Monarchies are incorruptible

>monarchies are incorruptible

ahahahahahahaha

This bitch got everything she deserved, same with that crypto-fag Nicholas.

No, monarchies ARE corruption.

Agreed completely. Cromwell, Napoleon and Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong.

Friendly reminder that if it wasn't for Louis XVI, there would've been no revolution, and if it wasn't for that revolution, there would've been no communism as communist ideology is an extension to the revolution

The guillotine wasn't enough

Nicholas II was just as bad as Louis XVI though. Both of them got everything they deserved.

Their power is devine, given to them by God.

Friendly reminder that Sup Forums is a Christian board, and Abbos aren't allowed here

What exactly is divine about orgies and rampant decadence? If the Pope wasn't equally corrupted, they'd have been burned at the stake. And they should have been.

>present strawman position nobody actually holds or defends

>react with ridicule and derision to it

>present your reasonable and enlightened point of view

nice strategy, ek2A1/ou
I sure have never seen that before on here

There's unironically a lot of people here that want to go back to times before the French Revolution, when another set of globalist elite did as they liked and enticed themselves in full degeneracy and decadence.

Because they imagine they'd be one of the patricians listening to baroque while eating cake instead of one of the countless plebs who could barely afford bread.

Most of those patricians were extremely degenerate and against most of what we should be standing for. Look up late Roman nobility and especially Bourbon France, and you'll see what was before the Revolution was WAY worse than what came after.

>There's unironically a lot of people here that want to go back to times before the French Revolution
I know, I am one of them
which is why I remarked, that the position you presented is not a position anyone actually holds

the people who currently rule countries and the planet are not aristocrats, they are merchants. The merchants officially took over some 200 to 300 years ago. If we returned rule to the aristocrats we would actually have an acceptable ruling class, nothing great, but better than the people we have today, they are utterly unfit to rule

I've just given you example of said aristocrats being degenerates.

>This bitch got everything she deserved
Why did she deserved it? For being Austrian and helping the plebs?

Sod off, Turnbull.

>rampant orgies
>cucking her husband (who to be fair was just as out of touch and ineffectual)
>lesbian
>stole money from state coffers for her 'wild nights'

She was literally a modern 'young wild and free' girl except instead of leeching from her parents she leeched from the state that she married the monarch of.

>rumours fabricated afterwards to justify executing innocent people
Typical degenerate.

dumb bitch

evidence?

there is nothing that indicates she was set up as a scapegoat

Not how that works. They'd need proof that those events happened. Like how they tried to prove that the kids were abused by kidnapping the princes and having them get molested by STD riddled whores.

This.

And no a few propaganda newspapers don't show anything. The people of France GENUINELY hated her and her husband to the core. The kind of hate that isn't just derived from propaganda.

>STD riddled whores
What? Robespierre got himself a few Habsburgs?

>The people of France GENUINELY hated her and her husband to the core.
No, they mostly didn't care. Not everyone was a traitor. The (((bourgeois))) just wanted more power. The plebs didn't like Marie because she was Austrian, and the propaganda built off that.

YFW you realize all our ancestors did

Was to inadvertently replace one group of open monarchs with a new ruling class consisting of monarchs who hide in the shadows

Uh no, actually read a book. Marie Antoinette and her cuck "King" (LOL) of France were thoroughly hated throughout the country. Revolutionaries don't just spontaneously appear. This didn't start with her either, the Bourbons were known degenerate libertines. If you were making a case for de Valois or Capets, I'd sympathize, but the Bourbon line was degenerate as fuck.

What you should be pushing is Bourbons should've never come for power thus not revealing monarchy as a flawed institution.

There's also nothing to indicate she was a decadent whore who deserved the guillotine. She matured a lot, especially after she had kids.

>Revolutionaries don't just spontaneously appear.
Indeed. They'd been blaming Louis for the weather for a while until they shat the bed. Then of course, the USA were jews (shocker), and that caused more problems.

Maybe you should try reading a book not on the (((CNN))) reading list?

Why didn't you argue the rest of my point? The degeneracy in the French court started with the Sun King. I'm not going to support monarchy because of their fancy clothes and cool uniforms.

If only they were her husband's kids lol

>Why didn't you argue the rest of my point?
Because i agree. Louis XIV did a lot of great, but he also caused the French rebellion.
>I'm not going to support monarchy because of their fancy clothes and cool uniforms.
That's fine. You should support it because it's the most logical form of government.

