[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
>"For the average person, all problems...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 319
Thread images: 56
>"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

Is there any doubt that the French Revolution is the worst event in world history?
>>
Yes? Existence of the whites.
>>
mind explaining why?
>>
>implying Charlemange isn't to blame
>>
This. The French Revolution was awful for humanity.
>>
The French Revolution was just another manifestation of contradictions that are inherent in all human societies.

The Peloponnesian War was fought along similar ideological lines, minus the Christianity.
>>
>implying things didn't go to shit after the Peloponnesian War
>>
I don't know if it is the worst (the Plague of Justinian is comparable), but it is up there as one of the worst.
>>
>implying things didn't go to shit after the Trojan War
>>
File: 1449432166626.jpg (729 KB, 1701x2005) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1449432166626.jpg
729 KB, 1701x2005
>be european
>be incapable of stopping an army of peasants
>>
>implying things didn't go to shit after the finno Korean hyper war
>>
>>673362
It spread the ideas of this fucker,
>>
>>673294
Only if you're an enemy of the revolution and friend of tyranny
>>
>implying it didn't set every man in western europe free
>implying there ever was another event where you could witness such greatness and power
If the french had won the napoleonic wars, the entire western world would be far better off.
>>
File: 1442207900110.gif (676 KB, 175x200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1442207900110.gif
676 KB, 175x200
>>673294
>worst
The French Revolution is the best thing that ever happened in history. The opposition was the worst.
>>
>>673431
But Napoleon completely contradicted the ideals of the initial revolutionaries.
>>
>>673357
You mean the end of proper and explicit colonialism?
>>
>>673435
Absolutely not.
He cemented the ideals of the revolution, allowing them to live past even the defeat of the french empire, and his Napoleonic code was used by pretty much every country in europe after his demise.
>>
File: 1382820416325.jpg (86 KB, 464x787) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1382820416325.jpg
86 KB, 464x787
>revolt against absolute monarchy
>creates an state more dominant and centralizing that anything that went on before

Just cuck my shit up, senpai
>>
>>673294

>Being this old and still being a smug hipster

"For the truly brilliant mind, the invention of the printing press."
>>
>>673294
I would say that French Revolution was caused by Punic wars and I can find sort-of-decent, not half-assed explanation for it.

It doesn't mean anything though.
>>
>Implying the problems didn't start with the agricultural revolution.
>>
>>673500
for the semi-god: Ockham
>>
>>673475
>revolt against high price of bread
>end up the strongest european power
bretty gud senpai
>>
As the debts incurred by the French while sustaining the American Revolutionary War, wouldn't the creation of an Independent American state thus be the cause?
Additionally, it was one of the first "modern" nations to emulate a democratic Republic, creating a trend that governments should be lead by representatives of people, rather than a royal lineage and their court of dynastic houses. These same ideals would be echoed in the French Revolution, which would brutally massacred in the name of French nationalism, establishing the Republican Throne of Napoleon, and his ensuing wars.
I could be entirely wrong, though.
>>
All fucking nobles must fucking hang.
>>
>>673475
>>673510
>Not blaming the Islamic rediscovery of Greek thought that allowed St. Thomas Aquinas to formulate his explanation of transubstantiation for every single dip below the ideal level of general utility since the 13th century
>>
>gender equality
>racial equality
>free stuff
>i am free you have no authority over me lol muh rights
>fuck the king

yes. the enlightment ruining human civilization. fuck those hippies.
>>
>>673500
>>
File: 1446333342463.png (39 KB, 853x613) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1446333342463.png
39 KB, 853x613
>created democracy, freedom, nationalism and centralized state
>worst event
more like worst meme imao
>>
Practically every change the French revolution tried to bring about, has since come to fruition.

The problem clearly wasn't the revolution, but the system that existed before it.
>>
>>673576
>Practically every change the French revolution tried to bring about, has since come to fruition.
Is that true?
>The problem clearly wasn't the revolution, but the system that existed before it.
What was actually wrong with the monarchy, aside from national debt and the opulence of the ruling dynasty? What is wrong with monarchy in principle, and why should the grievances the French people had with their king be forced out of the mouths of every people around the world?
>>
File: 1428169392147.png (70 KB, 853x787) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1428169392147.png
70 KB, 853x787
>>673566
better one
>>
>>673390
>implying it was a peasant army and not the same army as before that served whomever was in power in France
Hah
>>
>>673441
>he was a revolutionary!
>he made himself emperor and his brothers kings
Sounds really republican to me.
>>
>>673294
>the most recent large war is literally the worst thing ever

>said every civilization ever
>>
>>673294

The french revolution allowed for world domination by the eternal anglo decades later.
I'ts the worse thing that has ever happened to the world.
>>
>>673591
Well if you view liberty, equality and fraternity as the mantra of the revolution, then the European Union and the modern welfare state seems like a victory for the revolution

> what was wrong with the monarchy?

They were, for the most party, shitty rulers, and even worse, they were shitty rulers that were hard to get rid of.

Europe is clearly more stable, equal, wealthy and peaceful with democracy.
>>
>>673612
You must have a very naive view of how republics work
>>
File: Cro-Magnon.jpg (781 KB, 1000x1178) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Cro-Magnon.jpg
781 KB, 1000x1178
>hurr durr I go back even further than all of you
THE DECLINE STARTED IN THE AURIGNACIAN CULTURE OF 40 000 BC
>>
>>673620
You can't be pro-EU on 4chan, that hurts way too many feelings.

You're right, of course.

That's why it hurts so many feelings.
>>
>>673620
>Well if you view liberty, equality and fraternity as the mantra of the revolution, then the European Union and the modern welfare state seems like a victory for the revolution
I didn't know the French Revolution was a fight for a welfare state.
>They were, for the most party, shitty rulers,
Care to go through a list of French monarchs and make a case for why each member of a majority was a shitty ruler? This isn't a good argument, you're making generalizations about a lot of different people who ruled in different ways.
>Europe is clearly more stable, equal, wealthy and peaceful with democracy.
I wouldn't disagree, but I also wouldn't necessarily call what Europe has today 'democracy' in the fullest sense of the term.
>>
>>673622
Yeah if it has a monarch it's definitely a republic. Especially when said king sets up dynastic succession, gets papal approval and a royal marriage to legitimise his rule. Face it, your beloved revolutionary liberal hero was really just an opportunist.
>>
>>673638
>your beloved revolutionary liberal hero was really just an opportunist.
But I already think that about every revolutionary who ever lived.
>>
>>673612
And? In times of war a country needs a strong leader and not a democratical shitter.
The point is the revolution was about the peoples right, and in that sense he gave the french even more than the revolution did, and in a durable way.
Seeing how the french politics changed in the last two centuries, it wouldn't have mattered whether it was a republic, an empire or another monarchy; it only would have in the short term, and in that sense making himself emperor was the best solution
>>
>>673629
What is that jutting out of his cheekbone?
>>
>>673542
aquinas did shit, nominalism still kick asses
>>
>>673651
>a country needs a strong leader and not a democratical shitter.

When will this meme die

>2 democratic states enter WW1 along with 4 undemocratic states
>democratic states both survive, all 4 undemocratic states experience state failure, including the one on the winning side
>>
For the truly informed; all problems date back to that time ugg banged two rocks together in a cave and invented fire.
>>
>>673669
>state failure
Only one of those had state failure. The others were dismantled. There's a difference you fucking mong.
>>
>>673635
> I didn't know the French revolution was a fight for the welfare state

They modern welfare state wasn't invented, so obviously they couldn't have wanted that in the strictest sense of the word.

What they did want was equality, and a way to ensure that they were protected from shit like famine. The modern welfare state seems to me like the natural extention of that.

Modern education and medicine didn't exist at the time of the French revolution, so shit like healthcare and education obviously wasn't included, but I'd venture a guess they'd have wanted some of that too.

> go through a list of every monarch.

The vast equality, countless famines and endless amount of stupid wars compared to the relative peacefulness and equality of modern 'democracies' (happy?) seems to me to make it a fair assertion that the monarchial system did not provide the most suitable rulers. And how on earth should it have? There is literally nothing about it that guarantees any form of promotion based on merit.
>>
File: 1453308563073.jpg (73 KB, 500x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1453308563073.jpg
73 KB, 500x500
>"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."
>>
>>673680
>leftists trying to turn the fedora meme around
You can try to force it all you like but it won't stick laddo.

>>673678
>There is literally nothing about it that guarantees any form of promotion based on merit.
Neither does a popularity contest. Also modern 'democracies' have only just recently been peaceful, French revolution alone is proof that there's nothing peaceful in such a fundamental change in society, even for apolitical people who just want to live their lives.
>>
>>673687

Not that guy, but you have to admit, that quote is pretty fucking cringe.
>>
>>673669
Strictly speaking about France
>first republic was barely enough to protect itself, quickly replaced by the incredibly more efficient empire
>second republic who?
>third republic was a fucking joke for its entire existence, barely was able to survive WW1 when we should have rolled over the germans, and is the actual reason for our defeat in WW2
>4th died literally because the french lost indochina, which was absolutely nothing and irrelevant, but proved the inefficiency of it
>5th was good with De Gaulle, and is now the emaciated skeleton of what it was/should have been
So the only time the republic has been good for France was when it was led by a general.
>>
>>673673
The Ottomans kind of were.

There was however, a large amount of simple nationalist agitation.

Germany and Russia had conventional revolutions, the Austro-Hungarians succumbed to a combination of ethnic separatism and political revolution.

The republics of France and Britain most survived intact.

