>Today, France is in a perilous state and that is a cause of great concern. Of course, if it were only the French Republic that was in peril, I would not care in the slightest and would cheer the downfall of that horrid failure of a governing system.
>The problem is that the root of the current crisis in France, in deed virtually every problem in modern France, can be traced directly back to the Revolution and nothing will permanently be solved until that issue is dealt with.
>In terms of the problem with radical Islam, of course the vociferous attack on Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular in France has done immense damage. >Obviously, this has weakened the French when it comes to dealing with militant Islam as it is difficult to oppose a religion when you have no religion of your own. France was, before the Revolution, certainly not perfect but was extremely confident of its Catholic identity. The French were one of if not the primary driving forces behind the Crusades, the French sent missionaries to lands as distant as Canada to Vietnam and it was Catholic France, under Charles Martel, that turned back the Muslim invasion at the Battle of Tours.
> In addition to the undermining of religion, the Revolution undermined and is still undermining today, the old sense of righteous pride in French nationalism and in-group preference which makes it extremely difficult to respond to the current crisis.
The conclusion of the Revolution should have been the Empire (ie: an enlightened despotism), democracies just do not work.
Michael Phillips
Who would be the new monarchy in France though?
Kayden Phillips
The french revolution was the uprising of the lowest, trash of society.
Literally the triumph of the untermensch
Josiah Jackson
bump
Alexander Powell
there are two claimants and another fag claiming napoleon's line
Only one is French and lives in France tho so probably him
Oliver Evans
>>The problem is that the root of the current crisis in France, in deed virtually every problem in modern France, can be traced directly back to the Revolution
look u guise I have found THE EXACT ONE POINT where everything went wrong.
Weird, France AD 1900 didn't look so bad at all and it was way after the REVOLUTION.
Luckily Sweden still has a king and no degeneracy as a monarchy.
Look, there is a myriad of reasons for the current shitty state of the west and a few of them may have to do with the French Revolution, but pointing at one thing and saying that IT SOLVES EVERYTHING only proves you should read more.
Robert Phillips
Might as well have been marxist.
Fucking Napolean. Absolutely incredible life and actions but goddamn did he fuck Europe.
Jack Flores
The French Revolution completely wrecked France, Spain and Portugal. It is the ultimate cancer. When you guys go your independent, we were already in 25-30 years deep in the negative effects of the revolution. Just after Brazil's independence, Portugal plunged into a civil war because our king (who was your first emperor) was a fucking retard. After the civil war, we had more 20 years of unstable liberal governments guaranteeing that Portugal between 1790 and 1852 went from rich European country to an indebted and ass backwards one.
Gavin Morgan
who knew leftist ideology is more damaging than a 9.0 earthquake
the decline started before the french revolution and solidified during the reign of Louis Philippe
Liam Brown
The virus of leftism and cultural marxism here in America, literally every bit of degeneracy, can be traced back to the hippie movements of the 60's.
That's where it all took hold as a major force, just a while after our best generation fought and died in WWII.
Tyler Sullivan
It is weird that these untermensch were able to field an army that defeated the reactionaries and then the armies of surrounding monarchies who declared war on France..
The revolutionaries/republicans had their own elite, you know, like Napoleon.
Juan Russell
Definitely. The 1755 earthquake completely destroyed our capital and a great deal of our culture. Still, the Portuguese economy managed to be booming by 1765, even though we diverted all resources to development and not the army. That's why Napoleon saw as easy prey. He got fucked over, though, as 3/4 of the soldiers he sent to Portugal died.
- conquer Europe with Napoleon - run a massive global colonial empire - be a global superpower throughout the XIX cent - win WW1
nice definition of "decline" you got there" Pablo
Christopher Price
What are you talking about? Most degenerate political movements were coming from France at the time. And are you perhaps forgetting the Paris commune during 1871 just after France had lost a war against Prussia? France was unstable as ever. Tip the country a little beat towards the ravine, and there France went.
Besides, England far surpassed France during this period. This should make you think, as they are historically on par with each other. And it is not merely due to the industrial revolution, as you can see that belgium largely followed the English path.
