Let's look at pre-1789 world

Look at the status quo we had back in 1788, one year before the French Revolution started. It was a world where there was no "left-wing" and "right-wing" ideologies, just people (rulers and peasants) acting according to their Christian moral values and common sense (we didn't need thousands of studies to know that being a whore fucked you in the head or that a kid needed both a father and a mother to be raised in a healthy way). Where the only protests were actually grassroots, most of the time involving citizens protesting a raise in taxes (none of the non-issue, full of media coverage, ((philantrop))-funded protests we have nowadays). Where Jews or Muslims weren't allowed to hold public positions, since you had to do a Christian oath before being elected for such charge. Where it was usual for intellectuals to write politically incorrect texts about Gypsies, Abos, Injuns, Blacks and other non-Whites. Where the population of Europe alone was more than double the size of that of Africa. Medicine was already progressing rapidly by then, so we might have done the same discoveries with or without 19th century's social changes.

What would be the "political position" of someone who just wants to go back to 1788? Absolute Monarchist perhaps?

Attached: 9j6qbl62gaa01.png (3437x2599, 2.97M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

QTDDTOT Dumb spam nigger

Monarchism. We have a few of those here.
Your map is wrong.
Italy was not united and neither was Germany. Also, Sweden and Denmark were never one state.
Finally, I dislike monarchism as a concept because monarchical rulers tens to care less about the demographic, ethnic makeup of the states of Europe and more about wealth, prestige, empire, and their own family's personal power.
A chalenge I propose for monarchists is to come up with something that would keep the absolute monarch beholden to the people. If he is not, you just get exactly what happened.
Borders should reflect demographic reality on the ground. Not whatever holdings some rich nobleman amassed through arranged marriages.

Oh and also, Flanders was not a part of France at the same time that Britain conquered Ireland… Also, where is all the Austrian Hapsburg lands?

Sorry, I meant Wallonia.

The king is the land.

The land prospers mean the king prospers and vice versa.

I dislike the idea of the "people" since it leads to democracy where the mass rules.

I’d tell you to ask your question on alternatehistory.com, but you’ll be banned for being right of Marx there.

First of all, you are the people. Monarchists tend to imagine that they are the king or live in some perfect utopian society where the king is perfect and they have no wants or needs.
In reality the human factor comes in and you would likely disagree with a lot of what the king does because the king, being in complete control has no reason to care about what you personally need and may even have incentive to keep you poor and uneducated.
This idea that if the land prospers, so does the king seems fishy to me. Why would that be so? Sure the king wants his nation to be powerful but that was the thinking that brought France to ruin in 1789. Or what created the unlivable conditions of industrialization which caused people to become communists out of desperation for something else.

As for disliking the idea of the people, I do not think of people as masses because people don't think of themselves as masses other than communists. People think of themselves as part of their greater community.
People = Nation. Nation = People.
When I say Nation, I'm saying People and vice versa.

It was just one of the top results for "absolute monarchist" in Google Images. Apparently, someone made it as an "ideal map" for a neo-Monarchist Europe.

Attached: napoleon_jews.jpg (1104x527, 259.56K)

I can see that you scribbled over Schleswig-Holstein there, get out of my home, ya scumbag.

Attached: n.PNG (323x131, 52.61K)

So basically reset everything except with the modern surveillance state and nuclear bombs. It is the old system of monarchy that caused communism to become a significant political force. Had kings not been so ridiculous, no one would have sought answers in such a ridiculous ideology. That said, if I were given a button that would restore monarchy to the way it was in 1789, I'd press it before you even finished the sentence simply because the jew was less dominant then.

2 posts earlier you said that uneffective or unjust kings should be overthrown. Well, that's what happened. That's divine right as you put it.
The problem with absolute monarchy is that there are many pressures to not take into consideration the needs of the Nation/People. This creates discontent that builds and builds until you get revolution.

Those who are not high up in the political establishment. Farmers, craftsmen, carpenters, and literally us. It is also a People or extended community bound together by blood, culture, language, customs, and ethnicity. In otherwords; Folk.

And btw, the old system was no utopia either. If we went back to the that system today, we'd have a nuclear war with Russia within a year over some landed nobleman's estate in Bavaria.

Uh, kings have been overthrown and replaced without communism. It seems like a weird thing to blame monarchism on when communism has no problem replacing "republicanism" gradually.
The overthrown of Louis XIV was not well deserved, the "people" were tricked by jews. Multiple times in time pass, kings were overthrown and replaced by kings.
So it is the folk or the people? And who decide and who speak for "the people".

Bullshit, old time wars were small tier and peasants don't even care about them.

It's only modern wars that were disastrous.

...

No.

Why?

You dislike monarchs that fail to fulfill their function. I dislike them too. Doesn't mean the principle of monarchy is wrong. Pre-revolutionary French aristocracy doesn't exhaust the whole possibilities of monarchs either. In fact, they pretty much reaped what they sow.
That's precisely the mechanism you are looking for: a monarch that doesn't fulfill his function and doesn't do his job tends to be overthrown.