If WW1 illustrated the value of democratic states in preventing internal tensions from reaching the breaking point, WW2 illustrated the value of democratic states in strategic decision making.

Germany and Japan both pursued war aims that were on the borderline of impossible, because there was nobody in a position to contradict the leadership.

The USSR allowed an invasion force of 3 million Germans to amass on their doorstep without doing anything about it, because Stalin simply killed anyone who pointed out that they were about to get analreamed. They also purged their officer corps because an independent, strong general staff is a danger to any totalitarian regime. The combination of these led to the Russians, who were both numerically superior and had far more equipment, losing at least 20 million dead.

Face it, "strong leaders" is a meme.
>>
File: skittle.webm (717 KB, 720x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
skittle.webm
717 KB, 720x720
>>673687
Nah man, this is literally Fedora the Post
>>
>>673294
>muh monarchy is best!
Meanwhile in reality, republics have outlasted and overpowered all monarchies.

The only significant monarchies in existence today are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain. And guess what? They're all dependent on protection from the US which [spoiler]is a republic[/spoiler].
>>
File: croesus.jpg (446 KB, 552x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
croesus.jpg
446 KB, 552x600
>implying it didn't all go wrong with this fucker right here
>>
>>673687
> neither does a popularity contest

And yet, that "popularity contest" has an infinitely better track record than monarchy

Besides, your statement is false. If the people can elect who they think is the most competent, then chances are, the leader will be viewed as more competent by the very same people. Merit is also involved, seeing as you actually have to do something to get elected, which already puts you ahead of a monarch with power from birth.

> French revolution is proof that such a fundamental change yadda yadda

The first few years were certainly too violent, but monarchy had plenty of blood and gore as well. Ultimately, the French revolution brought about changes that actually ended war in Europe, though, so I definitely view it as a force for good.
>>
File: dewsgusting.jpg (238 KB, 570x420) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
dewsgusting.jpg
238 KB, 570x420
>nationalism and democracy invented
>/pol/ and /leftypol/ actually get to circlejerk together to something

The French Revolution sowed the seeds that undeniably grew into WW1, which in turn spurred WW2. OP is correct.
>>
>>673696
The First Republic in France beat the shit out of all of the invaders trying to destroy it. The Third Republic weathered extremely high casualties without breaking. Daladier fucked up, but not nearly as bad as Hitler did.

The Fourth Republic suffered from an openly politicized military that had no commitment to democracy, and essentially set their own policy in the colonies.

This, more than anything else, is what lost Algeria and Indochina for France.

The Fifth Republic literally only exists because the French military threw a temper tantrum.

The way I see it, the problem for France wasn't too much democracy, it was not enough.

If the French Revolution hadn't ended up with everyone killing each other and a military coup, France would be in a dramatically better state for most of her modern history.
>>
File: 1921 in russia.jpg (86 KB, 800x563) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1921 in russia.jpg
86 KB, 800x563
>>673711
>the French revolution brought about changes that actually ended war in Europe

The French Revolution is directly responsible for World Wars I and II, communism, Nazism, the Holocaust and the coming disappearance of Europe under Arab and black immigration.

It literally destroyed the continent.
>>
>there are people, right now, who think the glorious revolution was a bad thing
To the guillotine
>>
>>673700
>the US is successful because it's a republic!

let this meme die you fucking idiot
>>
>>673700
The funny thing about this is that the modern "republic" is more inherently totalitarian than any monarchy that went on before and afterwards.

France before the Revolution had regional identities and political freedom at local level, now it's a centralized dictatorship directed by the Freemasonry in Paris.
>>
>>673719
>people actually believe these stupid memes
Technically it's god's fault for creating the universe
>>
>>673693
>cringe
I almost forgot this was /reddit/ the board.
>>
>>673719
I am talking about the ideas of the French revolution, they can't be held accountable for causal chains of event that were otherwise unrelated.

The idea of having leaders accountable to their people was clearly a good one, just think about this:

List of wars between two European democracies since 1789:

> 0
>>
>>673718
> The Third Republic weathered extremely high casualties without breaking.
Do you know who is the single person that can be thanked for that? Another general.
The fourth suffered from being a joke, that could not exist on its own. It indeed needed the military, but was too retarded to get them under their control because the assembly directed everything, instead of a single man.

The fifth exists because De Gaulle was smart enough to reform the fourth. Not enough to make it popular after his departure though.

>If the French Revolution hadn't ended up with everyone killing each other and a military coup, France would be in a dramatically better state for most of her modern history.
In what fucking way? They would have had much worse political decision making and military leadership. How do you want to establish a working democracy when the demographics of France changed so often?
>>
>>673725
Quod erat demonstratum, only genocidal commies like the French Revolution.
>>
>>673727
>implying it isn't true
>implying Russia, China, Brazil, and a bunch of other shitholes don't have the resources that the US does
>implying that it's an accident that Republics dominate the planet, and even most of the dictatorships call themselves a Republic to get some of that delicious win on themselves

Think of it this way.

The philosophical foundation of a monarchy is essentially might makes right.

Republics are mightier than empires.
>>
>>673739
All the Great Powers of World War I and II were democracies.
>>
>>673678
>The vast equality, countless famines and endless amount of stupid wars compared to the relative peacefulness and equality of modern 'democracies' (happy?) seems to me to make it a fair assertion that the monarchial system did not provide the most suitable rulers.
Why?
> There is literally nothing about it that guarantees any form of promotion based on merit.
Democracy is generally not conflated with meritocracy.
>>
>>673743
Do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you just parroting memes?

>The philosophical foundation of a monarchy is essentially might makes right.

Nothing could be further from the traditional definition of monarchy.
>>
>>673743
Russia and brasil are democracies currently and still pretty poor. The fact is political regime has little to do with a countrys well-being.
>>
>>673750
>germany, austria-hungary, and russia
>not great powers
Now this is advanced shitposting.

>>673743
>The philosophical foundation of a monarchy is essentially might makes right.
And the foundation for republics is essentially if it's popular then it's correct.

>>673711
>ended war in Europe
WWII was caused by the forcing of democracy onto countries with no democratic tradition.
>>
>>673398
Mah nigger nogger asshole clogger.
>>
>>673754
> why?

I literally just wrote that

> Democracy is (...)

Democracies tend to be more succesful. Clearly they are.
>>
>>673741
>Do you know who is the single person that can be thanked for that? Another general.

Why didn't Brusilov or Hindenburg do the same thing for their own countries?

>The fourth suffered from being a joke

I agree with you. It suffered from large numbers of communists, fascists, and other undemocratic filth that undermined its effectiveness.

>The fifth exists because De Gaulle was smart enough to reform the fourth

More like the French military screwed up all of their little satraps, and threw a temper tantrum about it. To further prove the point of them being a bunch of whiny bitches who were cancer for the country, they even tried to kill De Gaulle because even he wasn't sucking them off enough.

>In what fucking way? They would have had much worse political decision making and military leadership. How do you want to establish a working democracy when the demographics of France changed so often?

The way I see it, French history suffers from a large scale case of coitus interruptus.

A revolution was had, but it failed before it could take hold.

The result was that French society was eternally polarized, and various reactionary scum were never purged from the body politic as a whole.
>>
>>673743
>Russia, China and Brazil

Nice examples, these countries are more inspired by the French Revolution than the United States, which was founded by a reactionary rebellion against centralizing government.
>>
>>673755
Of course he doesn't know what he's talking about. His conception of how monarchies work come from media and the anti-monarchy propaganda taught in gradeschool.
>>
>>673761
Germany, Austria-Hungary and even Russia were democracies by 1914.
>>
>>673761
> ww2 was caused by

WW2 was caused by the nazis. You can't blame democracy for it because it suits your twisted narrative.
>>
How exactly do most problems today stem from the French Revolution?
>>
>>673777
Why did the nazis rise to power? Come on lad don't even fucking pretend.
>>
File: Communism.jpg (634 KB, 1440x960) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Communism.jpg
634 KB, 1440x960
>>673757
>Russia has been a democracy for under a quarter century, and has already reverted back into despotism
>Brazil was a military dictatorship up until very recently

Seriously though.

>The fact is political regime has little to do with a countrys well-being.

Hands down the stupidest post I've ever seen on this board since its inception.
>>
>>673776
no
>>
>>673781
By that logic, bulletproof vests cause gunshot wounds.
>>
>>673777
National Socialism was a democratic and nationalist social movement. Both these ideologies were created by the French Revolution.

Old aristocrats like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn despised the Nazis for that. In the Nazi anthem, there is even a verse about shooting reactionaries in the same way they would shoot commies.
>>
>>673781
Because the German people actively supported them?

Is that supposed to somehow devalue democracy as a system in its entirety or what?
>>
>>673787
> nazism was a democratic movement

whew lad
>>
>>673782
That image is fun, because there you can clearly see the results of a country inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution, which is of course North Korea, and a country established by reactionaries.
>>
File: frightened potato.jpg (16 KB, 495x357) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
frightened potato.jpg
16 KB, 495x357
>>673743
>the US is prosperous and unstoppable because lolvoting
>never mind the part where it's had 3 wars fought on its own turf, including the one where it declared independence and thus never suffered the politically destabilizing and economically weakening effect of occupation and the ravages of war
>never mind that this is because of the atlantic and the pacific, not because the people voted for a magic democracy barrier
>never mind that the US's historical superpower has been having fuckloads of money to finance massive armies and aggressive foreign policies, not voting its enemies to death
>never mind that this money came from insanely laissez-faire economic policies in the 1800s that allowed hypersonic industrialization and allowed key captains of industry to rule like (lol) kings
>never mind that democracy has been a complete failure outside of western Europe and North America, and even with the resurgence of "democracy" in Africa and South America it's blighted by populism and endemic corruption

Republics are what happens when the aristocracy decides it's had enough of someone actually being above them. They then pretend to be "the common folk" to earn popular support for a new regime, and then give said common folk a steady diet of bread, circuses and elections (don't fucking get me started on those) so they can rule comfortably.
>>
>>673798
The political ideology of National Socialism was about the legitimacy of government was linked to it's representation of the people, the German people, of course, but the people nonetheless.