Charles Sanders
That 90 IQ shit hole was the first European nation to settle in Canada, you mung.
Still, you're an idiot if you are falling for the IQ meme. It changes very rapidly when countries are going from developing to developed. Spain, for instance, between the 1940s and 1970s registered ridiculous IQ increases. And Portugal grew on par with Spain during that time.
Angel Thomas
People often forget that many (((American))) philosophers got their postmodernist ideas from (((French))) philosophers like Jacques Derrida, Claude Strauss-Levi and Michel Foucault
Justin Reyes
madmonarchist.blogspot.com.br/search/label/Sweden Napoleon lost and his reign was followed by typical french instability, and France has been surpassed by britain since then. By that logic the best period for Russia was the bolshevik revolution
Logan Hughes
>Most degenerate political movements were coming from France at the time
Every country has its degenerates and bizzare fringe politics. The French kept them down after their brief triumph during the revolution (Starting with Napoleon who got rid of Enlightenment radicals) all the way throuh to 1968 when they took over and are in power till today.
Jeremiah Anderson
French decline started with the fall of Napoleon, hit a low point in 187, and culminated in WW2 you massive retard.
If you knew anything about history you would know that the French Revolution was the initial driving force behind nationalism.
Nathan Morris
what ultimately sealed the fate of portugal? here it was republicuck positivists bringing down the monarchy
Michael Sanchez
>If you knew anything about history you would know that the French Revolution was the initial driving force behind nationalism. You're a fucking idiot if you believe this Nationalism has always been a thing, without it there would be no west.
Evan Flores
t. didn't read the article
Typical american fag
MUH REPUBLIC, WE ALL EQUAL NAO
Kayden Jenkins
Totally wrong. Root of current turmoil is 1945, not 1789. After WW2, choice was easy: either you're in front of a communist, either of a Nazi. In first case, you're OK, if not, you're dead. Communists entered governments, official agencies, school system, health system, and many other public offices. Twenty years later, it was 1968, the climax of communist theory in a western country. Nothing to deal with monarchy.
Nicholas Rivera
Stop sucking Napoleon's dick. Napoleon is a child of the Enlightenment. He just imposed order.
France is the most politically unstable country in Western Europe. That is a major red flag right there.
Moreover, most of the famous political philosophers proposing absolute degeneracy were German and French. It's not a matter of everything having them but of the sheer per capita quantity.
Owen Foster
>Nationalism has always been a thing >The West wouldn't exist without nationalism
Before the French Revolution people saw themselves as the subjects of a king, not as the citizens of a Nation. Hell before the revolution European armies were composed primarily of foreign mercenaries.
Any historian will tell you that nationalism began with the French Revolution and spread from there.
Ethan Miller
France has had 16 constitutions since the start of the French Revolution. That's absolutely insane. You're already on your Fifth Republic, and Mélenchon sounded like it wanted to end that one too. That cunt got 20% of the vote and his largest demographic is young people.
Isaac Mitchell
I thought we were beaten by the brits there?
> Again
Daniel Perez
Nope. Never. It was a bourgeois/artistocracy revolution. The people were used as cannon fodder and were a good excuse because they were hungry, but the real roots were:
- The aristocracy felt enslaved by being kep on a tight leash since Louis XIV installed them in Versailles - The "nouveaux riches" (urban bourgeois) wanted more money through carefree liberalism (see: Voltaire), whiche the monarchy didn't allow (see flour wars).
Read more.
Easton Bailey
This. And France was btfo by foreign armies on their own land more than once, lost it's sovereignty for a while, changed their system of government back and forth several times and has been unstable as fuck.
Compare this to britain since the glorius revolution and see who was more stable and sovereign
Anthony Barnes
It doesn't matter. The focus of the revolution was on "freedom" and "self-determination"; on "liberating" people from the "shackles" of superstition and the monarchy. Its fundamental philosophy attempts to put society at the mercy of the individual, which is a blatant contradiction with how societies actually work.