If the monarchs had a sort of "internal police" that weeded out the degenerates, I would agree. In democracy at least you can vote out the degenerates, as has happened many times.

>Louis gets his peep fixed in 1776
>Their first child is born shortly thereafter
>All looked like him (for good and bad)
Pretty obvious they were his.

>If the monarchs had a sort of "internal police" that weeded out the degenerates
Letting them do their jobs does that.
>In democracy at least you can vote out the degenerates
No you can't, you just have to choose ones in different hats.

>trusting Austrians not to fuck up

They did do their jobs. End result was pretty shit.

>They did do their jobs.
No, they were prevented from doing so by the aristocracy. Otherwise Louis XVI did his job quite well. But the odds were against him, and the french are whiny bitches.

He was completely ineffectual. You still haven't said how exactly the problem of decadent monarchs would be fixed. The Sun King "did his job" and he was even more decadent.

>Implying an ancap society is totally free of corruption
>Implying modern democracies are less corrupt than the monarchies of old

Typical ancap brainlet. No system on early is total without corruption, but monarchies actually have a lot less compared to modern (((democracy)))

>Raised and trained from birth to become a strong and educated leader
>Already have the most power in the land, so can't be bought out by Jews and Bankers
>Physical embodiement of the spirit of the nation - they have a duty to protect and defend their people's nation, culture and racial purity.
>Politicians are only expected to rule for 4-8 years, and can be bought out by companies with interests in gaining politica influence. They also end up being career politicians - why bother looking to protect the nation past the course of your 4 year rule?

It's only a shame the we don't have an absolute monarchy. Our current constitutional monarchy simply isn't enough

Fuck the merchants and the bourgeoisie. Fucking ancap scum, death to all you hedonist monsters.

I'm not ancap, I dislike them equally as much. Marie Antoinette was the Paris Hilton of the time, keep in mind. Or maybe Miley Cyrus.

Also yeah nice protecting of the culture, as has been noted, the French court was decadent as fuck. Even before Louis XVI.

>He was completely ineffectual.
Yes and no. He was regrettably misled by a series of shitty, self-serving advisors. If he hadn't inherited such a clusterfuck, it wouldn't have been such a problem, but alas, fate is not kind.
>The Sun King "did his job"
He didn't. He didn't plan for the future, and played to the sycophantic aristocrats. Basically like politicians nowadays.
>You still haven't said how exactly the problem of decadent monarchs would be fixed.
Easy. Make their salary (enshrine it in a constitution or something) a % of the GDP.

>Marie Antoinette was the Paris Hilton of the time
No, she was just painted as such. She actually helped curb household spending, and spent time helping the poor.
Or do you really think the "let them eat cake" line actually happened?

>Easy. Make their salary (enshrine it in a constitution or something) a % of the GDP.
So you're still for Constitutional monarchy.

And there is quite a lot of proof that she was pretty degenerate and had several lovers.

There's lots of proof Hitler was a flatulent dwarf with no testicles, a club foot, and a second head.
Sometimes listening to propaganda after the fact doesn't tell you the truth.

Of all the monarchs there have ever been, only a small few have actually fucked up that badly. The ones that do fuck up become infamously bad, and people tend to focus on them rather than all the good monarchs in history. Louis XVI was the exception, not the rule. Why don't you mention all the fantastic monarchs that have defended and expanded their nations boarders, race and culture? There have been many more of those than there have been Louis XVIs and Tsar Nicholas's.

It's more than propaganda when several of her close friends have confirmed it, without revolutionary threats. And why would there be propaganda in modern publications? Are you saying random British authors are supporters of the French Revolution?

I mentioned Napoleon Bonaparte, and I respect the man. I support monarchs that rely on support from their people and are actually loyal to their Faith, not to clerical structures. Napoleon was more of a Catholic than the entire Papacy and the entire Bourbon dynasty.

>And why would there be propaganda in modern publications?
Because that's what they had to build from. I've seen history textbooks that mentioned that Columbus was "defying the church dogma that the earth was flat."

So some guy on Sup Forums LARPing that he's the third cousin's brother's father's descendant of the Habsburg-Bourbon-Bonaparte-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Julio-Claudian line is more knowledgeable than numerous historians. ok.

>So some guy on Sup Forums LARPing
Wut.
>more knowledgeable than numerous historians
Yea. Some. Others analyse the material critically and contextually, to come to proper conclusions, rather than just parroting propaganda to sell more books.