How is that non-democratic?
>>
>>673799
You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

One of these countries is a hereditary monarchy ruled by a god-king.

One of them is an undemocratic republic. There is in fact meaningful distribution of power, but within an oligarchy.

One of these countries is a full republic.
>>
>>673807
That's populism not democracy you idiot
>>
File: Umayyad?.jpg (51 KB, 610x673) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Umayyad?.jpg
51 KB, 610x673
>>673727
I wasn't saying that.

I'm saying monarchies only exist today because of life support from other states (namely republican states)

>>673731
>he modern "republic" is more inherently totalitarian than any monarchy that went on before and afterwards.
Yes because religious freedom in the Syrian republic is SO terrible compared to nice, sweet beheadings of the Saudi Monarchy.

Much like people have shifted from carts to cars, societies have shifted from monarchy to republic.

>Freemasonry in Paris
Oh lawd

Libya was once a monarchy. No one knew of it then. Libya became a republic, and suddenly had some of the greatest feats of the Arab World and Africa. Same for Egypt and Iraq. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia leeches of the US and never lifts a finger unless its to behead someone who disagrees with the king.
>>
>>673808
One of these countries was established under the discourse of freedom, human rights and social equality by a politician who, liked Robespierre, promised to do whatever it took to achieve his revolutionary aims.

The other was established by landowners and industrialists who wanted to keep their privileges.

Which is closer to the ideals of the French Revolution?
>>
>>673771
>anti-monarchy propaganda
holy shit
>>
>>673798
I agree with you, but Nazism was irrefutably founded on socialism and nation - two things that have their heritage drawn directly back to 1789.
>>
>>673807
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy?q=democracy
>>
>>673805
Unlike all of those wars that, say, Brazil or Argentina had on their home turf.

Speaking of which, thank god South Korea and Japan never had wars recently, otherwise I probably wouldn't have the electronics to type out this message.

>never mind that the US's historical superpower has been having fuckloads of money

Thank god government has nothing to do with economic growth. Otherwise Switzerland would be way wealthier than the Congo, despite the Congo having far more natural resources.

>never mind that democracy has been a complete failure outside of western Europe and North America

This is true. It's not like democracy has taken hold in Confucian societies, or Bantu Africa, or Hindu countries.

>"democracy" in Africa and South America it's blighted by populism and endemic corruption

Wow, democracy isn't a panacea.

It might not be worth anything, amirite.
>>
>>673781
>Why did the nazis rise to power
The French were allowed to control too much at Versailles
>>
>>673765
>Democracies tend to be more succesful.
By your arbitrary standards, which seem to come from the false equation of democracy and peace.
>Democracies tend to be more succesful. Clearly they are.
I don't understand. Is this what you're saying?
>Democracies are successful; success is engendered by meritocracy; therefore, democracies are meritocratic
>>
>>673813
And yet Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis and other citizens from Arab socialist republics move to monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

They must have something going on for them, to have been attracting voters with their feet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_workers_in_Saudi_Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan
>>
>>673816
>One of these countries was established under the discourse of freedom, human rights and social equality by a politician who, liked Robespierre, promised to do whatever it took to achieve his revolutionary aims.

The name you're looking for is Harry Truman, and yes, he was a determined son of a bitch.

North Korea has exactly the same government system that the region has had since prehistory, China is a hybrid of the two.
>>
File: 1362991702656.png (587 KB, 680x497) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1362991702656.png
587 KB, 680x497
>>673833
>They must have something going on for them
>>
>>673822
the shitty systems that some people invented to replace the monarchs in no way devalue the idea that the monarchs needed to be replaced in the first place.
>>
>>673808
Your continued misunderstanding of what 'reactionary' and 'revolutionary' mean in historical discourse is problematic
See >>673816
>>
>>673829
more or less

> false equation of democracy and peace

Mind giving me a list of all wars between two democratic states?
>>
>>673839
Oil in Jordan?

Besides, democracies can be ruined even when they have oil, see Venezuela.
>>
>>673833
>They must have something going on for them,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

As for Jordan, they too are protected by the US and as such are always in a state of peace (for now).

Monarchies: " I AM the state"

Republics: "WE ARE the state"
>>
>>673847
>Mind giving me a list of all wars between two democratic states?
I'm not talking about wars between fully established democracies, I'm talking about the wars that had to be fought a) to force those countries to accept liberal democracy (or rather liberalism, which is what you're actually talking about when you say 'democracy') or b) to ensure that liberalism remained the predominant ideology or mode of government in a country. Are you familiar with the history of the modern world at all?
>>
>>673825
Brazil's deposition of its monarchy is ironically the moment it started going to shit. Otherwise, Brazil and Argentina were victims of geopolitics and other things voting wouldn't fix.

I'll skip addressing all your other points because you seem to understand by the end of your post.

>Wow, democracy isn't a panacea.

It isn't. Napoleon III's coup didn't make France suddenly stop being a major world power, and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of a voting franchise in Russia didn't suddenly fix all of that country's problems. Republics are not at all linked to success or strength.
>>
>>673846
No, you just have Down's Syndrome.

>one country has a government system based on Enlightenment values that are totally alien to the history of the region
>one country has a system of government that is indistinguishable from the system of government that has prevailed in that country since the Neolithic

>>673850
Here's the magic secret.

Democracy is not a binary condition.

In order to work, democracy needs to have rights respected in practice as well as in theory.

This takes time and effort, but the more a country actually adheres to this practice, the better off they will be.

Incidentally, I think as many people are fleeing to (semi)democratic Lebanon and democratic Turkey.
>>
>>673864
>it's not a panacea
>that doesn't mean its relevant

You're right.

I better take grandma off of chemo, if it doesn't fix her overnight, it's worse than just having the cancer.

>Otherwise, Brazil and Argentina were victims of geopolitics and other things voting wouldn't fix.

Landed elites and poor rule of law?

Consistent, free and fair elections actually work pretty well for that.
>>
>>673861
you are making it seem like those poor repressive regimes were somehow illetimately toppled?.
>>
>>673731
Sweet Christ I didn't know this kind of stupid even existed.
>>
File: on power.jpg (30 KB, 333x499) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
on power.jpg
30 KB, 333x499
>>673857
>Monarchies: " I AM the state"

That's only absolute monarchies, which are a very short phenomenom in the history of monarchy.

The French Revolution didn't stop this phenomenom so much as it enhanced it.

You should really read Bertrand de Jouvenel in order to dispel your childish misconceptions about modern democracy.

PS: It's fun how you talk about "American protection". If it wasn't for American protection in 1957, your precious Arab socialism would have been crushed during the Suez War.
>>
>>673768
Because neither were that exceptional?
I don't think those did; under even a straight presidential democracy it wouldn't have happened; the fourth set themselves up by not having enough power, whether it was democratic or not.
I wouldn't say that. If the french military had gotten their way it would probably still be a strong one as it was before, and able to operate more efficiently around the mediterranean and in africa. Though I love De Gaulle, it was a risky move to concede Algeria when the military had won the war.
The revolution did hold with Napoleon; a part of it was lost after the war but a lot of what was gained remained.
>>
>>673874
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha

>When at the mid-19th century, primary school is made compulsory all across the State, it is also made clear that only French will be taught, and the teachers will severely punish any pupil speaking in patois. The aim of the French educational system will consequently not be to dignify the pupils' natural humanity, developing their culture and teaching them to write their language, but rather to humiliate them and morally degrade them for the simple fact of being what tradition and their nature made them. The self-proclaimed country of the "Human rights" will then ignore one of man's most fundamental rights, the right to be himself and speak the language of his nation. And with that attitude France, the "grande France" that calls itself the champion of liberty, will pass the 20th century, indifferent to the timid protest movements of the various linguistic communities it submitted and the literary prestige they may have given birth to.

>France [...] has the miserable honour of being the State of Europe—and probably the world — that succeeded best in the diabolical task of destroying its own ethnic and linguistic patrimony and moreover, of destroying human family bonds: many parents and children, or grandparents and grandchildren, have different languages, and the latter feel ashamed of the first because they speak a despicable patois, and no element of the grandparents' culture has been transmitted to the younger generation, as if they were born out of a completely new world. This is the French State that has just entered the 21st century, a country where stone monuments and natural landscapes are preserved and respected, but where many centuries of popular creation expressed in different tongues are on the brink of extinction. The "gloire" and the "grandeur" built on a genocide. No liberty, no equality, no fraternity: just cultural extermination, this is the real motto of the French Republic.
>>
>>673872
>democracy is a chemo

Sound and effective government is a chemo.

>Landed elites and poor rule of law
>solved by the establishment of a republic

Read the history of those places m8. Consistent, free and fair elections work wonderfully, just like wise, just and effective monarchs do. The issue is we don't always get those ideal conditions.
>>
>>673884
>when the military had won the war

This is what all militaries say after they lose a counter-insurgency.