Also, it is not nationalism per se but citizenship, i.e. being loyal to the French constitution instead of God or the king. That's why the revolutionaries forced priests to revoke allegiance from the pope to the French constitution. And that's when they weren't being killed or arrested.
Camden Allen
Italy has many more stability problems. Sorry to recall, but at least France was not a dictatorship in the 70s, France was not a country of emigration from the 70s to nowadays. Talking about stability, check Portugal first. Totally with you about Mélechon. 20% and far more stressful: mostly young people.
Dylan Price
both Portugal and Italy were heavily influenced by french revolutionary and napoleonic thought tho, and Portugal turned into a dictatorship after they became republicucks
Isaiah Cook
Nation has nothing to do with citizenship Nation is your people
Bentley Robinson
Britain was also on an island that protected it from foreign invasions. If they had shared a border with Germany they would have almost certainly lost their sovereignty too, monarchy has nothing to do it.
You could put down France's instability to the repeated wars it fight, the Paris Commune for example was the result of disillusionment with Napoleon III's government after he failed to protect France.
If Britain had seen the same invasions the same might have happened.
Adam King
m8 lol, wtf are you doing? You lost 3/4 of the men who entered in Portugal. The French invasion of Portugal was a major failure, second only to the invasion of Russia. Remember that you needed to invade us 3 times. If you need to invades 3 times in 3 years, something's not going right, is it?
Nicholas Hall
>b-but what about my whataboutism, goy
Same happened in south america. When we were a monarchy we were stable and all the hispanics around were unstable and having major civil wars
Juan Hernandez
A central part of Nationalism is the recognition that you belong to a common people, and that your people deserve a government separate from other groups. This idea was born during the French Revolution.
People gave no shit's whether they were ruled by a French or German king at the time.
Jackson Hall
Because they were nations born of bloody revolts, Brazil had a peaceful transition.
Nathan Taylor
I wonder how many agree with OP and realize it's the Frankfurt School base argument and critique of modern society basically.
OP is a funny guy if he did this knowingly.
Kevin Cook
>People gave no shit's whether they were ruled by a French or German king at the time. Totally right. Wars and territories were kings' businesses. People were only... people. Only good to produce food and pay taxes. No feeling at all about being French.
Lincoln White
Italy has existed for much less time than France. You can't compare it to Portugal, Spain, England or France.
As for Portuguese emigration, you must not forget that our country during the 40-50s was on par with 19th century Britain, meaning that peasants were being displaced en masse from agriculture. That's where the source of migrants to France comes from. They migrated in hordes both to France and to major Portuguese cities. And they went to France because you guys were on a building spree for some reason and you lacked manpower. Our country was stable during the years of heavy emigration.
Then, people migrate today because leftism has destroyed our labor market. You have one very very protected side and another completely unprotected with very low wages and no rights whatsoever.
Jeremiah Adams
>had a peaceful transition And that was because republicans didn't have their way. After 60 years of monarchical stability we went the same route as them when they deposed the king
Eli Lopez
democrocies were neccesary to get past the industrial revolution and into the computer age at least
Jayden Sanchez
Wrong.
Cooper Campbell
The conclusion I get from all this is that there shouldn't have been a revolution in the first place.
Gas the philosophe kikes.
Gabriel Barnes
>Italy has existed for much less time than France Can't agree with you. Check maps from before XIX. Italy was a hell of tiny provinces for centuries. Italy is born in 1860. About Pt situation: proof that relative stability doesn't mean prosperity.
Jordan Nelson
democracies were not necessary at all, nor was the US ever intended to be a "democracy", with universal suffrage or any other garbage.
Jace Harris
Spain was formed in 1516 and it is the older kingdom out of Portugal, France, Spain and England. So, you're telling me that Italy formed 350 years after and that that's not recent? Italy was a historically fragmented country with some hope of uniting someday, much like Germany. You can't expect Italy to be stable after unification, as there are always a lot of vested interests against such political projects within the newly unified countries themselves.
Nathan Gonzalez
Think about that sentence when China surpasses you.
