The French Revolution was the most cucked event in history

Nigger, you fell for low effort trolling

Its true though

The French Revolution and the Enlightenment were the beginning of the end of western civilization.

Fedoracucks love to pin the blame of modern degeneracy on Christianity (which is laughable), but it's actually their AIDS-ridden "Age of Enlightenment" that pozzed up western civilization's neghole. Communism, atheism, feminism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, liberalism, zionism, freemasonry, etc. all trace their origins back to this moment in history when Christianity had been declawed and monarchies were abolished.

Traditionalist Christian monarchies are the way that men were meant to be governed.

Yeah, and so? I'd have a nice little plot of land, a traditional farmer waifu who has no time for feminism, there would be no degeneracy to worry about, and I'd be able to live a peaceful family life. I'd trade away all the so-called conveniences of modernity for a chance at that.

Fuck off christcuck murrifat!
>>>/christian/

Fucking christcucks

It was equally degenerate, it's just that average people got to partake in the degeneracy, which was a privilege of nobles before that.

They went too far, but their original stances were completely legitimate. No self respecting man should accept the tyranny of incompetent and self-absorbed rulers.

Some people here have a hard time distinguishing aristocracy from monarchy/nobility. Only few royal lines, and only during the certain periods of history were truly aristocratic, the others were subhumans who ruled solely thanks to inheritance and led both their families and their countries to ruin.

Aristocracy - rule of the best, not necessarily inherited

Nobility - rule of the inheritors, even if they are objectively the most unfitting people for the role

Yeah man there was so much feminism post-Rome during the dark ages, the medieval times, the renaissance, etc. Those eras are famous for women voting, having abortions, being huge sluts, refusing to have children, and demanding to be wage slaves in jobs outside the home.

Fucking retard.

The French Revolution is definitely the floodgates opening on up, but there's a reason it got so out of hand in the first place.

It's not like Europeans hadn't interacted with nonwhites on mass before. The Spaniards spent 200 years previous all but looting them. Yet here is the start where we see proto-shitlib thought developing, egalitatianism, muh feminism, muh anti-racism, anti-slavery - why did they become the only major lasting result of the revolution, and why did these most pozzed of values surge across Europe so in the decades that followed?

If this D/C was any more typical I'd be impressed, moishe.

Not an argument

Christian feminism says that women are valuable—as mothers, consecrated virgins, or nuns.

Modern feminism says that women are valuable—outside of marriage, with absolute sovereignty over their own body, and as "smashers of the patriarchy".

Don't be retarded.

oh christcucks

And i assume you can define Traditionalist Christian Monarchies? Despite the fact that Christianity has changed tremendously during the centuries, as it's doctrines kept getting BTFO by enlightenment thinkers. And which Christianity, Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy? Or one of countless pseudo-Catholic sects?

How is this equal to feminism? It's a stupid tax, but it's obvious the incentive was to force men into creating families. It has nothing to do with "gender equality".

Only a literal faggot would want to be a bachelor during this time period. Having a wife who has zero ability to divorce you, and very little access to cheating on you, was the norm back then. Not wanting a wife under those circumstances would make you a queer and therefore your opinion worthless.

"Traditionalism" and utopian thinking (such as yours) are antithetical. Gb2dustinofhistory, Kant.

Slavery is for Jews and subhumans, as it's inherently parasitical. No self respecting man could own slaves, because it means he is incapable of producing what he needs himself (or trading for it).

...

It's pretty easy to defend your case when you've never staked the claim as to what your case is.

Make an argument or get out.

corrected version of>>7316313

It's pretty easy to defend your case when you've never staked the claim as to what your case is.

Make an argument or get out.

ffs

(You)

corrected version of

It's pretty easy to defend your case when you've never staked the claim as to what your case is.

Make an argument or get out.

...

If you want to live in the stone ages so much then fuck off to the sandnigger land where that dead kike on a stick came from.

You may want to check out >>>/test/

Top kek

Is it not? Country's like Estonia and Iceland have way lower divorce rates then the United States despite having a much larger population of atheists.

I actually agree.

The french revolution and the Russian revolution were the most cucked events in history.

But the roman empire employed slavery?

That's cos America is a melting pool of niggers and spics

Napoleon was right

So the religion doesn't matter then.

Top kek

What does shitskins in the US have to do with Iceland and Estonia having large population of atheists? Is perhaps race more important the religion?

Iceland has the world's largest amount of bastard children/single mother homes. Maybe there's low divorce, but that's because cunty feminist women in Iceland don't even bother tying the knot in the first place.

What matter is that there is a religion that promotes it, which name the religion goes under doesn't matter imo

Christianity the mainstream version doesn't promote anything good anymore.

You have gay lesbian bishop now, fully endorsed by the Church.

top lel

And these bastard children would still be more valuable than christian niggers and spics.

The jews hate christianity, yet christian has millions of supporters, in various races.

Children of single mother homes overwhelmingly end up as faggots, beta cuck nu-males, perverts, social autists, or other useless wastes.

I'll take a Ben Carson Christian brain surgeon nigger over some Icelandic male feminist cuckold literal faggot, sorry.

You don't seem to realize that you've succumbed to the enemy's indoctrination. Pathetic.

That's what you did. I just pointed that out.

Traditionalism is a buzzword anyway, as you have countless different traditions that have defined European history.

If Roman Empire employed public gay orgies, would you try to recreate them now?

You've got to realise why this event actually happened, people were sick of living under a monarchy that was detached from the common man.
If the French Revolution never happened, you can bet the world would be extremely different.

As long as it employed gladiatoral combat, sure, why not?

You believe this bullshit?

Then you have cucked yourself.

Ben Carson is good, but a white male will be superior to him by virtue of being white.