>great man theory of history

I personally suspect that the fact that the people had wanted the war, that they participated politically in the decisions that sent them off to war, and that they were able to choose their own war leadership is the only thing that gave their society enough cohesion to survive the meat grinder.
>>
>>673865
>indistinguishable
There's the problem: you use that word as if it's literally true, which it isn't. The Kims seized power in a revolutionary fashion that was only possible after the French Revolution. South Korea is a purely reactionary force, propped up by societies with roots in the Enlightenment but not itself a product of the Enlightenment. Was British India an Enlightenment society because it was colonized by the British? No, not in any meaningful way, even if post-colonial Indian thought is bound up with Enlightenment ideas.
>>673873
No, I'm reminding you that democracy isn't the same as peace. You're the one reading those implications.
>
Incidentally, I think as many people are fleeing to (semi)democratic Lebanon and democratic Turkey.
Am I actually just arguing with an Erdogan shill?
>>
File: four olds.jpg (50 KB, 400x526) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
four olds.jpg
50 KB, 400x526
>>673865
>one country has a government system based on Enlightenment values that are totally alien to the history of the region

But that's China and North Korea.

I mean, they were very clear about making a point that they were breaking with their previous history.
>>
It's just a rabbit hole. French revolution<Frankish kingdom<Romans<Gauls<Indo europeans....

Basically the quote means nothing, the entire idea of history is that events cause other events.
>>
>>673897
I mean, I get what you say, but they actually did.

France did not want the war. Revanchism was there but not that strong.
>>
>>673893
>Consistent, free and fair elections work wonderfully, just like wise, just and effective monarchs

The thing being, one of these is a predictable, consistent, measurable phenomenon that doesn't depend on one person.

You can send election monitors to polling stations, and there are a ton of organizations that keep tabs on how well rule of law works in various countries.

It simply isn't a good idea to base the entire welfare of your country on the benevolence and competence of one individual, especially when their self interest is to monopolize power and resources.
>>
>>673910
>The thing being, one of these is a predictable, consistent, measurable phenomenon that doesn't depend on one person.
How is democracy predictable, consistent, and measurable? Why is relying on a large group of people preferable to relying on an individual? You know that in most monarchical governments the monarch actually relied heavily on advisors, right?
>>
>>673882
>modern democracy
I don't support democracy. I support republicanism. Democracy is monarchy by the majority.

Napoleon only gave himself so much power because all of Europe was coming at France. Plus his people, along with the French military, all consented to such rule. Napoleon's marshals could have easily ousted him if he was being dictatorial.

As for Baathism, the destruction of Nasser's state would only increase Arab Nationalist vigor.
>>
>>673898
>>673899
I don't know if you know this, but warlords, generals and visiers have been taking over countries and establishing their own dynasties forever.

In fact, it's a universal feature of premodern history.

It also isn't unknown to have a civil service and a developed bureaucracy coexist with arbitrary rule. This is another universal feature of pre-Enlightenment governments.

North Korea has no actual modern features in their state. Their constitution has little to no bearing on the functioning of the government. The majority of top offices are based on family ties and political patronage. There is no devolution of power, even to a central planning committee or politburo.

China combines elements of pre-Enlightenment governance with more modern forms.

The place of a ruling dynasty is taken by a communist party, which functions as an oligarchy, much the way Polish Republicanism operated in the middle ages.
>>
>>673931
>Napoleon only gave himself so much power because all of Europe was coming at France

That's always the excuse.

>Stalin only gave himself so much power because the capitalists were coming at Russia

>Mao only gave himself so much power because all of the world was coming at China

>Hugo Chávez only gave himself so much power because the United States was coming at Venezuela
>>
>>673910
>The thing being, one of these is a predictable, consistent, measurable phenomenon that doesn't depend on one person.

Both depend on tradition. The difference is a shitty or good monarch lasts much longer than a shitty or bad prime minister.

>It simply isn't a good idea to base the entire welfare of your country on the benevolence and competence of one individual, especially when their self interest is to monopolize power and resources.

As opposed to base the entire welfare of your country on a class of people, especially when their self interest is to monopolize power and resources?
>>
>>673946
>North Korea has no actual modern features in their state.
[citation badly needed]
We're at that point where no one should bother responding to this poster until he starts posting sources
>>
>>673930
>How is democracy predictable, consistent, and measurable

You can clearly, obviously see if elections are being held. The art of preventing ballot rigging has been perfected to the point where pretty much any society willing to can use election monitors and exit polls to limit fraud to a few percentage points.

Rule of law and civil liberties are a bit harder, but groups like Freedom House, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders, and Transparency International do a good job.

>Why is relying on a large group of people preferable to relying on an individual?

This is the heart of the matter, actually. In a democracy, you are relying on people to act in their own self interest. In a monarchy, you are relying on a person to act in the common good when that often conflicts with their own self interest.

Sure, a large group of people can be overcome by delusions or wild passions, but it's harder for that to happen than for a single individual.

>You know that in most monarchical governments the monarch actually relied heavily on advisors

Yeah, but they're called advisors for a reason.
>>
>>673902
quiet you nigger, we're having fun
>>
>>673954
Greentexting the same thing into different sentences doesn't disprove the claim you're greentexting at all. You'll have to disprove the labor theory of value now, if you want this to go anywhere.
>>
>>673967
> The art of preventing ballot rigging has been perfected to the point where pretty much any society willing to can use election monitors and exit polls to limit fraud to a few percentage points.
[citation needed]
>ule of law and civil liberties are a bit harder, but groups like Freedom House, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders, and Transparency International do a good job.
Which one is paying you?
>In a democracy, you are relying on people to act in their own self interest. In a monarchy, you are relying on a person to act in the common good when that often conflicts with their own self interest.
Eh, this seems like a way of repeating your previous statements about democracy being good. You haven't answered my question.
>Yeah, but they're called advisors for a reason.
That's literally all you have to say, even though your whole argument relies on the absurd belief that monarchy is government in which one person has absolute freedom and control over all the actions of the state and government?
>>
>>673961
I'd pick a class of people over one individual any day of the week.

The PRC isn't a full democracy, but even the limited rule of law and division of power they have has done a great deal of good.

>>673962
Okay, let's look at features of government that only become common after the Enlightenment

>constitution that limits the power of the government to lawful activities
>universal male suffrage
>decision-making by a group of people (ie a central planning committee, a politburo, or a senate)

None of these exist in North Korea.

It's literally a medieval/classical monarchy.
>>
>>673294
>implying it doesn't all go to the fall of rome
>>
>>673371

I've read History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides and I still don't understand it except to say that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
>>
>>673294
It is actually one of the best event in history
>>
>>673390
>incapable of stopping an army of peasants

with guns.

Peasants with guns cease to be peasants and become citizens. They learned this from the lessons of the American Revolution.

I think Mao had something to say about political power coming from the barrel of a gun.
>>
>>673988
>Eh, this seems like a way of repeating your previous statements about democracy being good

Well, that's one of the primary causal mechanisms I attribute for democracy being an effective institution.

The core of it is self interest.

If you get it working right, everyone can act in their own self-interest, but the division of power and the freedom of information mean that since everyone has a little bit of power, the government acts in the common interest.

The other mechanism for democracy being useful is the engagement of the common people. Letting people speak their minds and vote in elections is an excellent mechanism for pacification.

Hence why the United Kingdom (I refuse to see a constitutional monarchy as anything but a republic with a weird form of chief executive) has been one of the most stable places on earth since the glorious revolution.

Switzerland has been doing great too.

Incidentally, thank you, you've given me the opportunity to break in my new ergonomic keyboard with walls of text. I don't feel nearly as many carpal tunnel symptoms now.
>>
>>673990
>It's literally a medieval/classical monarchy.
Except it maintains scientific institutions (a thoroughly modern endeavor, considering that modern science wasn't born on the Korean peninsula and has had a demonstrable effect on most countries on Earth when introduced) to keep its high-tech military competitive with all the other modern militaries out there. By your standards the Soviet Union wasn't a modern state. These are interesting theoretical concerns but honestly this isn't a political science discussion, this is a history board. We analyze actually existing states here, not ideal models of a Weberian rational-authoritative state.
>>
>>673719
>blaming the french revolution for mass immigration and not realizing that racism is a product of the enlightenment
>>
Have we had the argument about whether the American Revolution played a significant part in sparking the French Revolution?
>>
File: mao's mangos.jpg (97 KB, 580x402) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
mao's mangos.jpg
97 KB, 580x402
>>673946
I can't speak of Korea, but there is nothing "pre-modern" about China.

The supremacy of the Cetral State above civil society is entirely modern and based on Enlightenment ideas. Pre-modern China had a plethora of voluntary associations, intermediary corps of civil society such as "Kongsis", "Tongs", "Huis" and "Triads". Nowadays, such institutions only exist outside of China or in places such as Hong Kong, in China proper, they were all crushed and their political, cultural, social and economical power, like the powers of the patriarchal family, were transfered to the State.

This worked in the exact way as the French Revolution destroyed the guilds, municipalities, Parlements and regional cultures in France for the sake of centralizing all political power in Paris. The difference between China and France is that this process couldn't be totally fulfilled in France because the Church survived, and from the Church and thanks to Bourbon Restauration, French civil society could be reborn.

What you see in China that you dislike is not a rejection of Enlightenment values. It's it fulfillment. Because the Enlightenment wasn't about political pluralism and devolution of powers. Enlightenment thinkers were genocidal totalitarians who, drunk with Newtonian science, purpoted to find the "perfect" way to organize society and to establish totalitarian rule in the name of the people.

