monarchy too, but there is no doubt that the thrust of what the ancient world had to say to the eighteenth century was latently and at times manifestly republican.

All the ancient republics—Athens, Sparta, Thebes-were familiar to educated people in the eighteenth century—their names had “grown trite by repetition,” said one American-but none was more familiar than Rome. People could not hear enough about it. “It is impossible,” said Montesquieu, “to be tired of so agreeable a subject as ancient Rome.” The eighteenth century was particularly fascinated by the writings of the golden age of Roman literature—“the First Enlightenment,” as Peter Gay has called it—the two centuries from the breakdown of the republic in the middle of the first century B.C. to the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the middle of the second century A.D.

These Roman writers—Cicero, Virgil, Sallust, Tacitus, among others-set forth republican ideals and values about politics and society that have had a powerful and lasting effect on Western culture. These classical ideals and values were revived and refurbished by the Italian Renaissance-becoming what has been variously called “civic humanism” or “classical republicanism”—and were carried into early modern Europe and made available to wider and deeper strata of the population.”

#classicalRepublicanism #EnlightenmentEra #GordonSWood #Monarchism #politicalPhilosophy #politics #Republicanism