Of course, they were all eating cakes.

...

A white homosexual is thousands of times more worthless than an average nigger or spic.

Surely you support Trudeau in his workings due to his whiteness then?

Being white today means all too little, since so many are self flagellating cucks

Uh, no, because an average nigger or spic breed more nigger and spic.

The white homosexual doesn't breed at all.

I would support Trudeau if he isn't a spineless cuck.

But there are better white males than him.

Unless you confine my vote to ONLY Ben Carson or Trudeau then I will vote Carson.

The white homosexual breeds diseases and molests children, creating more homosexuals.

And niggers and spics only breed at their current rate because the government subsidizes their existence. Cut off all the gibsmedats (as you'd expect in a monarchy) and their population would nosedive within a generation.

statistically speaking democratic republic has been the worst form of government France has been dog shit post monarchy

Reactionaries have been saying that since the 18th century mate.

Neoreactionaries moved the bar up to the enlightenment. I agree, if you don't, just give yourself more time. Populism is a cancer.

Spics and niggers breed the fastest in their own countries, not even in the USA.
But they will never create anything, they will just corrupt existing things, unlike the spics and niggers who can create and corrupt things.

Which statistics and what was measured?

As far reaching as the events of the French Revolution have become, I wouldn't say it's the single most cucked event in history.

That would be South Africa willfully turning over control of their government to a horde of communist niggers so that they could spend the next several decades being raped and murdered.

No that was the renaissance.

popquizz
what has democracy achieved of greatness in a country other than USA?

hard mode: no google

USA is not a democratic country kek

You are right.

You now discovered why they destroyed Napoleon's empire.

>>>Holla Forums
>>>/nigger/

nigga you have to dialectically overcome the civic cuck shit, the ethno-nation is the dialectical evolution from the civic-nation-state since it properly combines the universal element i.e. the active mastery implied in service to the state with the particular element i.e. the feminine element of the family/race/breed in synthesis. read alfred rosenberg you newfag

This. If you go back and actually study history, including the conditions at the time, you'll realize why it was perfectly natural for the people to revolt against their selfish and stupid nobility. Granted the civic nationalism cancer that it eventually spawned was bad, but when you read genuine historical sources about the peasants life in France, you'll wonder why they didn't rev up the guillotine sooner.

Well I was trying to give him an start advantage

Too bad 8ch is full of retards who can't muster the intelligence to read this and respond.

But did he revoke their rights to own land, which the Revolution emancipated them from under the Ancien Regime?

I guess this is why they portray him as literally Hitler in some critiques.

Hi there Common "Godly Nigger" Filth

Maybe. Napoleon was pretty based, though. That was the first beta uprising.

I said, 'Napoleon was pretty based tbf'.

On Enlightement, I did bother out of curiosity to read the "Social Contract" By Rosseau.

To my surprise I found out that he suffered something in reverse of the Zyklon Ben phenomena, as in he is treated as an extremely egalitarian humanistic liberating character, when he is none of that.

He defends a social contract, and says many things that would make the left of today tremble:

-That a slave loves to learn his chains
-That democracies are doomed in big countries
-That -any- representative democracy will fail
-Only direct democracies with a population that can fairly know each other can work (small countries again)
-It's actually ok to have temporary dicatorships like in Rome, then back to democracy

This is all in Rosseau's Social contract. Say any of the following ideas listed to a leftist who loves progress, see him getting triggered and going "muh enlightenment" and then point him it comes from Rosseau.

After that apreciate his denial that reminds of Luke denying Vader is his father

Jacobins and their ideological ilk should have been mass murdered. They began the proto-communism cancer that's destroying us now. Jacobins lost in Europe for nearly a century but they took over America with the war between the states.

I deeply hate these people and every memory and monument to them needs to be eradicated and their legacy wiped off the face of the earth. Their legacy needs to be cursed and viewed with contempt until they're no longer part of memory. The Lincoln monument needs to be crushed to dust and dumped in the Ganges river that the Indians shit in.

hi shlomo

*slave learns to love his chains

Point being, overton window wise, many of his ideas by today's leftwing standard are actually reactionary.

That's how far we shifted to the left since his time.

Modern leftism has practically nothing to do with the enlightenment. Nor does it have anything to do with the left movements from the 19th and 20th century, that would be seen as fascist today.

What most likely happened with the French Revolution is that they were Holla Forums tier initially, but then the kikes took over and perverted their ideas into a modern abomination.

I know. Problem is, said movements are painted as very leftist, when they aren't.

Revolutions of 1848 were actually about Nationalism for example.

But they get sold as "muh progress for equality"

Imagine Holla Forums in 200 years being painted as a marxist egalitarian breeding ground.

That's what happening to some of the movements that had more to do with feudalism infighting than "marxist egalitarian" ideology.

Rousseau was incredibly inconsistent in his ideas, primarily because he was an attention-seeking public intellectual, who literally survived by saying edgy things to wealthy noble people who were suckered by him. In his "On Inequality in Man" he basically says that the agricultural revolution was a mistake, and we should all go back to being jungle-bunnies, but in other works he says that the government should have all responsiblity for raising children.

Rousseaus ideas can be interpreted in a million ways, and he was mostly influential because other navel-gazing lefties created a cult of personality around him.

Haven't read "Inequality of Man", but his idea of wildlife savage noble life come from Idylic descriptions in text of sea explorers who had been in primitive tribes.

In other words, Rosseau himself NEVER interacted with people from before the agricultural revolution. What he imagines as noble savage is what was real in his mind, rather than his experience, which was literally 0.

But on Social Contract he is very consistent that Democracy is for Small countries small communities, and that Representative Democracies are doomed to represent groups of interest (what today is called Lobbies, or ZOG) rather than the people.