Jace Diaz
Oh shit madmonarchist I remember watching his youtube vids back when I was a teenager
Jonathan Green
Monarchists are the worst kind of authoritarians. Democracy needs more restrictions than we have now, but we should remember that democracies have massively improved living standards. We would all be worse off if reactionaries had gotten their way during the 19th century.
Ethan Diaz
>About Pt situation: proof that relative stability doesn't mean prosperity. This
Italy was less stable than the UK and more prosperous until the 1980s.
Jayden Rogers
This is not true for Portugal but I don't know about the French or German case. Our peasants had a millenary tradition of persecuting invading armies on the run and ambushing them, attacking them face to face and killing them. They did it during the French invasions of Portugal in the 19th century too but this shit dates back to the Reconquista and independence wars versus Castille.
Anthony Sullivan
Apologizes. Was too quick on my keyboard.
Samuel Powell
>but we should remember that democracies have massively improved living standards.
How stupid can a person be to ascribe advances in technology to the form of government? Our countries are fucking dying under the inevitable end of "democracy".
Isaiah Carter
What do you mean relative prosperity? You're talking about Portugal in the 60s or today?
Bentley Robinson
Are you sure?
>The French Revolution, in case anyone has forgotten or was never told, was not a result of the democratically expressed will of a majority of the French people. Large sections of rural France, large sections of south and western France actively opposed the Revolution and many more people were terrorized into tacit support or at least passivity by the Reign of Terror which the revolutionaries launched against all who opposed them. The French Revolution was not a triumph of the majority but the beginning of a sad history of the Parisian mob being allowed to bring down governments and ruin things for the rest of the country. After the First Republic led to the First Empire it was destroyed and the Kingdom of France was restored. However, once again, the Parisian mob brought down the monarchy and France had the short-lived Second Republic which mutated into the Second Empire. That was destroyed, not by the combined armies of Europe but by the Kingdom of Prussia and pals at which point a full restoration of the monarchy was prevented ostensibly because of an inability by the royal heir to compromise on the French flag. Divisions among the royalists allowed the Third Republic to take hold but in 1940 it died a largely unlamented death at the hands of Nazi Germany. It was succeeded by the “State of France” which, while not a restoration of the monarchy, was at least somewhat of a renunciation of the French Revolution. However, the ties it necessarily had to have with Nazi Germany in order to simply exist meant that when the war ended in defeat for the Axis Powers, the State of France was demolished and its memory forever tainted by the odium of collaboration with the hated conquerors.
>Thus followed the Fourth French Republic which quickly failed to pass muster and so today France is on its Fifth Republic.
Connor Diaz
>What is China >What is Japan >What is SK >What is Spain >What is Portugal >What is Singapore >What is Chile These countries all developed under non-democratic regimes, or at least very authoritarian democracies. Want to add more, guys?
Ian Wright
>Obviously, it should be considered no accident that France could have a single monarchy for a thousand years but has gone through five different versions of the republic in less than two centuries. The revolutionary republic clearly does not work, every incarnation of it has ultimately failed and yet, because of the persistence of this zealous devotion to the image of “The Revolution” the French keep being dragged back to it to try and try again. Most of the leaders who have stepped forward to save France in times of disaster knew or at least suspected such from Napoleon to Marshal MacMahon to Marshal Petain to General DeGaulle, one was a royalist, two had at least some royalist sympathies and the other promoted himself to monarchial status on his own.
>The bottom line is that, as is often the case with such matters, the Kingdom of France was a natural, organic, living thing. It was a country, a nation, a people with a unique history and culture. The revolutionary republic is an artificial contrivance that tries to replace history and ancestry with ideological slogans. And what is the result? The result is that the church where Charles “the Hammer” Martel is buried is now in a Muslim neighborhood, part of the department with the highest proportion of immigrants in all of France. Is that not a perfect example of the state France is in today? The man who is most famous for winning the battle that defeated the Muslim invasion of France is today in his grave surrounded by Muslims whom the French government has allowed to come in peacefully to live and settle. The man who “hammered” the Saracen invaders could, were he able, probably now hear the cry of the muezzin from his resting place on a regular basis.