Everything you like about "democracy" in the West doesn't come from the Enlightenment, it's the opposite, it comes from resisting against this expansion of central government that the Enlightenment represented. It comes from the old Medieval liberties and privileges that the English enshrined in the Magna Carta and defended in the English Civil War (unfortunately, the French lost it in the Fronde).

Pre-Enlightenment governance isn't North Korea, it's Switzerland.
>>
>>674021
>The core of it is self interest.
>If you get it working right, everyone can act in their own self-interest
Why is this necessarily desirable, though? And if it's desirable, why is it preferable to a constitutional monarchy, for example?
>(I refuse to see a constitutional monarchy as anything but a republic with a weird form of chief executive)
That's kind of a misleading way of looking at it, if you get so butthurt about people using the word 'Republic' to describe France at the time when Napoleon was appointing his family to important positions in the French state.
>I don't feel nearly as many carpal tunnel symptoms now.
Don't fucking talk to me about your deformed wrists, you Mongoloid.
>>
>>674022
I count the Soviet Union as a modern state because it had a constitution and separation of powers.

This is not always synonymous with democracy or civil rights.

For example, Khrushchev got fired over the Berlin Wall. After Stalin, the USSR developed significant separation of powers within the administrative class.

Sparta had a similar system of government, with a constitution, separation of powers, and rule of law, but not civil rights.

>Except it maintains scientific institutions

Almost all states in history have had some form of civil service.

Scientific institutions are nothing but window dressing if they don't have academic independence and meritocracy.
>>
>>673696
>4th died literally because the french lost indochina
It died because of Algeria, which was a pretty big deal because of the settlers. Nobody gave a fuck about Indochina
>>
File: 1389889832364.jpg (3 MB, 2560x1600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1389889832364.jpg
3 MB, 2560x1600
You know the French Revolution had god-tier propaganda for people still shilling for it after all these years. But we still have and probably will always have some Lenin fanboys too so I guess it's not anything new or unexpected.

More than focusing on constant warfare, horrible diplomacy, administrative incompetence and waste, debts and hyperinflation, incapacity to keep to a budget, dramatic increase in all forms of the predatory branch of the state, mass murder on scales not seen from a very long time in Europe, complete disregard of right and law by self proclaimed divinity of the governors, the true end goal of the revolutionaries from 1792 on is pure bureaucracy.

Of course to some, bureaucracy is the end goal of politics and the highest value, to which they give the names of liberty among others. See itt all those implicitly or explicitly claiming bureaucracy is the "natural" or "obvious" step of "progress" in the march of history.

Curiously many focus on the libertarian-ish first year and a half of the revolution because it makes good propaganda to have some muh freedums. But it had very little impact on the future.

>inb4 Napoleon "La Révolution est finie" Bonaparte was truly a revolutionary at hearth r-right?
>>
>>674040
>Why is this necessarily desirable, though?

If you're a utilitarian, you want the most good for the most people. People generally feel their own needs more strongly than other people. So the more diffuse the power is within a society, the more good it'll do for the people.

>why is it preferable to a constitutional monarchy, for example

I don't see a difference.

The Netherlands and Denmark, for example, are almost exactly the same. One's a monarchy, the other is a republic. Rule of law, and diffusion of political authority is what makes a state work well.

>if you get so butthurt about people using the word 'Republic' to describe France at the time when Napoleon was appointing his family to important positions in the French state

Not me.

>>674039
Well, you run into kind of "Simpsons did it" with political science. Athens and Sparta look a lot like the modern US and PRC, only a couple millennia before us. What a democracy does, after all, is bring back some of the natural liberty that the creation of states took away from humanity. In some tribal societies, you'll find extreme egalitarian tendencies and personal autonomy, just as in the most modern of states. The stages in between are what's weird.
>>
>>673731
>implying a strong centralized Republic is worse than a bunch of peasants speaking irrelevant language
>>
File: Simon_Leicester.jpg (142 KB, 629x768) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Simon_Leicester.jpg
142 KB, 629x768
>>674042
>constitution that limits the power of the government to lawful activities
>universal male suffrage
>decision-making by a group of people (ie a central planning committee, a politburo, or a senate)

Out of these, only "universal male suffrage" only became common after the Enlightenment.

Constitutions limiting the powers of the central government were typical Medieval institutions, just like decision-making by a group of people.

>>674042
Parliaments deposing Kings was nothing something unheard of in Medieval Europe, either.

Again, do you really know what you are talking about?
>>
>>673902
>the entire idea of history is that events cause other events

I sometimes think about history more as a group of correlated events, not linked together causally but rater arising spontaneously out of the aether.

Or something like that. Hume had it going on with the whole "causation maybe doesn't real thing".
>>
>>674103
Again, there's nothing new under the sun.

Democratic customs existed in Europe in the Medieval era, that reached the forefront of political discourse with the Enlightenment.

Universal male suffrage, ironically, is the only one that isn't an Enlightenment value. That didn't happen in most of the West for a long time. In Britain, the greatest of the early modern democratic states, it didn't happen until after WW1.

Still, I think I can safely say that until the Dutch and English republics, monarchy was the overwhelming norm for human civilizations.
>>
>>674034
>had the argument about whether the American Revolution played a significant part in sparking the French Revolution

that's actually an argument? I thought it was fucking obvious.
>>
>>674084
>Napoleon "La Révolution est finie" Bonaparte was truly a revolutionary at hearth r-right?
>Revolution has to continue forever, and can never come to fulfillment.

lol
>>
>>674091
>m-muh tradition
>>
File: napol.jpg (742 KB, 2024x2722) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
napol.jpg
742 KB, 2024x2722
French revolution was Judea triumphing over Rome once again.

Napoleon was the dying gasp of antique nobility.
>>
>>674144
He did all of that reactionary bullshit like repeal the republican calendar, restrict women's rights again, persecuting left opposition, inviting emigres back, and crowning himself fucking emperor.

I'd still have supported him as the lesser of a shitton of evils if I'd lived back then, but I've have grumbled and complained the whole time.
>>
>>674151
Name a few prominent Jewish French Revolutionaries
>>
>>674161
>I've have grumbled and complained the whole time
>4chan in a nutshell
>>
>>674166
All of them.
>>
>>674161
>repeal the republican calendar

good, that shit was fucking retarded arm waving in the name of pointless change.

>women's rights

kek

>persecuting left opposition

they were in the middle of fighting 7 goddamn wars against the whole Europe.

>crowning himself fucking emperor

For the good of the French people and the safety of the ideals of Revolution.
>>
File: gm.png (101 KB, 779x820) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
gm.png
101 KB, 779x820
>>674166

>not understanding the conflict of Judea versus Rome, of slave morality versus master morality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality#Society
>>
>>674042
>Scientific institutions are nothing but window dressing if they don't have academic independence and meritocracy.
You're missing the point, probably on purpose. North Korea has launched a couple objects into space recently thanks largely to their embrace of modern (!) science (btw, the fact that you think of modern science as 'some form of civil service' you're a lost cause). That means a lot more than your arguments.
>>
>>674132
My point here is that the Enlightenment wasn't about these "democratic customs". It was actually opposed to them for it seemed them as "reactionary" and "feudal".

The Enlightenment was about a bunch of French intellectuals looking for ways to standardize politics and governance in the same way Newton standardized science. If the results were "undemocratic" and needed the extermination of half the population, so be it. The Enlightenment wasn't about political pluralism either and they were cool with killing people who disagreed with them.

Basically, they were commies. That's why North Korea can be seen as the fulfillment of Enlightenment ideals.
>>
>>674179
>For the good of the French people and the safety of the ideals of Revolution.

He was already an autocrat as First Consul, the coronation did nothing except give him a shiny crown and a bunch of fancy titles.
>>
>>674086
>If you're a utilitarian, you want the most good for the most people
I'm not a utilitarian, and that's true of enough people that you should provide more and better arguments than this.
>The Netherlands and Denmark, for example, are almost exactly the same. One's a monarchy, the other is a republic. Rule of law, and diffusion of political authority is what makes a state work well.
Denmark and the Netherlands entered modernity in very different ways, though. You can't just make blanket statements like that.
>Athens and Sparta look a lot like the modern US and PRC
Oh boy...
>>
File: Montanhas-na-Suica.jpg (428 KB, 1600x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Montanhas-na-Suica.jpg
428 KB, 1600x1200
>>674091
Of course it is.

There is a reason why the best regions of Europe are those who somehow escaped from centralizing impulses. Like Switzerland escaping the Habsburgs, the Low Countries escaping Philip IV of France, Northern Italy escaping the Hohenstaufen or England always killing it's tyrannical kings.

Meanwhile, in Russia you had Ivan the Terrible destroying Novgorod in the XVIth century and the Tsars ruling a centralized, despotical state ever since. See how great that turned out.
>>
>>674185
It's fundamentally a civil service aim.

The Ottomans had the best artillery in the world, are you gonna call them an Enlightenment state?

>>674187
Really, it depends on which Enlightenment.

In England, the Netherlands, and about half of France, that meant republican, egalitarian, and constitutional states replacing the old hereditary monarchies.

This was the same Enlightenment that led to the French revolution.
>>
>>674233
Well, there are only two Enlightenment, the Scottish one, which was just scientific and irrelevant for this discussion, and the French one, which was as I described.
>>
>>674084
Not questioning the fact that the Revolution ultimately led to an enormous expansion of state power and influence over daily lives, but is that necessarily a bad thing per se? Obviously there are excesses, but i wouldn't just disregard the benefits of police, healthcare, education, etc because it's 'bureaucracy'
>>
>>674265
Well, you seem to think that the act of deposing a monarch and attempting to institute a representative democracy indicates that the French Revolution was about encouraging absolute monarchy.