0/10 the pinnacle west civs were pre christcuck. Does anyone daydream about living in the height of christcuckery? No, they dream of Rome, Greece. Minoans, ..

Stop with the D&C. Kikes destroyed families, not lack of Christianity.

They were practically national socialists. It was not the socialism of proletariat (Marxism) or modern "socialism" with gibs for niggers (Where capitalists are practically buying support of the lowest classes so they don't rebel, that's paid by the middle class which works for both)

It was primarily nationalism, where people were equal under the law (compared to feudalism) and were given equal opportunities in life (supposedly), but it never guaranteed the equality of outcomes. And it was collectivist in the sense that individual interests were incorporated into the national interests. It was not "leftist" in either the Marxist or modern sense.

This is another case of kikes obscuring history.

But Rome was Christian and the biggest Christianity defender rivalled only by the Crusdes

Correction, Rome in its greatest era was pagan.

The pinnacle of western civilization was neither Rome nor Greece. Only (((implicitly white))) atheist/pagan faggots think so. The pinnacle of western civilization was just after the French Revolution when European Christians owned almost the entire globe, and just before the worst of the englightenment/modernist poz settled in and destroyed everything.

*Crusades

Sorry for typos

Well exactly, that's what I came to realize. The "reforms" that are teached are fabrications/corruption of history in the name of equality and possibly marxism, the real ones would have more in common with fascist movements in XX century than communist movements

Opinions. Regardless, greatest projector of Christianity in History was Rome, surpassing the Vatican and Crusades.

Never forget the 6 million shekels that were lost to Napoleon's debt holocaust

Rome fell after it became Christian. But not before they spread that jewish poison to most of their provinces with fire and sword.

The largest the geographical area of control attempt, the bigger the instability.

It's like fireworks. Spetacular display of power, but very ephemeral, and disappears very quickly leaving as legacy generations of nostalgia.

Not opinion, literally biggest empire in Europe when it was pagan.

From inception there's born a sinner, everyone god's children. You're guilty before you're even born and you and niggers are the same.

Eastern Rome was Christian and lasted 1000 years more than Western.

Eastern Rome refused to have foreigners have doing military service and unpleasent jobs like Western Rome did.

Don't be fooled, the Christian killed Rome is a meme/narrative to divert attention from mass immigration current elites defend.

Biggest =/= Better

By your logic Mongol Empire is vastly superior to Rome in terms of legacy and human potential fufillment.

Still better than allowing whites, spics, niggers and moslems to all have equal voting rights.

She's a qt and I share this shame fantasy - I'll give you that - but she needs some boots on her feet.

But user there wouldn't be billions upon billions of Africans and other various shitskins if not for decades of misguided christian charity.

The only thing unstable about Western Civilization at its rightful peak was the influence of kikes. If white people weren't stupid enough to let the Rothschild family D&C Europe and have major wars between white Christian brothers, then there never would have been such a monumental collapse.

Romans converted to Christianity because Roman society was already collapsing. Fuck off with this atheist historical revisionism.

>>>/lgbt/
>>>/cuteboys/
>>>Holla Forums

A-
you forgot to say who was directly implicated in this

Roman's legacy was the Englightenment, so I'm not sure you would like that.

But yeah, bigger and longer do mean better.

Roman converted to Christianity before they collapse.

Christianity certainly did not save Rome.

Basically, you had Holla Forums like movements and kikes waging wars for centuries, if not longer. What happens is that kikes always subvert those movements (usually with money) and make them do their bidding, and then claim how they were always like that. I mean look what's happening right now. The extent of their manipulation of history and public knowledge is huge.

Christianity saved the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. It lasted all the way until 1453. They even reconquered a ton of land lost to infidels in North Africa specifically so that they can spread Christianity to them.

And again, Romans converted to Christianity as the empire was collapsing. You guys make it sound as if one day while at the peak of the empire everyone in Rome converted to Christianity and then the next day it collapsed.

There's a book which analyzed the personality of leftist thinkers and Rousseau was the first one discussed and the author specified exactly what you said. I think it's Intellectuals by Paul Johnson.

Stop that.

crusades weren't about defending christcuckery.

youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y#t=2m45s

The final fall of rome came from a combination of the plague that wiped out a third of the population, just finishing the latest prolonged wars with persia that depleted yet more manpower and resources, and then mudhammad attacking at that time.

youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y#t=2m45s

Well Rothschild family had a Meteoric rise in status and power by financing both wars of Napoleonic Wars.

I guess Napoleon understood war, but missed totally the potential power of financial international clique, and was defeated by it (Rothschild financed Wellington big time, and had spies on both sides)

What also killed European power was WWI. No country had serious strenght to keep a powerful overseas Empire after losing such ridiculous amount of soldiers in mainland.
Great question is how much kike involvement was in WWI.

There you go. Go see Christian Europe in the 1800s, Ethnically homogenous, hell, go see videos of Europe in the 50s, still Christian and Ethnically homogenous.

Then you have marxist 60s and it starts going downhill. That's 50 years of pozzed Christianity vs 1950 years of Christianity in Europe with Ethnically homogenous population.

Don't be fooled. 1950 years is a lot of time.

Then the Ghengis Khan should be your role model, not Rome or paganism. Conquered almost all great civilizations of his time with an army consisting of Horses.

Christianity is responsible for the very existence of the shitskin hordes breathing down our neck. Even if it was "misguided" in doing so it still allowed itself to be subverted in such a way and therefore requires a complete reexamination so it doesn't continue to happen.

French & Indian war should have been ww1
Napoleon Wars, ww2

fuck it, the christian-anti-christian sliding, again. hiding by ID at this point.