Julian Hill
>But, of course, Charles Martel, this great figure of French history, this savior of France, was everything that the current French Republic, informed by the values of the Revolution, considers deplorable. He did not believe in equality, he did not believe in tolerance, he did not believe that the Arab invaders of his country were to be treated like brothers, that they were indistinguishable from his own people. This, I would argue, is why his France lasted for a thousand years and post-Revolutionary France is stumbling toward oblivion.
Jason Davis
Yes I'm sure having read Adorno, Marcuse & Horkheimer.
James Watson
The revolution was originally some kind of libertarian movement : right to free speech, right to own guns and use them in self defense, right to property, etc, all the stuff that was illegal for the vast majority of people under the monarchy. It unfortunately got hijacked by blood thirsty tyrants like Robespierre, who turned it into some kind of insane anti-christian genocidal dictatorship. Much later it got hijacked by marxists, and this is where we stand today. Muh republic, in the mouths of leftards, means authoritarian socialism.
John Robinson
>What do you mean relative prosperity? You're talking about Portugal in the 60s or today?
I've heard itt Portugal is allegedly more stable than other countries, but suffers in the same time from low wages and emigration. Conclusion: more relative stability (compared to other countries) doesn't grant prosperity.
Benjamin Bailey
I didn't mention technology you dumbass.
I'm talking about property rights, patents, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and most importantly the ability to remove a batshit insane leader if he's not performing well.
Michael Wilson
> In addition to the undermining of religion, the Revolution undermined and is still undermining today, the old sense of righteous pride in French nationalism and in-group preference which makes it extremely difficult to respond to the current crisis.
it is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views were different from theirs was insane. For these Jewish intellectuals, anti-Semitism was also a sign of mental illness: Christian self-denial and especially sexual repression caused hatred of Jews.
Adam Robinson
>in the mouths of leftards, means authoritarian socialism
Nothing to add, perfect.
Ryan Ramirez
>the revolution meme again
france didn't turn to shit before RECENTLY the revolution has nothing to do with current situation
Jeremiah Garcia
>It unfortunately got hijacked by blood thirsty tyrants Now where have I seem this before?
Asher Bell
I honestly have no idea of what you're speaking about, though it may be french education failing me, since Napoleon Wars here are of course taught from french side (and Napoleon was going all over the maps, so it's easy to miss his failure in Norway, despite being important for Norvegians). I just remember the brits beating us, sorry.
Brayden Mitchell
>property rights, patents, freedom of movement, freedom of speech >results of democracy
Read your own founding fathers nigga
Asher Hill
I don't think french in the Ancient Regime were as nationalists than frenchmen in the revolution and until 1914. In fact I think no one else in the world were as mad as they were, every anthem composed during that era was basically begging for war and death. I'll add that if monarchists were indeed nationalists, they wouldn't betray their countrymen and sell the country to foreigners
Austin Rodriguez
Positive bias. A greater percentage of democracies have been successful than authoritarian regimes.
It works great if you have a capable ruler, but what happens after he's gone? Most of these have moved towards democracy for a reason, and those that haven't have a semblance of democracy.
Michael Reyes
These natural born rights have historically only been guaranteed in democracies.
Stability is a wide concept, in my view. If you consider political violence or calls to revolution, Portugal is stable because our people are not fond of using violence for political means. When things go wrong, we don't chimp out like the Greeks did in Athens. We are historically peaceful unless we were removing kebab or we were invaded.
However, Portugal is absolutely not stable when it comes to politics, namely policies, themselves. We have a rotating political parties in power, just like the burgers do. But what characterizes us is the fact that whenever party A goes to power B, it immediately reverts literally everything party B did before them. So, you have cycles of 5-10 years, where education policies, labor regulations, tax policies, willingness to pay debts and control government budgets, etc. change wildly. The biggest complain foreigners and investors have about Portugal is precisely that they never know what to expect, because any commitment a government makes today is very likely to be reverted in the future. For instance, we privatize our major electricity producer to some Chinese investors (which is frankly stupid imho). When the next government came into power, it immediately started questioning the contract signed by the previous one, and trying to change everything. The Chinese threatened to sue in international court and the things calmed down but you can tell that if any excuse is found to fuck over the Chinese, they will be fucked over.