I find this logic questionable.
>>
>>674276

state pretty much ruins everything it touches. there are only three things the state should be in charge of:

national defense
domestic security
system of courts

everything else should remain in private control
>>
>>674211
You can't be a superpower or a relevant countries without being centralized. History was made by the France, the Roman Empire, Russia, the UK, the USA and China, not by Swiss or Italy.
>>
>>674286

what about infrastructure?
>>
>>674233
>Ottoman "artillery"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Navarino
>>
>>674280
Political history shows that the regime which followed the French Revolution was more absolutist and centralized than the previous one.

Intellectual history shows that the discourse of leading Enlightenment intellectuals such as Rousseau was encouraging of totalitarianism, see his concept of "General will" for example and see if that can't neatly be invocated by whatever Kim to justify the bullshits he do.

I think my point has stronger merits than yours.
>>
>>674317
Revolutions fail.

Doesn't change the intentions of the Founders.

Besides, you're ignoring the whole Enlightened Despot school of thought that the Bourbon monarchy fell under, which the French Revolution directly opposed.
>>
>>674290
I have to concede that point. In the end, centralized regimes win because they are more efficient killing machines.
>>
>>674276
Yep, let's all live the barracks lives where our divinity the state takes gentle care of our lives with its unmatched and perfect record through history of being incorruptible, reliable and cost effective.

>education
>healthcare
That magically appears thanks to bureaucracy. Don't say you like education and healthcare as something special. The difference here is about being the General Will's drone or being independent.
>>
>>674328
Well, the logic behind state intervention is that the market will fail to effectively develop human resources.

Primary education will pay more in tax revenues than it costs, and improve the general standard of living, but the state is the only entity capable of reaping the rewards of that investment.
>>
File: potholesdd.jpg (455 KB, 800x532) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
potholesdd.jpg
455 KB, 800x532
>>674305

nope. there are plenty of countries with privately and locally maintained roads. the government does an atrocious job of upkeep as well. the DMV where our nation's capitol is located has some of the worst roads and infrastructure in the country

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/25/why-driving-on-americas-roads-can-be-more-expensive-than-you-think/
>>
>>674203
So why do you care about it?
Besides it was to try to make France like other monarchies in europe in hope of ending the wars.
And well, I guess he wanted to be an emperor too, that's a fine title.
>>
>>674324
>they are more efficient killing machines.
You can say that this way. I'd rather say they are more efficient at changing societies, for the better or for the worst.
>>
Problems started back when some fuck discovered fire
>>
>>673294
>Implying it wasn't that cunt Caesar
>>
>>673711
> has an infinitely better track record than monarchy
say what?
>>
File: Statue-Augustus.jpg (492 KB, 1500x2250) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Statue-Augustus.jpg
492 KB, 1500x2250
>>673294
>"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the Fall of the Roman Republic."
>>
>>674339
>Well, the logic behind state intervention is that the market will fail to effectively develop human resources.
The "logic" here is straight out admission that being a slave is better than being independent.

>the only entity capable
By state magics. The only reason you see education as regalia is because states have made competition to state schools illegal.

Anyway, this is turning into classical lolbertarianism discussion and away from topic, even though at the end of the day, the revolution is what you get when bureaucrats murder all the opposition to state power at the beginning of a movement to get all of it.
>>
>>674403
>>674395

Republican hivemind get out.
>>
File: FheK3uyauHw.jpg (40 KB, 650x374) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
FheK3uyauHw.jpg
40 KB, 650x374
>>673294
>worst

royalist spotted; National Razor inbound
>>
>>674411
All human societies involve trading independence for prosperity and stability.
>>
>>673731
>"""genocide"""" in the Vendée
>implying they weren't a bunch of traitorous idiotic peasants fighting for the most corrupt institution to ever grace this earth
>>
>>674439
Has a leftist ever acknowledged their genocidal actions?

I mean, most conservatives have in some way apologized over Nazism, and take a great deal of care to not have their discourse confused with Nazi discourse.

Meanwhile, leftists never acknowledge the shit they have done, things like the genocide in the Vendée and Dekulakization, they don't regret it. Are they even humans? I have my doubts at this point.
>>
>>673850
you are obviously confusing "democracy" with "communism".
>>
>>674439
I feel bad for the peasants. They were uneducated folk misled by a bunch of overstuffed priests and haughty aristocrats.

The Count of Artois and his cronies in France all needed a Republican baptism.
>>
>>674439
They betrayed their country, they had help form the ennemies of France and they wanted England to invade France. They deserve what happened. I don't get the whole debate about the massacres in Vendée.
>>
>>674450
I'm proud we crushed these fuckers in Vendée. They betrayed their country.
>>
>>673294
I would go as far back as the protestant reformation. That set the stage for modern democracy and destruction of order.
>>
>>674458
>>674463

Traitors dealt with as traitors deserve.
>>
>>674395
It started with the Gracchi, if you want to get technical.
>>
>>674450
i'm from the liberal right, friend. But, i'm european. this is what is done to traitors. besides, as you damn well know, the Terror in the Vendée was not orchestrated by the National Convention. The Convention just made the mistake of appointing a sociopath for the region, and the man responsible was eventually tried and executed. note that i do not defend ropespierre's nutjobery, i'm more of a dantoniste, but one thing is clear in the period, the monarchy and the ancién régime it sustained had ran France to the ground, and they had to go.

the dekulakization, as you put it, was indeed a genocide tough, and as nothing to do with the events in the Vendée, wich was the forceful, and i admit, bloody repression of a full blown revolt orchestrated by foreign enemies in a time of war.
>>
>>674475
HAhahah, all these """"it started with."""" And what about the antipopes?

Such a futile discussion.
>>
>>674450
>>674455
>>674458
>>674463
>>674477
i see i'm not the only European around here.
>>
>>674491
Whenever you have a mob running loose, the most sociopathic, unscrupulous, and demagogic will tend to rise to the top. It's not an accident.

As far as the monarchy -- I'd argue that the problems came about because it became weaker over time and couldn't govern effectively. Incidentally, this weakness is what enabled the revolution.
>>
>>673629
IT STARTED WITH THE EMERGENCE OF MAJOR ANIMAL PHYLA 540 MILLION YEARS AGO
>>
File: Franklin.jpg (24 KB, 400x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Franklin.jpg
24 KB, 400x400
>>674435
Prosperity is not the end of all and is found in lands of freedom and independence anyway.

Stability indeed doesn't come with independence. Once again, great view of history when all human societies are about turning into a soldier-like status.
>>
>>673294
The French Revolution was merely the bridgehead for the American Revolution.

THIS BOARD IS FOR SJWs
>>
>>674534
I'll be back in 3 days to hear a reply.
>>
>>674534
>The French Revolution was merely the bridgehead for the American Revolution.
>mfw we're on the "history" board
>>
File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (35 KB, 1280x720) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
maxresdefault[1].jpg
35 KB, 1280x720
I'll just leave this here.
>>
File: 136260430577.png (27 KB, 309x367) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
136260430577.png
27 KB, 309x367
>>674534
>The French Revolution was merely the bridgehead for the American Revolution.
>>
>catholic reactionaries still so mad about the Vendee they make a shitty independent movie about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk8ORQZUdqs
>>
>>674534
Are you familiar with the phrase "putting the cart before the horse?"
>>
>>674491
>the monarchy and the ancién régime it sustained had ran France to the ground, and they had to go.
The only thing running France into the ground was the regime of the intendants which the revolution made a thousand time more powerful.
By the way the revolution literally pauperized France which used to be the wealthiest country and everything from the era had to be scraped before the country could become prosperous.

I'm astonished how a man from the "liberal right" could ever come to defend even ironically the state that marshaled the law of the maximum and put into place the most comprehensive system of price setting in Europe since Diocletian and before the USSR.

>this is what is done to traitors
The revolutionaries in their delusion of grandeur and receiving orders from the divine General Will had forgotten to ask vendeens for their opinion. There was not the slightest case for treason against them. They could have seceded and become their own state or a dominion of the Crown of England or Austria. The only "reason" you had against them was the supposedly sacred link to the State godhead in Paris.
>>
>>674556
This film looks like 100% pure keks
>>
>>674582
>There was not the slightest case for treason against them.
Except that at a time when France was attacked by a lot of Européen monarchies, they stabbed their own country in the back instead of defending it
>>
>>674523
You're implying there was a mob running loose. In fact, by the time the Vendée rebellion started, there wasn't anymore. The bourgeois-composed National Convention was running things. And whatever else you call it, you can't call the National Convention "the mob", as they were nearly all well off middle class. The Revolutionary Tribunals, for instance, were created to put an end to so-called "mob justice".

You know what the Terror period of the French Revolution is? It's what happens when you put the urban middle class in power and give them absolute control over society. The poor are bound bu disunity and lack of funds; the rich are bound by education and tradition; but the middle class is truly dangerous when given absolute power.
>>
>>674600
You are acting as self righteous as Robespierre. The fact is that Vendee was the country of Vendeans, not France.

Did you really expect that after violating all their freedoms and independence from Paris that even tyrants like Louis XIV didn't even dare touch, they would get their sons to die for the regime they hated that was desperately trying to deny the very existence of Vendee as something else than a French dominion?