No, Rome survived in spite of cuckstianity. cuckstianity has been pozzed from the start, born a sinner, everyone god's children, luke 14 26.

Either shill or brainwashed

But Christians are quite welcoming of refugees.

Having a literal retard with absolute power in a country just because his dad was a king is worse than giving minorities voting rights, as long as they remain minorities. There are zero arguments in defense of hereditary Monarchy.

You mean it became weak enough for jewish poison to work?

You clearly don't want to have a conversation user. Acknowledging flaws in your beliefs that lead you to the precipice of destruction is the only way you are going to win this war. Christian tolerance got us here, face that fact like a man.

Jesus was the original Marxist, at least according to the official story (in reality he was a Jewish battle-priest with a long lineage tracing back to ancient Egypt)

Ghenghis Khan is a worthy role model, but Rome is also.

Ghenghis Khan's failure is not similar to Rome though, is that he lacks the organization needed to maintain his empire, while Rome is taxed with bucreaucrats.

I guess we should Trumpspam and post frogs instead?

Religion is a very important part of someone's worldview, ignoring that as "D&C" is retarded and counter-productive.

They converted to Christianity before it collapsed actually.

It was a slow death.

Because it's the same horsehit back and forth?

Trumpspam has news.

Christcuckery has always been about no true christcuckery.

You sound like a marxist feminist.

Well, I never denied Christianity is pozzed today. Christianity was resented for going after its own agenda and creating a power parallel to the kings and nobility, nowadays it acts like a submissive globalist vassal.

There is something wrong with Christianity today, for sure. But not just today, disease has been inside growing since the 60s.

This is my subjective opinion, but since current Pope was so effective in Purging pedophilia, Clerical members are afraid that speaking against him might hint they were pedestrian themseles.

Just a Pope ago, during Ratzinger, Vatican was resented for being too "right wing reactionary". Something is weird yes.

Yeah, didn't he really idolize Geneva? I remember reading somewhere that his ideal democracy would basically be the Greek-style City-State, which if you think about it seems about right. In a way it puts another perspective on nationalism, that maybe the nation-state isn't such a great thing after all.

Actually Ghengis Khan was extremly good in organization, making a huge empire like that consisting of horse riders with bows.

His Empire fell after his death.

It did not develop Civilization, just destroyed. Rome both destroyed and created, it had a sort of creative destruction going on.

That's Communistic propaganda. People who say that will later on say that Jesus never existed.

Quote where I told you to ignore anything. Then stop being disingenuous, you are arguing like a kike.

Christianity is not faultless, clinging to this idea is choosing your faith over your race.

Yes. He liked the small Italian republics aswell, and openly endorsed Maquivel work.

On the perspective it puts you, depends, since his only consistent clear message on Social Contract is that only very small countries can have fruitful democracy, and that bigger ones will never have a real democracy, just a puppet representing special interests.

Last sentence not that different from what hitler says when criticizing democracy.

Pretending to be a NatSoc and being one are different things.

Even Hitler knew that attacking Christianity would drop morale of Werhmacht, and his troops on Eastern Front had pro-Faith speeches to boost morale against USSR, and re-opened Churches.

That's not organization, that's military strategy.

Organization refers to how he organizes his group, and he didn't do it well, which is why his empire broke when he dies, just like Alexander did.

I would have worked on other ways to boost moral, the self loathing universalism cult is bad news.

Hitler was courting socialists when he called his group nat-socs.

But Hitler's group is the biggest revival of the Old world beliefs, now can only be seen in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Alright. But by your priority of values in rating Empire, to not be hipocrital with yourself Rome should be on lower ranks.

Larger Empires than Rome existed that didn't innovate and create such a legacy like Rome did (2000 years later, modern countries still go "we wuz romans and shit")

I'm not attacking anything. I'm trying to get you to admit that not everything is perfect, including religion. You seem as ready to admit that maybe Christianity wasn't 100% good for whites as a jew is to pass up a dime on the sidewalk.

Your inability to quote me is noted.

why

do

you

type

like

a

fucking

reddid

cancer

Fuck off with your historical revisionism and scriptural illiteracy

reddit.com/r/atheism

You have to go back.

Such as?
provide a source at least

Regardless of his personal faith, he knew that supporting Christianity would get people in Soviet side to defect to the Werhmacht, and it did happen in big numbers. See TGSNT.

Old world beliefs were for the elite only, Thule society and some SS members. If he went full "old gods" he would lose public support.

Werhmacht ex-soldiers, that had pro-Christian propaganda, say that their great work was in stopping Bolshevism for example.

spot the shill, pressing all the right buttons

what's your reasoning behind the last sentence?

You're being a redundant kike posing as a Natsoc.

Clerical institutions are by definition imperfect and incomplete.

shill alert

I'm just trying to get you to admit Christianity wasn't all good for the white man. You're posts reeked of someone who would choose religion over race. If you want to call me a jew for putting my people before a religion that doesn't even originate on our soil then feel free.

From the guy who has done nothing in this thread but sling shit.

...

Just because the Bible tells you not to act like a nigger and to have impulse control, and to not act like a soulless kike and to treat other humans with basic decency, doesn't mean that Christianity has anything at all to do with modern Cultural Marxist cancer.

The fucking chutzpah you atheists have is stunning. YOUR bullshit lead us to this point. None of you can explain how, if Christianity = Cultural Marxism, then where was the open borders, multiculti, liberal, feminist, degerate societies for the last 2000 years? Why did these things only appear after the Enlightenment and the abandonment of Christianity? How come Christian societies were all ethnically homogeneous, traditionalist, degenerate-free societies for all this time? Also, show me one single scripture that even backs up what you're asserting. Show me one scripture that advocates for Cultural Marxist poz.

