Now that the dust has settled, can we agree the French revolution was a mistake?

The only purpose monarchs have in the present day is for ceremonial purposes and as figureheads, they have no place in government.

A constitutional monarchy backed up by a strong parliamentary system is the proper way to govern.

He was an inbred retard. He literally did nothing thus, an incompetent ruler during tough times in Spain.

Such as...

His reign wasn't actually that awful. He was a retard sure but he didn't fuck Spain up or anything.

Now that the dust has settled, can we agree that the French Revolution didn't change anything about the historical course France was taking since the 13th century, and that both sides obsessing about it are just LARPing.

I'd say even the Fronde was more relevant.

Really nakes you think that even a literal retard is a better ruler than a democratically elected one.

>This kills the republican.
Sometimes literally.

What do you mean exactly? French Revolution had a major impact on all of Europe.

Monarch is actually awesome...if you are the king

For all the rest of possibilities it sucks.

t. Marxist

>it's pretty great to go to prison because the king finds it funny

Apologists, I swear

It's actually better to be an aristocrat in a monarchist state than it is to be king. Without the aristocracy to back them, the king holds no power.

>I get my opinions on monarchy from Game of Thrones and LOTR: the post

Now that the dust has settled can we agree that agriculture was a mistake?

Monarchism is rooted in genetic supremacy like eugenics

Republicanism is rooted in societal supremacy

Whichever you are drawn to determines your opinion on monarchism vs republicanism

If monarchy is superior, why didn't it survive?

That's working well for the Anglos.
Democracy was a mistake

"Constitutional Monarchy" is for boring losers. Full republicanism all the way is the only way.

That's literally combining the worst aspects of both republicanism an monarchism.
>squabbling parliament like in republicanism
>monarch exists but he's literally useless and serves only as a money sink

If Germans are the master race, why did they lost both wars? The answer in unnironically the jews

>If Bach is superior to Ariana Grande, why do more people listen to Ariana Grande?

Republics are just an excuse of the oligarchs and the rich to make people believe the have anything. You really can't trust in someone who was ambitious enough to become a PM or president to be looking for the greater good and not his own. Having someone been literally born to it and educate them since day one is relatively the safest choice.

>An entitled moron is better than somebody who had to work hard to succeed

If the Renaissance was also a mistake, yes. Otherwise no.

>he believes meritocracy ever existed or can exist

>he thinks that giving immense power to an inbred 15 year old is a great idea

You still can't skirt around the fact that meritocracy is more of a pipe dream than communism. You scrap artistocracy and it will just get replaced by oligarchic nepotism. You can't outfuck human nature.

>so instead, let's give an inbred 15 year old control of nukes, this will turn out well

>America has been ruled by various types of Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons and Roosevelts
>m-maybe they're just really hard workers

>So instead let's give the nuclear codes to an inbred 15 year old

>Now that the dust has settled
This wild ride has not even ended

>privilege exist in republics therefore we must support a system that gives one person the most privilege
Letting perfect be the enemy of good desu

>90% of the world's top 1%
>meritocratic in any sense

for every bill gates who actually worked his way to fabulous wealth and wild success there's ten thousand cunts who just inherited their business empires, also

>monarchism
could be worse, could be better, like most government systems

>bringing back aristocracy
>pretending the masses can go back to being shut out from the political process in the information age
>pretending that monarchs didn't spend the centuries at the height of their powers trying to neuter their aristocrats
pic related

Why do people think that monarchies are dictatorships?

l'etat c'est moi

Are you saying republicanism is for proles?

>keeps using this strawman
There's no rule that requires 15 year olds to be eligible for rulership.

>I get my opinions on monarchy from Disney Movies

Are you seriously saying that absolutism is a medieval fantasy set up? Because I swear...

>Monarchism is rooted in genetic supremacy like eugenics
No it isn't. Its rooted in historical supremacy if anything

No, that's republican dictatorship. Any other answer is spooked as fuck.

Kang is usually the good guy if he gets to be an enlightened guy. It's the noble class who are the real assholes.

More people listened to Bach if you count the past, and so many will still listen to Bach in the future when Ariana Grande gets forgotten.

because they fucking are? "constitutional monarchies" are just republics with a useless figurehead.

Have any monarchs ever held actual power and authority themselves? Monarchism seems to function more as an oligarchy where the monarch is subject to the influence and whims of their council, nobles, clergy, generals or what have you.

Yes it was, the American revolution however was the right step and its a pity Europe never fully embraced the principles it laid down

Hitler was a republican, moran.

then its not a monarchy

>I have never studied the 19th century

Now that the dust has settled, can we finally agree that hunting and gathering was a mistake?

You are living in the most pacific era of mankind and thats because of democracy

Despite democracy*

Monarchy itself is a useless political ideology

It's because of McDonalds. It's a proven fact that countries with McDonalds in them are more secure and less warlike than countries with no McDonalds.

more likely its because nukes made war between great powers unthinkable

Yes. It's the source of everything wrong with western society

Evola was right, as evidenced in this thread.

You can see it displayed here, two different tactics of subversion mainly: First, blaming the system itself, instead of blaming the people within the system (saying it's a problem with monarchy and not a problem with bad monarchs). Second, the linear view of history as unfolding according to a certain narrative, this post in particular shows this line of thinking clearly: >the historical course France was taking since the 13th century,

The view of history as unfolding according to a certain "historical course" or linear narrative, driven by mystical and pre-determined forces when in fact history is driven by people.

Not an argument

Yes.

Why?

Absolutely. We must return to the pre-Lapsarian mode. Our first punishment was H&G, and each attempt to escape that punishment has had terrible consequences.
The coming of Communism will be followed by the Second Coming. Dies Irae draws near.

It was a huge mistake.

Everyone ITT who uses late renaissance and enlightenment feudalautism as an example of monarchy being bad is a brainlet.
The amount of strawmen is staggering. Do you think any monarchists want to be ruled by the likes of (((Habsburgs)))?
Is having countless aristocrats and nobles who have greater power that the king part of an absolute monarchy?
Most monarchists are mediaeval autists, try arguing why Alfred the Great, or Charlemagne, Edward I, or Henry V were bad.

christianity is le dumb!