Why do so many liberals object to regicide...

Why do so many liberals object to regicide? Seriously talk to them about the French or Russian revolution and so many are sympathetic to the crown.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cLbPxF6mV1k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because they think real life is high school debate club

There's a weird glorification of monarchy, even around kids. Most disney movies are about kingdoms, princesses, kings etc. and There are probably a thousand kids shows and toys about princesses. i don't know why

because bling and pretty stuff and fancy clothes

i'm for putting all monarchs in a battle to the death cartel style
Nicholas and family didn't suffer enough.

because royalty is super special people and every kid is super special so they are a princess.

Because in the end, most Liberals love and being subjected to authority. They love "law and order," they cheer cops when protestors are beaten, and want everyone to write to their local representatives instead because "that's the civilized thing to do."

Don't forget the Anastasia movie, with its reactionary stupidity.

Because, "liberals" aren't liberals, but actually are muscadin-tier reactionaries. Shillary is their Marie Antionette.

liberals have always cared more about law and order than human lives. As long as authoritarianism is considered legitimate you aren't allowed to do anything against it.

It's a bunch of princessy shit for little girls. At most they pinned it all on Ratpooman.

Because Liberalism is Humanism which is Protestant guilt about leaving the Catholic Church's protection. So they have a subconscious urge to look up to large ancient hallowed institutions of power that will guide and protect them in times of trouble (you see faggot libs doing this with celebrity memes and RT'ing celebs in solidarity with their anguish about Trump; same concept of misplaced fear manifesting as a need for mommy/daddy)

Regicide is the greatest thing we've done since we triggered the Bronze Age Collapse

Since the movie takes place in 1927 there is the massive disappointment that Stalin didn't end the movie in its first act by sending the protagonists to the gulag.

The interests of capitalists always merge with that of the old systems of power during any revolution. France, Spain, Russia etc, this almost always happened. Liberals are bank rolled by capitalists so they come to lament the death of their craven allies.

There's a bit of alarmingly severe irony that a princess (no shit, 100% literal blueblood) wrote a weeby witch story for kids that has no positive royalty whatsoever
(the dragon rules over the other realm but more as a 'central magistrate' who critiques the decisions of judges n shit rather than any normal concept of rulership, and can be overruled by 6 or more no matter the secondary judgment. There's an 'evil queen' but she winds up trolled and sent away by her own citizens as they'd basically turned into Athens+Manhattan in her absence. She returned from banishment literally too dumb to actually rule them.)

Because the bourgeoisie know they are next in line for the guillotine.

Needless to say, it didn't catch fire like Frozen and MLP and B&B. Had a literal booknerd princess IRL and they totally overlooked her!
Damn shame too, I really liked the Avril-esque theme song. youtube.com/watch?v=cLbPxF6mV1k
also, as if to prove you can be a disney princess without being an actual damn princess she eventually learns a magical form based around music.
also the french immigrant girl is such a qt in that beret

hu? what?

How come you regicide the Tsar but you didn't regicide Stalin?

Because people are taught that all violence is wrong, but the systematic abuses of the system are just "how things work" or "human nature." As such, they condemn the violence of the revolutionaries in murdering the royals whilst condoning the systematic violence of the aristocratic order and the millions it condemned to utter poverty or death.

The bourgeois states are pretty violent as where the feudal kingdoms. Even A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain acknowledges how barbaric British feudalism was (despite being pro capitalist).

So? You're still taught that everyone who uses violence is a dangerous extremist or a terrorist, and that you should just vote and go through the proper channels and that doing so will totally change things. Like I said, the systemic violence of the state and system is exempt from this ideology.

pic related is royalist now? lolwut?

Both revolutions were failures that lead to worse tragedies and created philosophies so absurd that they are still hurting mankind today.

Nevermind murdering innocent people simply because of their 'class' is evil.

Monarchism can actually work with communism to varying degrees, no need to regicide.

Because the bourgeois originally aspired to become nobility

Normal people desire stability over war communism and food shortages.

t. 'monarchism is better than democracy' ancap

Monarchies are more long-lived thus more stable than republics therefor Monarchy -> Republic/democracy

What stability and food? The French and Russian revolution came about because both monarchy couldn't even feed the people due to its massive greed and ineptness.

...

The princess cult is only present in the US as far as I am aware of (ironically a state who never suffered under monarchy, they did when it was a colony, but instead on the system, they simply blame that one on the Brits).

I imagine they don't want REALISM in their ideal worlds, where Princesses are always good and just and Queens are the evil ones.
Needless to say a Princess incorporates an ideal that is impossible to reach. Not to say that they used to be bargaining tools to marry off in the good old days.

The scary bit is these fantastical worlds have absolute monarchs. Sure they hand wave it away saying the crown is benevolent yet show them living it up in a opulent palace covered.

It gets more ridiculous if they ever show the masses, for example in Disney Aladdin where a rational happy ending would be the poor masses storming the palace.

I want to see the mental gymnastis that justify this

I kno rite? Feckin' mindblowing. A booknerd even.

ah, so meanwhile over in yoruland they actually go the opposite way and they don't cram Frozen into every damn store no matter how unrelated it is?


well, it might be vidya but Hel Spites in Vandal Hearts was basically Stalin. unfortunately for him his right hand was basically Hitler and stayed within backstab-range at all times
Only example I can think of.
also, lulzy jovial fella.

What do you mean? A king only has propuse if he/she is the absolute ruler like in the old days or at Saudi Arabia.
Nowdays kings and queens have virtually no power and live lavish lifestyles with the taxes of people. They are leeches without a single political responsability besides showing up at some events and adress the nation on christmas time.

It gets me that this guy basically represents Communism in this movie.

Surprised/10

I like that film, but the Anti-Communist BS at the start of it is dumb.

Not realy, he just "caused" the Russian revo in there story.

It is worse in the Golden Films version of Anastasia. They have Rasputin actually storming the palace while leading the communists.

are you false-flagging or what?

Because liberals worship state power above all else and a royal class is the embodiment of that.

A weird sort of unintentional concession about the attitudes of liberals by old Ridley Scott. Holy wars? Barbarism. Dictators-by-birthright? Perfectly fine.

Beavis is the last surviving member of the Hapsburg line