That has to do with salvation, the afterlife, and a person's soul - not the physical world. And it doesn't mention anything about literal equality, blending of societies, and destruction of borders anywhere. Also, that specific passage is more about how the jews are no longer the chosen people, and that rather any gentile is the chosen people so long as they believe in Christ. Read the entire chapter in its context. You can't just cherrypick a single sentence out of a book and then proclaim it to have whatever meaning you want it to have.

This, hereditary monarchies were largely international families controlling nations that they weren't attached to. I mean Hapsburgs ruled Spain and Austria while the British crown, German royalty, and the fucking tsar were all cousins. Not to mention the complete and utter clusterfuck of Austria-Hungary.

No self respecting nationalist can be in favor of monarchism and the nationalist revolutions of 1848 were against those fuckers.

Well, atleast that united europe in a way that made the rest of the world submit. But I agree. Inbreeding cannot last. These inbred kings were doomed to fail eventually anyway. Since their entire reproduction protocol was based on a too small circle jerk of incompetent representative, sometimes even adolescent idiots.

The proper balance would be to have a buffer king for ceremonial representation, and a natsoc goverment for optimal primary control.

fuck off

It's not a very small jump to go from we are all same in soul to race doesn't matter.

It's not pozzed today, they are doing exactly what Christian "values" preach. Learn your own religion before you start larping some crusader online.

That is, if you can define those values in the first place as Christianity has become so flexible, vague and amorphous in it's doctrines that it can be pretty much anything, adjusting to the situation and political/financial interests of the ones ruling it.

It was the inherent quality of the European peoples that made the rest of the world submit, not some subhuman tyrant who inherited power. If anything, it's bad monarchs that led to downfall of everything their ancestors have built.

It gave us Napoleon though.

And you wonder why we still call you christcucks? If you put your Semitic cult over your race you're a fucking cuck.

You do know that pretty much all the enlightenment figures were white supremacists that hated Kikes right?

Slavery is an extremely degenerate practice that deprives your poor countrymen of work and usually fucks up economies.

Wouldn't you rather that niggers were never brought to the new world?

funny how they still don't understand why we call them christcucks

Accepting homosexuals in any capacity makes you the cuck to jewish degeneracy.

It's incredible how you're completely twisting my words around.

How do you go from "I'll take a black brain surgeon over a white faggot" to "godly nigger over atheist white"?

I hope you die of AIDS.

Please spend one week in the republic of el congo and tell me how many ben carsons you find.

How about we don't have gays or non-whites?

Accepting homos =/= promoting homos

They are mentally ill, but can be productive members of society. It's promoting that as a "lifestyle" that's Jewish degeneracy.

Niggers have no place in white society in the first place, neither as slaves nor as equal members. They can be guests at best.

Being this historically ignorant of who lived in ancient Middle East

Nigger, the Romans and Athenians were practicing glorious republics while your Franks and Gauls were being stupid savages who were playing with their shit. Not to mention that even the Germanic people's were practicing direct democracy before the greedier kikes in their tribes decided to take Roman government offices and convert them to feudal titles.

Wrong, liberalism was invented in the previous century. The initial revolutionaries were liberals, but when the sans culottes turned on the wealthy liberal le merchants, it turned glorious. The American revolutionaries unfortunately got Kronstadted by the le merchants and nigger-whippers. Also, French Revolution literally invented nationalism.

See I guess Marx is the precursor for fascism AND SJWs because the latter two manage to be inspired from his ideas of class struggle and decide to apply to other spheres of society. (The nation for the former and muh minorities and women for the latter)

The monarchs and aristocrats were the real degenerates, literally living cosmopolitan and globalist lifestyles 200 years before it became cool. Robespierre was just doing what was good for the nation and cleansing it of degeneracy. Unfortunately, even he tried to the stop the sans culottes, the enrages specifically, from completing the good of exterminating the degenerate, faggot aristocrats, the kike-like bourgeoisie, and the kike-worshiping Catholics. Also, Marie-Antonette was basically Shillarie Clintonette but worse, she literally spent inane amounts of state money on jewelry like the vapid bitch she was.

You're a complete fucking pussy. (And a cuck who sucks noble dick too.) Stop bitching about the killings. They didn't even go above 20,000 dead. Also, Robespierre was hardly the only one doing it and infact tried to chill the more radical Enrages and Herbertists down. The people who took him down only covered their blatant power grab by blaming Robespierre for everything, even though he was sick and didn't even have absolute power. Even then, I wished they killed more degenerates.

Kill yourself, faggot. Also, conditions were actually shit, but eventually the Bastille stopped being used. It was more of symbolic gesture than anything else. Like if we completed shut down Tumblr during a nationalist revolution.

Guys, everything is genocide, including brutal wars against muh precious native-americans. It's not genocide, hell there were plenty of republican Vendeans. Genocide by definition has to be racial. Still, we can really learn from those Jacobins and apply this to the "Black Community".

Actually no. The war, including the original revolutionaries, was one of the first examples of the nation's citizen's uniting against foreign threats. The foreign threat being a bunch of cosmopolitan and triggered monarchies that ganged up against the nationalist French revolutionaries. And despite EVERY monarch in the war ganging up against France, the French still won MOST of the wars. Hell, Napoleon, who was sort-of based but also was a traitor to the republic, was content to sit on the victories of the French Revolutionary wars, but the monarchist globalists couldn't let France be strong. So, they all declared war on Napoleon, and yet still Napoleon not only defended himself, but managed to cream everyone in Europe. The only cases where Napoleon lost was when he invaded Russia in his only war of actual aggression and when he failed to ousting the foreign-backed Bourbons. Also, Napoleon III was just trying to relive the glories of his ancestor and managed to fuck everything up. So yes, more proof that monarchy is shit. Not even Napoleon Bonarparte's descendants can NOT fuck things up.