So, I'd actually argue that Portugal is not stable at all. That is precisely one of the things that is wrong with my country. Also, whenever someone suggests that governments today have some ability to bind future government's actions, you are immediately decried as anti-democrat with fascist tendencies.
What Salazar's Portugal did well was this stability. To Salazar, stability was the most important goal. Portugal at the time was a trustworthy country. As a result, it grew 6% a year in the 1960s
Connor Barnes
Hum yes my dear quite a delightful fart but you forgot that France unironically peaked during the reign of Napoléon III therefore we cannot blame the revolution, it should have happened and it happened therefore my dear yes quite a delightful smell oh yes my dear think again sweetie *seap tea* ps : alll Hail to the Emperor
Robert Richardson
How is the monarchist scene in portugal?
Brandon Bennett
Quick breakdown on French invasion of Portugal: >three invasions, 1807, 1808 and 1810 >1st was easily won by the French but then you were kicked out >the other ones were won by Portugal/England with a mix of scorched earth tactics with heavy popular support, guerrillas by peasants and good defensive tactics on our side >in the 2nd and 3rd invasions, the French and Spaniards lost up to 3/4 of their men to desertion, disease and death in battle. >The major factor behind your loss was that whenever you entered deep into Portuguese territory, your supply lines were immediately cut. This allied with a national policy of scorched earth meant your soldiers were always starving, and easy prey.
Blake Wright
No. It's about having rulers focused on political stability by setting up clear rules of governance and being keen on enforcing property rights and some social mobility. It has nothing to do with democracy.
Don't forget that most dictatorships in Asia, Africa and the Americas don't follow this pattern. Instead, power is exercised arbitrarily.
Evan Smith
>Wars and territories were kings' businesses. >People were only... people. Only good to produce food and pay taxes. >No feeling at all about being French.
Tu sonnes comme le classique paysan Français complètement loser...
Joshua Turner
Dead.
Aaron Wilson
Would they have had access to the technology of the industrial revolution and computer age if we didn't invent it first or would they still be in their country side rice fields all century long? China will only surpass us if they give up their current system of corruption, which who knows maybe that's where they're heading but Democracy or not the people have to at least have the means to live prosperously.
Carter Jones
jews
Aaron Mitchell
Funny. Ours ended 21 years before, it was illegal to be one for 99 years and yet pro-monarchy sentiment and interest in this period is growing now
Matthew Hernandez
The industrial revolution or the innovations in computer technology have nothing to do with democracy. Go back to plebbit.
A country which thrives in democracy would thrive in a dictatorship or a monarchy too.
Jose Butler
Call it the (((capitalist))) revolution. We don't need monarchy we need classical aristocracy.
Wyatt Miller
I agree
Samuel Young
He is wrong, but he's close.
In order to get to where we are now it was necessary to have liberal government, it isn't necessary for liberal government to be democratic, it can be a dictatorship, a democracy, a complex republic etc.
The reason why we have federal republics and democratic monarchies and not dictatorships is because dictatorships are hard to keep liberal and they tend to need to violate civil rights to stay in power even when they ARE respecting the civil rights of their citizens otherwise.
Pinochet is a great example of a liberal dictator, but all he did was pave the way for the current democratic Chile, he wasn't a permanent solution.
Eli Hall
Also, I find it amazing there are still burgers who think like neocons. Haven't you already shown the world that "spreading democracy" does not work? The reason is simply: there needs to be something else there in the first place which allows for political stability.
Isaac Sullivan
True
Grayson Martin
I'm not saying that, I know democracy has limited usefulness, I was just suggesting that at the very least it helped move us to where we are today, but I agree that a country that thrives in a democracy would probably thrive through other means as well.
Evan Lopez
>And are you perhaps forgetting the Paris commune during 1871 just after France had lost a war against Prussia? France was unstable as ever. >Paris not accepting French governement cuck to give Prussia victory just because they caught that retard of Napoleon III >Also because they successfully defended Paris with very little food >this is somehow bad Are you retarded ?