Literally the same reasoning could be used to say the Americans were nothing but lame rebels from the British Crown or that De Gaulle was simply a terrorist against the state.
>>
File: hans hoppe.jpg (69 KB, 850x400) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hans hoppe.jpg
69 KB, 850x400
>>674453
>implying there is a difference
>>
>>674582
This isn't America, friend. Incidentally, by my reckoning, the American "revolutionaries" were nothing but traitors as well.

As for the law of the maximum, you might recall that it was your thermidorian conservative friends and not the jacobins that passed that little piece of economic idiocy.

As I said, in that period my position would have been for Danton (who Robespierre and the CSP had executed) and the Constitution of 1793. I'm no friend of Robespierre and his Rousseaunian friends. I am, however, a committed Republican.
>>
>>673990
Oh fuck off. Monarchies are obsessed with legalism. If it's not a legal monarchy it's no monarchy.
>>
>>674491
>the dekulakization, as you put it, was indeed a genocide tough, and as nothing to do with the events in the Vendée

They have everything to do with each other. There is nothing the left hates more than independent farmers, just read the vitriolic hate of American liberals towards Southern and Midwestern whites in the United States.

Considering how the left doesn't regret either attempt of exterminating independent farmers, I'm sure they will try again in the future.
>>
>>674654
as in: representative democracy, my reactionary friend

>>674653
The Vendée was part of France. And, as i already said, in my view the American were a pack of traitors.
>>
>>674556
Imagine being a Jew and living in a country that openly celebrates the Holocaust as the most advanced moment in politics and the defining moment of history.

That's how it feels to be a rightist in France.
>>
>>674676
all i have to say for your reasoning is:

>18th century Vendée
>independent farmers
>CITATION NEEDED
>>
>>674463
>traitors
You're mistaken, the revolutionaries were the traitors.
>>
>>674606
By "mob" I'm talking about any populist regime. The revolution was so violent at the beginning because there was a power struggle among the revolutionaries. Once it reached a state of equilibrium -- when the hierarchical structure became more or less set -- it settled down. I don't think it has that much with which class is in power.

The basic principle is that whenever people think that they can attain power through violence, there will be violence. That is why strong monarchies work so well. Because nobody believes they can take take power away from the monarch, and therefore there's relative peace.
>>
>>674687
but anon, Israel is full of jews
>>
>>673857
m8, your point regarding republics is right but why do you keep posting Syria as an example? It's a fucking shithole. The SAR is incompetence incarnate.
>>
>>674707
I hope you realize that the people you are calling "populists" were basically intellectuals, lawyers and journalists and even the "sans-culottes" were artisans and shopkeepers, the rabble of Paris being completely inconsequential in the revolutionary process.
>>
>>674661
>your thermidorian conservative friends
I'm not in favor of them by any means.

> the American "revolutionaries" were nothing but traitors as well.
I guess anything but slavery to the state is treason then?

>Constitution of 1793
Bureaucracy : the constitution.
Literally the only man to refer to it in the recent political sphere is Melanchon.

>republic
With a lower case letter. An administrative form, a "technological" matter. Superstition about muh republic allows to score cheap propaganda point in favor of the total state by moving the goalpost away from the relevant parts and focusing on the comparatively irrelevant technical mater of the form of executive power.
>>
Actually, the problems with France began when Louis XIV managed to crush the Fronde.

The French Revolution only finished the work the monarchy had already begun.
>>
>>674752
>I'm not in favor of them by any means
They were the conservatives.

>I guess anything but slavery to the state is treason then?
Trying to break away from your country in favour of your country's enemies in time of war is the VERY DEFINITION of treason.

>Bureaucracy : the constitution.
Literally the only man to refer to it in the recent political sphere is Melanchon.
I did say "in the period", anon.

>With a lower case letter. An administrative form, a "technological" matter. Superstition about muh republic allows to score cheap propaganda point in favor of the total state by moving the goalpost away from the relevant parts and focusing on the comparatively irrelevant technical mater of the form of executive power.
A state must stand on some principle. I happen to believe that the best principle found so far is that ALL men are equal before the law. Any monarchy fails this principle. But if utilitarianism is your thing, then fine.
>>
>>674752
Actually, let me ask you this:
Were the Confederates traitors?

It might clarify your position on the issue for me.
>>
>>674788
No. There is no case for them being traitors. As explained at length by Spooner, a Boston lawyer that spent the 15 years prior to the war shilling against slavery.
>https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

>ALL men are equal before the law. Any monarchy fails this principle.
This principle is directly violated by our current constitution. The President is untouchable, and even not going into the matter of corruption, it is virtually impossible to attack many higher ups in the state.
Monarchs can very well comply with this principle (as far as you consider politicians being untouchable or else it is muh treason) and simply exert an administrative office. I guess, at worst, being selected at birth might be seen as contradictory with the "created" part of the principle but election by suffrage has no more legitimacy than election by birth.
>>
>>674842
Our? As i said, i'm European. And we were talking about 18th century France. Sovereignty is in the Nation, and so election by suffrage is obviously more legitimate than election by birth, which is not legitimate at all.

And the American colonists damn well WERE traitors rebelling against duly constituted authority without even an attempt to redress grievances.
>>
>French Revolution

Reformation.
Most everything that can be considered an issue of the Revolution stems from the Reformation and the ideas it spread.
>>
>>674233
>It's fundamentally a civil service aim.
Albeit a specifically modern one whose existence is a counterexample to your thesis that North Korea's government literally hasn't changed in form at all ever. This is literally basic knowledge about the nature of the history of science.
>>
>>673294
The "ought" worst does not flow from the "is" problematic.

Take your idiocy back to /pol/
>>
So, what was so bad about the French Revolution? Is this another one of those "muh traditionalism" sob-fests?
>>
What was bad about the French Revolution?

Not doubting anyone, just a newcomer to /his/ who keeps hearing that it was bad.
>>
>>673432
this. Jesus fucking christ
>>
>>673294
Only if you're a giant fucking turd-brain.
>>
>>673432
Absolutely this.
>>
>>673547

>gender equality
>racial equality
> The Enlightenment

What kind of crack are you smoking ? If anything the aristocratic women of the pre french revolution era had more power than any women since. And Europe didn't have any non whites to have racial equality with. If you are talking about ethnic equality, then the French Revolution did more to promote the idea of a unified French ethnos that would be played against other ethnos', in comparison to the relatively cosmopolitan aristocracies and monarchies that ruled Europe before. Not to mention that absolute destruction of the majority of regional french dialectics and cultures in the name of a homogenized French state- acting as a precursor to the Nazi's similar cultural barbarism in their quest for Germanic unity.
>>
>>673294
No, it starts with the Jews. Here me out, this isn't a /pol/ack shitposting. Let's go back through time.
>Jews, killed Jesus or if he didn't exist came up with the story that they killed Jesus
>Christianity spreads through the Roman Empire
>The Christian Church is dominant through most of civilized Europe
>Meanwhile Islam is inspired to be created thanks to Judeo-Christian religions, and fucks with the Middle-East
>The Holy Roman Empire is created because of the Pope rewarding Charlemange for saving him
>Austria is made as a result
>HRE falls and Austria expands its empire in the Balkans
>Meanwhile Jews want to take back the Holy Land
>A Jew writes the Communist Manifesto
>Austria takes Serbian clay
>Serbian nationalists assassinate Franz Ferdinand
>World War 1
>Russian Revolution thanks to Communism
>Treaty of Versailles. Middle-Eastern borders are fucked
>World War 2
>Cold War between Communist USSR an America
>Israel is made. Fucks with Middle-East
>America becomes superpower, and fucks with the world to beat the USSR.
>Helps Saudi Arabia and pre-revolution Iran
>Revolution in Iran
>Iran and Saudi Arabia fuck with already fucked with Middle East
>America fucks with it too
>9/11
>America fucks with Middle-East again
>Arab Spring
>Syria, ISIS and new Cold War with Russia
And this is only the scratching the surface. If it wasn't for the fucking Jews ruining everything we'd be living in a Utopian society
>>
>>673294
>and for the truly enlightened,to the creation of the universe
>>
>>674458
>>674463
>>674477
This is either some high class shitposting, some false flagging.
>>
>All these leftist sociopaths
I honestly don't see how one can CELEBRATE death, especially genocide. War is a possibility if just and good, but genocide? How can anyone enjoy the idea in any situation?
>>
>>673294

Representative democracy was a mistake.
>>
>>676675
Why ?
>>
>>675541
Pretty much everything.

Bizarre economic policies turning the most prosperous nation on Earth into a slum.
Complete disregard for law because the rulers were instead enlightened by the General Will.
Constant warfare both civil and foreign.
Large scale massacres.
Complete control of the state over people's lives. The entire country turned into barracks.
Mass levy and the stupid doctrine that everyone is forced to be a soldier. Massification of the army and war.
Violent destruction of local identities and large scale massacres of anyone not showing fanatical devotion to muh republic.
Bureaucracy all over the place making the USSR seem sane.
Hyperinflation and hyperdebt.

It gets a lot easier once you realize the revolution is not revolt with reforms issued after (like, say, the Fronde was) but a millenarist movement, similar to islam or the Münster Rebellion or the Russian Revolution.
It's not so much about this particular or that particular idiocy or cruelty done during the revolution. It was a comprehensive movement for creating a new man.
>>
>>675541
Faggots can't handle the awesomeness of the French Revolution
>>
File: oiCwih9.jpg (22 KB, 367x500) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
oiCwih9.jpg
22 KB, 367x500
>"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."
>>
>>674842
>This principle is directly violated by our current constitution. The President is untouchable, and even not going into the matter of corruption, it is virtually impossible to attack many higher ups in the state.
Dude what
The President is accountable to the Constitution
>>
>>676783
sweet reddit file name man but spamming fedoras isn't an argument
>>
>>676801
Anyone cannot go after the president in court. People in France are not "equal under the law" or related catchphrase.
>>
>>676820
>Anyone cannot go after the president in court.
What does this have to do with anything? Congress can impeach the President and it's a legal body, how is that not accountability to the law within the framework of the Constitution?