Christianity is a cucked religion based on submission, worshiping a dead Jew, and was worshiped in a period of weakness in Western civilization. The French revolutionaries were restoring superior Greeco-Roman values of civic virtue, martial victory, and philosophy through the Cult of Reason. (Which was literally the closest thing you can get to a religion based on nationhood.)

(Part 1)

No one gives a shit about your inbred, cosmopolitan kings and queens aside from cucked modern liberals. Also, Versaillies is open for tourists to visit anytime, in fact it's free on the first Sunday of any month. So, go there and get cuck to an in-bred faggot.

1793 leftists were different from 2010 leftists. Also, the reasons for Europe's cucking happened in the 20th century due to the corruption of communists into SJWs, 2 world wars destroying Europe, and capitalists/Jews wanting their cheap labor to crush the native working classes of the First World.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscadin

This is the faggotry who supported the French monarchy. (And aided in overthrowing Robespierre by killing even more people than in the "Great Terror")

By the way, Bourbonists and modern SJW liberals share the same class structure for their movements. You get wealthy, cosmopolitan magnates (George Soros, large corporations, Bill Gates.) and politicians (Shillarie Clintonette) who are supported by useful idiots who are middle-class professionals/managers and are trendy (SJW hipsters today, Muscadins yesterday) who in turn rile up lumpens who live on patronage. (Niggers now a days, Lazzaroni back then.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_Lazzaroni

The only difference is that SJW neoliberals also brought in tons of immigrant scabs to both astroturf their voting blocs and to cheapen labor to cuck the native working class.

So basically, you're the worst thing ever and supporting SJWs. Kill yourself, cuck.

Also, daily reminder that the French revolutionaries were the Moonman of their time. Follow in their footsteps and kill as many niggers, SJWs, spic-scabs, gook-scabs, Jews, and porkies as you can. The more you kill, the closer we are to a Republic of Virtue.

Then why didn't this happen until society abandoned Christianity?

You faggots keep deflecting the main point. If Cultural Marxism is inherent to Christianity, then why did it take nearly 2000 years for it to appear in Christian societies (conveniently right around the time these societies began to fall away from Christianity)? Also, how come you cannot point to a single scripture to back up your points? All you can point to are liberalized modern Christians who, like the cowards they are, are trying to twist the scriptures to appeal to the world. Meanwhile the Bible says "friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" in James 4:4.

Fine by me, but that wasn't the point of the conversation. Read the earlier posts to see how it got started. We were discussing which are more harmful, and I think that faggots are more harmful to a society because ALL faggots are inherently damaging to a society, whereas the average nigger or spic can be domesticated and used for menial labor (though that isn't necessarily an endorsement for having a non-racially homogeneous society - it was all hypothetical).

Accepting homos leads to spreading of diseases, children getting molesting, and more faggotry spreading to the populace. Faggots cannot be productive members at all. They are inherently a drain on the society. They consume resources without producing any offspring to offset their consumption of resources. There is not a single positive thing to say about them.

Hereditary monarchy kept all of Europe strong for 1900 years. Only in the past 100-200 years has Europe been getting weaker and weaker to the point they've allowed an invasion to occur without any pushback

No, democracy is a shit system. Fuck you, you know nothing newfag, go back to cuckchan

So you would take the traitorous, atheist, moral-relativist SJW whites that seek to genocide us over, "godly" niggers that just want to be left alone and have their own place?

By the way, the French revolutionaries invented the Roman salute in it's modern form. And, popularized the Fasces.

They jumped from that bandwagon when atheists got redpilled and started to speak out against feminism, amongst other things.

Now, they support Islam and religious niggers because muh minorities.

They'll tolerate islam, judaism, paganism, buddhism, hinduism, etc., but SJWs are undeniably exclusively anti-Christian. You will have to travel far and away before you find a single SJW that even tolerates Christianity a little bit.

Regardless of what you think of the faith, SJWs perceive Christianity to be a white supremacist religion that historically oppressed minorities and is currently the dominant culture in privileged 1% societies.

Top fucking kek

The whole reason kikes pushed atheism and anti-Christian beliefs in government schools is because the majority of people in Europe and America are/were Christians, so they must be bashed to demoralize them. Just as they demoralize "whiteness" for being represented by war and slavery. The second reason is when everyone becomes demoralized they try to adhere to some other ideology or religion to make themselves feel better, here comes the kikes with cultural marxism, egalitarianism and humanism to mop up the racially and spiritually broken populace.

>Practically genocide en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée#Genocide_controversy

The Vendee people are descendants of the
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneti_(Gaul)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynedd

also known from elsewhere in Europe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Veneti
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinschgau

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula_Veneti
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vends
also Winnili
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards

The problem wasn't that the ancien regime were overthrown and replace with democracy. The problem is that Jews, who were routinely ostracized and oppressed, wormed their way into the seats of power.

As obvious from their flag, they were emulating and outdoing the Dutch, so no king.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism#Dutch_Republic
'Dutch republicanism also influenced on French Huguenots during the Wars of Religion. In the other states of early modern Europe republicanism was more moderate.'

The French Revolution was a Jewish / Jacobin Illuminati attempt at overthrowing the monarchies so they could solidify their banking control over Europe.

Excellent posts, i'm glad that at least someone is capable of drawing parallels between then and now. Who does not learn from history is bound to repeat it. Napoleon was the true precursor to Hitler.

Ok, so do you deny that Christianity is cosmopolitan (without borders), and accepting of people of all races and nations? Do you deny that for a Christian, his fellow jew worshiper that's black is more important than another member of his race/nation that's not Christian?

