We wouldn't have liberty if it weren't for the French Revolution

>We wouldn't have liberty if it weren't for the French Revolution.
>We would still be living in feudal, absolute monarchies if it weren't for the French Revolution.

Why do people believe this when it's clearly not true?

Attached: IMG_0918.jpg (1200x872, 278K)

>Implying Feudal Absolute Monarchies would've ever changed or relented their power if no alternative came along
Stop romanticizing tyranny because you hate jews and Coca Cola

But they did, see England/Britain and Poland.

>Be Britiain
>introduce Parliment as dominant factor in society
>Monarch basically worthless
>A democracy in everything but name
Whats the fucking point? I think you just like the R O Y A L aesthetic.

>t. republitard amerimutt
America is a tyranny

t. royal cuck who wants to lick gold-plated boots

Parliament and the House of Lords was around before Britain existed and it only got any real power after the English civil war. Up until Victoria there was a clear balance of power between the monarch and parliament. If Victoria wasn't such a useless drama queen the monarchs might have more influence in politics today. But the current royals aren't entirely without power, there is the royal assent and royal prerogative even if they are rarely used.

>He wants people to unilaterally dictate a nation solely because they were the result of a drunken fuckfest between two people who were just as woefully unqualified
>inb4 "what is qualified"
For every decent Monarch you can name, another 3 were batshit stupid or horrifyingly brutal.

>For every decent Monarch you can name, another 3 were batshit stupid or horrifyingly brutal.
Well fucking do it then faggot.

Victorian prosperity versus the stagnation and laughing stock that was James III, the incompetence of Edward VIII, or the utter and senseless terrors of Romanovs.
>retardedfrenchmonarch.png

>Strong military leaders and governors
>Unqualified
Also
>He wants people to unilaterally dictate a nation solely because they were the result of a popularity contest voted by uniformed and retarded citizens of the nation that have no understanding of politics and are truly unqualified

For every decent democratically elected leader you can name, another 3 were batshit stupid or horrifyingly brutal.

maybe so, but atleast an unqualified democratic leader, or even a stupid one, doesn't result a nationwide famine and 60,000 beheadings

>USA
>get rid of the monarchy and aristocracy
>now stuck being ruled by WASP oligarchs and Jewish bankers
Wow so free

user, Monarchs that are bad last 50+ years. Most elected men last barely 8.

The old system may have been broken down another way. But in our time line, that was the event which broke it, so people are valid to say that.

>USA
>Went from the faithfully courageous life of un-represented abuse from a foreign nation that considered your countrymen unpersons whilst sending you to die in wars
>To the absolutely abysmal and degenerate long-lived freedom of expression and independence that is wholly consensual versus the tip of a bayonet
Keep your /pol/tardation out of here,btw.

You're right, democratic leaders only result in genocides of entire populations, concentration camps, gulags, and mass political assassinations

>Hitler was elected
>Stalin was elected
>Any modern genocide the result of democracy
Sure thing. Meanwhile Monarchs did that sort of thing every 10 years without fail. Why? Because they could.

Are you forgetting about the mass of democratically elected leaders who declared/declare themselves president for life or refuse to give up power?

Yes user because the continent of Africa is surely a bastion of Western values and European/Western modernity. Nice strawman. Corruption exists in ANY form of Government, but once a monarchy becomes that way, it stays that way.

The more i study history the more i realize that the British political system is pretty much the most perfect system ever created.

>Hitler was elected
He literally was, in a country with one of the most liberal constitutions at the time. Why deny this simple fact?
>Meanwhile Monarchs did that sort of thing every 10 years without fail. Why? Because they could.
I don't remember when a king genocided 6 million Jews. Can you point to a monarch who did this every 10 years?

I wasn't just referring to Africa user, see Nazi Germany. And please do learn what a strawman is because using it incorrectly.

Ok lets make a few things clear first
Hitler wasn *appointed*, his Party was elected
You are also doing the very Marxist thing of If something isn't X, its always Y. Nazism isn't Democracy. Infact it was closer to Tsarist bullshit in its form and function.
Meanwhile the Romanovs and [insert Louis monarch here] regularly engineered the most dreadful conditions imaginable to hold onto power.
But your right, I too would prefer to slave away under State ownership in some field because the lack of competition/capitalism prevented better tools from being invented. I would LOVE to be indiscriminately killed without trial just because I questioned the King. Sounds great.

>wasn
Was*

>Hitler wasn *appointed*, his Party was elected.
Are you intentionally being this thick? Do you not understand that the leader of a party will become the leader of the country if that party wins an election? People voted for Hitler and his party, it's incredible how far you will go to deny this. Even *if* what you said was true, that still means that people voted for Nazism democratically.
>Meanwhile the Romanovs and [insert Louis monarch here] regularly engineered the most dreadful conditions imaginable to hold onto power.
May very well be true, but the exact same thing can be said about democratically elected dictators.
>I would LOVE to be indiscriminately killed without trial just because I questioned the King. Sounds great.
Exact same thing would happen to you in Nazi Germany.

HOAs in America are worse than feudalism in Europe desu.

Is your only serious comparison to Monarchy versus modern government the Nazi German Government..? The huns and their raceplay scheme gone wrong that turned into an undemocratic police state is the only tenet of non-monarchical society that you can compare to?

"Sorry Jim, your grass is an inch too high."

Attached: literallymonarchy.jpg (1500x1101, 278K)

Spotted the braindead American.

>P-PLEASE TREAD ON ME KING [rich undeserving family here], CASTRATE ME AND TAKE ALL MY PRIVATE PROPERTY SO YOU CAN GO TO THE FAMILY REUNION WITH 30,000 SOLDEIRS

They're retarded and have an agenda.

Eddie was are lad and he did literally nothing wrong.

>Monarchs ruled Europe for 1500 years and they were all evil tyrants! They all shat on everyone else and stole their property!
I'd say pay attention in school but American school is what made you this dumb.

Europe had abhorrent living conditions until recently.

>They're retarded
In-breeding Monarchs are retarded. Literally.

That kind of deterministic view is of course wrong (it could happen everywhere), but there should at least be a series of events or catalysts (like one user said above) preceding that kickstarts all the movement from thereon.

>Believing this
With every post you only reassure me of how American you are

Yes goy Englands population tripled from nowhere , right around the same time it abandoned its feudalistic tendencies

>Monarchs that are bad last 50+ years
First of all most monarchs don't even last for 50 years, perhaps today they would due to modern medicine. Second, truly horrible monarchs were often deposed/killed/etc so this generally wasn't the case.