>People in France are not "equal under the law" or related catchphrase.
So what?
>>
Worst event in history is the discovery of alcohol.
>>
>>674687
>That's how it feels to be a rightist in France.

Yeah because Napoopan was a far-leftist amirite?

Catholic fundamentalists, not even once.
>>
>>674653
>Vendee was the country of Vendeans, not France
No it's not. They were French. It's like saying that Texans are not Americans. Besides, they lost their right to complain when they betrayed their country. If they didn't want the République, they had to win the élections, not asked the English to invade France. Same thing with Louis XVI : he had the right to be against the République but he lost his right to complain when he tried to flee the country to join the foreign armies who were invading France.
>>
>>673700
>Roman Republic: 500ish BC -31 B.C
>Roman Empire: 31 BC - 1453 A.D.
What now faget
>>
>>677190
>That's like saying Texans are not americans
FUCK OFF
>>
>>673294
The end result is white libertarians shouting at least i'm free and white left wing shouting at least i'm equal, while both are surrounded by brown hordes.
>>
File: 220px-Cathelineau.jpg (14 KB, 220x342) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
220px-Cathelineau.jpg
14 KB, 220x342
>>677394
I prefer the Phalanx formation to repel the unwashed filth of the third world.
>>
>>677070
Napoleon was a pragmatic moderate conservative.
>>
File: 72183190.png (1 MB, 572x795) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
72183190.png
1 MB, 572x795
>>
>>677652
>>
File: lwlpr08558.jpg (430 KB, 1536x1317) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
lwlpr08558.jpg
430 KB, 1536x1317
>>677655
>>
File: DeathorLiberty.jpg (829 KB, 1196x840) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DeathorLiberty.jpg
829 KB, 1196x840
>>677662
>>
I'd say a combination of the French revolution and the industrial revolution. They brought plenty of benefits too, but modern issues stem from them both.
>>
>>676855

>he missed the party
>>
>>673294
French Revolution isn't even the most important European revolution. That would be the English Revolution (aka English Civil War. NOT the Glorious Revolution) or the Dutch Revolution (AKA Dutch Revolt).
>>
>>673294
it is the renaissance
>>
>>673294
Yes, revolution is vain and evil. Friendly reminder to always obey the king.
>>
>>673294
Then we'd look at the causes for the French Revolution and eventually just keep going farther and farther back in time.
>>
File: 1451527274124.png (5 KB, 661x529) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451527274124.png
5 KB, 661x529
>>677375
Many mistakes were made.
>>
>>679835
Revolution is a privilege only granted to Anglos, who have proven capable of self-restraint.
>>
>>673294
I'm fully convinced that Athens inventing democracy was the moment Western government doomed itself.
>>
>>680543
Would western government exist without Athenian democracy?
>>
>>673294
It's true.

European History took a very sudden turn at the French Revolution. There were root causes and greater context to it, of course, but it's the most crucial distinct event in modern-ish history.
>>
>>676855
Quaker detected.
>>
>>676687
Leftists believe that they have a duty to reorder society through political action, since their basis for that is a perfect future society that only exists in their mind, any action is justifiable to get these results.
>>
File: 1445192422302.png (175 KB, 500x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1445192422302.png
175 KB, 500x600
>>673294
>French Revolution
Yes, the biggest problem is I wasn't there to be in it ;_;
>>
File: bouvines.jpg (109 KB, 920x430) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
bouvines.jpg
109 KB, 920x430
For the average reactionary, all problems date to French Revolution; for the more informed, to the Fronde; for the genuine feudal aristocrat, to the Battle of Bouvines.
>>
>>677403
>Phalanx
>not square
>>
>>673666
>nominalism still kick asses
typical of what satan believes.

too bad that nobody is a nominalist today
>>
File: 1446543114028.jpg (160 KB, 400x401) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1446543114028.jpg
160 KB, 400x401
>>673696
>>5th was good with De Gaulle, and is now the emaciated skeleton of what it was/should have been
fifth ends the french revolution, which is what the liberals-libertarians from the classical liberalism and new liberalism wanted.
what we have in 2016 is the realization of their fantasies : a middle class educated by the republic and living for work and leisure. it is the embodiment of hedonism. citizens do not believes much in politics, employees believe much in companies, clients believe much in companies. in fact, being a client is now a moral thing. the republicans long for their fantasy of the republic guiding the plebs, but this can only be done through a small authoritative state. liberals and libertarians love authority far too much to have a big government, without blatantly violating their principles of freedom.
>>
>>673549
>Shitty procaryotic cells deciding to divide
>shitty molecules coming together forming complex compounds
>those fucking shitty quark-gluon shits forming shitty universe
>>
so?
>>
>>680562
It probably would. The British civil war railing against the DroK and gaining each man the vote would have happened despite what happened in Athens.

Plus Athenian Democracy = technically an oligarchy... but with that said I guess the case could be made that Western democracy is as well.
>>
>>673294
And for the paleontologist all problems date to the neolithic revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
>>
ok
>>
>excerpts from an article by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
>http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

>In the Vendee, however, a particularly popular sport among the Blues was to throw children out of windows and to catch them with their bayonets. Equally popular was the practice of slicing open pregnant women in order to chop their unborn children into pieces and then let the mothers bleed to death. Other pregnant women were crushed to death in wine and fruit presses. Also popular was the burning of victims in houses and churches. This bloodlust increased so vehemently that Commander Grignon gave the order that everyone they met was to be immediately killed, even if they were Republicans. A particularly gruesome case involved one girl who was tied naked to two tree branches after being raped and then had to undergo repeated attempts to cut her in half.

>Another amusement for the "Bleus," who referred to themselves as colonies infernales, was to roast women and children in baking ovens. In order to get maximal sadistic pleasure from this practice, the victims were placed in cold ovens, which were then heated.

>Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buildings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing.
>>
>>673362
WW2 was caused by WW1. WW1 was caused by the social structures in Europe that were formed by Napoleon.
>>
>>682179
I'm always skeptical of these types of articles. Maybe its /pol/ but I always take the baby-killing, human lampshades stories with a grain of salt.
>>
>"For the average person, all problems date to World War II
Depends who you ask
For people from post-commie countries this would be quite true, while for America it was what made it a superpower
>>
>>677680
>industrial revolution
this, globalization, death of God and female suffrage
>>
>>681982
ok?! OK??? Are you fucking kidding me right now?! JUST OKAY? DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS 4CHAN??! You can't just be 'ok' with something, you have to disagree. OK?! YOU FOOL! YOU BASTION OF COWARDICE! YOU ARE ABSOLUTE FILTH. HOW DARE YOU ACCEPT WHAT IS GOING ON? HOW DARE YOU BE OKAY WITH THINGS AS THEY ARE?

DO YOU THINK THAT THE CRUSADES WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE CHRISTIANS OF EUROPE WERE OKAY WITH THE TAXES AND MALICIOUS DEEDS COMMITTED BY THE TURKS? HOW ABOUT WORLD WAR II? DO YOU THINK THE WORLD WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY IF AMERICA HAD SIMPLY BEEN 'OK' WITH THE SITUATION OF AFFAIRS? UNBELIEVABLE. OK. WHAT AN ANSWER. WHAT A FUCKING RESPONSE.

GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE.
>>
>>682371
>>>/reddit/
>>
>>673531
>As the debts incurred by the French while sustaining the American Revolutionary War, wouldn't the creation of an Independent American state thus be the cause?
The French aristocracy could have solved this problem if they didn't have their heads up their asses.
>>
>>675546
>>675550
Kill yourselves, tankies.
>>
>>673531
> it was one of the first "modern" nations to emulate a democratic Republic,
>what are the Italian maritime republics
>>
File: blast_from_the_past.png (179 KB, 1017x1014) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
blast_from_the_past.png
179 KB, 1017x1014
>>673432
>>675550
>>675546
Kill yourself.
>>
>>682825
>the spread of democracy to continental Europe was a bad thing

I'm sorry you can only derive sexual pleasure from being wrong.
>>
>>673294
>inb4 in the beginning the universe was created and this is regarded as a bad move by many expert
Oh look a shitpost thread of 300+ posts. Looks like I am too late
>>
File: us-race-map.jpg (230 KB, 1521x1120) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
us-race-map.jpg
230 KB, 1521x1120
>>673294
>to the French Revolution."
USA would still be the multicultural mess that it is today even if a Louis MCMXVIII was sitting on a throne of Fluer-de-Lis.
>>
>>682829
>democracy is a good thing
>>
>>673294
Is that Barry Spaggot?
>>
>>682829
Continentals have demonstrated their inability to properly wield democratic power.
>>
>>673777
>>
>WW2 was caused by the nazis.
>>
Western phenomenology is just garbage spouted by liberal-rationalists trying save their faith in the Human Rights and their science after structuralism, positivism, post-structuralism and post-logitivism.
>>
>>673910
>You can send election monitors to polling stations, and there are a ton of organizations that keep tabs on how well rule of law works in various countries.
yeah, even in France we have no problem with election and false voters.
Thread replies: 319
Thread images: 56
Thread DB ID: 516964



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.