Do you deny that Christianity promotes turning of other cheek and other cuckery? Plus it's egalitarian in the sense that everyone obeying it will be equal in heaven, regardless of their virtues and achievements. A thief and a murderer who "accepts Christ" is better than a honest, virtuous person that does not.

Pointing out scriptures is pointless because you will always

a) find the alternative one thats "truer"
b) interpret some vague sayings in a way that proves your point (despite it not really being the case)
c) say that despite the scriptures saying one thing, your personal beliefs are slightly different (when cornered) and that Christianity is not really about dogmas.

Arguing with a christcuck is the same as arguing with a Jew.

Christianity as taught is cucked, by a bunch of Satanic infultrators, just look at the pope kissing Korans and shit.

Its disgusting, they are no Christians.

Christianity was under attack from within for 100's of years and they they teach bullshit on purpose to push people away from it.

Religion or myth is required to teach people how to live in society. Its part of the Hero's journey.

Because of the economic results of the Dutch Republic; other countries wanted to emulate that, so they were anti-monarchy.

Cf Russia and France adopting Dutch type red-white-blue tricolors.

Romans slaves and freedmen became the majority, turned Christian and let Rome rot.

Homos have existed as long as humanity itself, and some have contributed a lot to art, science etc. without ever molesting someone.

See

Read the thread before you post you cancerous newfag.

All Abrahamic religions belong in the trash

Yes, they overthrew the royal families which they had previously infiltrated and taken into control. Some of which still exist to this day.

Napoleon did nothing wrong. He was based.

He was however an egomaniac. But sometimes you need that to get shit done.

Watch vid related.

Good to know 8ch is full of pseudo-intellectuals.

...

he BTFO the jews by banning usury and limiting interest to 5%

Rome was an empire with an emperor for most of its history and the republic was corrupt as fuck thats why Caesar is regarded as a hero for overthrowing it

He blocked their victim/persecution complex and have created a system in which jewing is very hard? Seems more effective than putting them in ghettos.

He let them back in after European countries banned them for their schemes. He repealed all anti-kike laws. That's grade A cuck behavior. He paved way for subversion and destruction of European culture. Ironically this caused his country's undoing first what with Jacobin terror and what not.

If you are going to cite Rome be honest or dont comment at all the Romans had emperor who ran almost everyone this just weren't hereditary monarchs. The system of the emperor grooming his successor was far better for Rome then the republic phase. This whole post is a lie

Good. Fuck your neoMonarchism you Catholic rape victims in a slave cult

Like literally you have a hipster's understanding of history. Liberalism doesn't mean the same thing anymore - at all.

The Church is dead. Deal with it.

They might be in real power with a Rothschild on the seat if not for the Revolution of Nationalism that spread through Europe and the Americas

Considering the Church has been at the forefront of race-mixing Globalism before Marx was even born, I highly doubt it.

The republic lasted for 500 years and actually was corrupted only because of slavery taking away most of the citizens' land and citizen-soldiers being replaced by a professional army. Also, the Republic was far more virtuous than the Empire with it's decadent Emperors and orgies. It was the Empire that allowed barbarians to swarm it and destroy it. Meanwhile, the Republic did most of the work in building Rome.

Vendéans were a different ethnic group.

Jewing was very hard when they were ostracised, marginalised, highly regulatedand legally blocked from almost any profession

The Roman Empire was an inefficient mess that made even the late Republic look efficient by comparison. Note the constant civil wars and division, something that the Republic didn't have until it's institutions were threatened by slave-owning Patricians and an army detached from the citizens.

ITT Christards and Monarchists defending the globalist elite of the 18th century

Cucks then, cucks now.

The French revolution invented the idea of nation.

the republic lasted 250 years the fuck type of timeline are citing? Roman virtue ethics were only better developed under various emperor namely Marcus Aurelius. The republic was one of the most decadent and corrupt phases of Rome no one cried when the senate died it was a corrupt oligarchy that fucked normal romans in the ass. The eastern Roman empire was a monarchy for some 1400 years.

The republic was almost constantly in a state of civil war. Before ceasar had is revolution there had been a revolution lead by sulla only a few years prior political fuckery and backstabbing was always a common theme in rome

the french revolution was a mistake

Finally, a French revo thread! Hope it isn't shit.

(From Wikipedia and every history textbook ever. It's a pretty famous date actually. 753 BC was when Rome was founded as a city.)

509 BC–27 BC

Also, the Republic is more than the Senate. There were the plebeian assemblies, which consisted of all citizens, tribunes, and the consuls. It was supposed to be a mixed government of a "monarch" (the consuls), aristocracy with the Senate, and democracy with the plebeian assemblies.

Again, most of the civil wars in the Republic were in it's last hundred years. And the underlying cause is a struggle between the patricians and the plebeians. Reality is that the Republic could've survived and even be revitalized if the plebeians actually took power directly. Incidentally, America is at a similar state, except our patricians are adopting Bourbonist tactics as I describe before hand and use outsourcing instead of slavery. We can either save the republic and cleanse it of corruption or institutionalize the corruption in the name of stability.

To be fair, the Empire's woes came only later, but the Empire was even more corrupt and decadent than the late Republic. At least, the senators and generals didn't fuck their own mothers while watching their city burn. Also, putting all power into the hands of someone who ingests lead is a bad idea.

And incidentally, the Empire's best days were when it took up the trappings of being a republic, the Principate. The Dominate only accelerated the downward spiral.

If you're going to serve a term of any number of years, and after that you have to leave your country to someone, in which situation will you take best care of it?

Hence the SPQR,
Senatus Populusque Romanus
the Roman senate and people
the two sources of government

Why do you think they are so clumsy today despite holding almost all levers of power?

Why were they so effective when they had least touch with society?

Their persecution/victim complex is their lifeblood, take that away and they become weak and complacent.

I'm not saying he did the right thing, but try to see it from a different perspective.

But of course, we all need to yell gas the kikes to beat them, like a good alt right goys we are. Let's become the boogieman they want us to become, instead of attacking the very source of their power and influence.

I would announce a competition to find a worthy successor. It would be neither my son (by birthright) nor some sleazy politician elected by unwashed masses (and financed by kikes)

Only the one who overcomes all the trials, and beats his opponents in several different disciplines (proving the (inner) strength, the intelligence, and the virtue) would be worthy to lead the nation.

They never would of, why aren't you out gassing kikes right now?

...

idiot theory believed only by those that are too unintelligent to realize politics is a 3 dimensional arena

...

What would you call referring to revelation as inherently leftist?

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army#Foreign_and_mercenary_soldiers
'The Byzantine army frequently employed foreign mercenary troops from many different regions. These troops often supplemented or assisted the empire's regular forces; at times, they even formed the bulk of the Byzantine army. But for most of the Byzantine army's long history, foreign and military soldiers reflected the wealth and might of the Byzantine empire, for the emperor who was able to gather together armies from all corners of the known world was formidable.

Foreign troops during the late Roman period were known as the foederati ("allies") in Latin, and during the Byzantine period were known as the Phoideratoi (Gr. Φοιδεράτοι) in Greek. From this point, foreign troops (mainly mercenaries) were known as the Hetairoi (Gr. Ἑταιρείαι, "Companionships") and most frequently employed in the Imperial Guard. This force was in turn divided into the Great Companionships (Μεγάλη Εταιρεία), the Middle Companionships (Μέση Εταιρεία), and the Minor Companionships (Μικρά Εταιρεία), commanded by their respective Hetaireiarches – "Companionship lords". These may have been divided upon a religious basis separating the Christian subjects, Christian foreigners, and non-Christians, respectively.[52]'

Don't try to fool us. The Christians that brought down Rome were descendants of slaves that were brought in to satisfy the elite's demand for cheap labor. Sound familiar?

...

The christianity of the late Roman empire sure as heck didn´t have any feminism, lol!

they do
its the eternal jew in the banking bureaucracy that funds the global military industrial complex

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Church_history

Last time I looked most European monarchies are currently populated by Masonic pedophiles.

Christianity does not promote open borders or multiculturalism. According to Revelation, one of the first signs of the end times and the anti-Christ's coming kingdom will be open borders and multiculturalism. Open borders and multiculturalism are therefore inherently anti-Christian. There's also the story of Babylon and the Tower of Babel where God ordered Noah's children to spread out all over the Earth, they disobeyed and stayed in one spot, and then God scattered them all over the world, creating the different races and nations in the process. God created Nationalism.

Anyone can be a Christian in the sense that anyone can learn mathematics or science as well. This doesn't mean that mathematics and science are pro-multiculturalism and racemixing any more so than it does for Christianity. Christianity is not supposed to just be your local cultural traditions and whatnot. This is the problem with you anti-Christians. You think religion is just your race's local traditions. It's not. Religion, at least according to Christianity, is supposed to be the answers to what life is about. If Christianity were off-limits to other races then it would make as much sense as limiting mathematics or sciences to certain races as well. It would destroy its credibility as a realistic answer to metaphysical questions about life.

They're a fellow brother in Christ, sure, but that doesn't mean that I am supposed to have contempt for a non-believer of the same race. We are supposed to love the lost and have compassion for them and try to save them. Absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that you are to hate your own race or that you are to treat non-believers lesser than believers. The only time it hints at different treatment of outsiders is when the Bible tells you not to settle disputes between believers by going to a non-believer judge. Disputes between fellow brothers or sisters ought to be settled between themselves.

This is flat-out wrong. The Bible is explicit that we will not, in fact, be equal in heaven.

Nope! Wrong again. You are given more rewards in heaven based on your good deeds in this life. You can still make it into heaven simply for having faith in Jesus dying for your sins, but you will not have the same afterlife as someone who also believed in Jesus but then dedicated their life to being a good person. Your works don't save you, but they still count in the next life.

Now you're just flat out lying and making baseless assumptions. Guess what faggot, chances are that an unsaved, biased-against-the-faith person such as yourself who has an axe to grind isn't the best judgment on scripture. It's always pathetic when an atheist thinks he knows more about Christianity than a Christian does. It makes you look unbelievably douchey.

if only heaven made any sense at all and wasn't the age-old leftie pipe dream about nobody has to work

which today's cyber-christcucks turn into robots taking all the jobs or them getting uploaded

souls don't exist. Work and fighting is all that there will ever be.

Could you even describe a Biblically-accurate Heaven? Hint: it's not what you see in pop culture with people floating in the clouds playing with harps.

No fucking shit.

But I want both to be gone.

You had one fucking job faggot.

According to that story, God created nations as a punishment for disobeying him. Christianity has practically zero nationalist content, and all Christians are practically seen as one nation, regardless of their race or ethnicity.

If you claim to be a nationalist, there is a conflict between your religion and your political stance. The two are simply not compatible.

But you see them as "lost" , which means that you value them less than those who share your faith, even if you don't hate them.

Can you explain the part about inequality in heaven? Isn't it enough to be accepted? Or you get more virgins in some circumstances?

Also, i'm not an atheist. And you don't need to know every verse by memory to see what Christianity is all about.

Work doesn't have to be moving stones from one place to another my barbarian friend. Nor does it have to be wage slaving. Also, souls exist but you are too dumb to figure out how :3

5e6u56jhdfgdf