The mystery of degeneration(in the pure etymology of the term) is hardly an argument, simply because it can affect as much the aristocracy as the peasants. If it affects the best, it probably affects the worst even more. Your average modern western commoner loves gold and his nearby family more than his folk too, and he is little different from those monarchs you are criticizing. In fact, one could say this degeneration eventually trickled down, and the deposers became like the once deposed.

Ideally, it is the role of the priestly class to overlook the behavior of the monarchs and to stand above them as the hinge. This is the fundament by which the Brahmin is superior to the Kshatriya in the Hindù tradition. Their connection with their axis mundi/God is what ought to guarantee a rightful monarchy. Like a centripetal force gluing everything together to the center and forbidding the rest from floating away. In Europe, this basic and fundamental principle started being attacked already in the middle ages, with Philip the Fourth being probably the first strong example. Afterwards, as the situation deteriorated further, it is no surprise that as the aristocrats began distancing themselves from the church, they started to lose their sense of duty and identity until they were no more than a bunch of opulent merchant overseers larping as aristocrats, eventually replaced by actual merchants. At that point, the "divine right" concept was merely an empty formula, and they were aristocrats("best men") in name only.

Similar considerations in any case are obviously valid for any form of hierarchical rule like aristocratic republics and the like.

Attached: fouquet.jpg (1300x729, 117.62K)

False it were usually usurpers and opportunists in the upper class (usually feudal lords) who undermined and tried to pull power towards themselves by protesting the monarch / emperor. There are many such cases of this taking place. However most of those protests were about taxes, power, sometimes war / famine related. There wasn't really this insane social justice cult that exists in modern day. The only equivalent would be people who insisted to protest to uphold their specific interpretation of Christianity to be correct (which has also caused conflict in past). Also in a lot of places Plato's republic was still held in high regard and most republics tried to be aristocratic instead of current oligarchy that we live in.

No this wasn't possible. Especially pre ~1000 I would say this was very hard to do. Because whatever you wrote needed to fit the narrative within the Christian world. This lead to some scientific thoughts being suppressed most notable Hellenistic schools of learning. Writing against church or emperor / upper classes was a good ticket to earn yourself a boycott and be made irrelevant as writer. Worst case you would be deemed heretical and be punished for your writings. It was however possible to write about race, but many actually neglected race entirely since religion was the thing that mattered to people in medieval ages. There weren't states that tried to be explicitly race 'x', but there were of course states that heavily identified with a particular version of Christianity letting the religion dictate their society.

There were already conflicts between church and the rulers ever since Constantine made it state religion in Rome. Some emperors got involved more with the church than others, pushing their own interpretations to be the correct ones. For example iconoclasm in Byzantium was mostly pushed by emperors and rulers their belief losses against Islam came from worship of icons (and so they would have icons smashed). Persecution of church patriarchs was also not uncommon.

Nothing but ethnoglobe will work for the survival of the Aryan race.
Kill everyone.

Attached: europe_map_1700.jpg (1280x1009, 222.1K)

That dutch flag is wrong. We didnt have that at the time but ok

How about assault rifles?

Take Europe in 1939, give the city of Danzig back to Germany plus rights to build one highway and one railway line across the Polish corridor, remove communism from Russia, and just like that you've got a perfect world.

The fuck kind of map is that?

look up the Kalmar Union fag.

Auschwitz is back for black.

Death to negro apes.

theres this one retard always posting fake maps

I don't want to go back to 1789. Life is shit now, so even 1789 seems better, but it was only marginally less shit. I want to go back to 1950 and maybe the clown world divergence won't get me this time aroumd.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as democracy, is in fact, jewed democracy, or as I've recently taken to calling it, jews plus democracy. Democracy is not harmful by itself, but rather another system of government that can work brilliantly when applied to functioning white people with non-kiked culture and intact national traditions.

Many countries run a modified version of the democracy system every day, without their populace realizing it. Through a (((peculiar turn of events))), the version of democracy which is widely used today is often called "liberal democracy", and many of its participants are not aware that it is basically a pozzed democracy, subverted by the jews.

There really is a democracy, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Democracy is the kernel: the basis of the system that is subverted so that the goyim's resources can be redistributed to the jews. The kernel is an essential part of a government system, but harmless by itself; it can only be corrupted in the context of complete jewish takeover. Democracy is normally used in combination with the ZOG system: the whole system is basically democracy with jews added, or jewed democracy. All the so-called "democratic" countries are really variations of jewed democracies.

Heil Ethnoglobe! Heil Our Sovereign Occident! Feed the savage races to the fishes. Plow them all under.

Attached: Sovereign Occident.png (1500x755, 377.6K)

You're about 265 years too late, there. Shit was dissolved the moment the Danish crown started attempting coups to consolidate their own power, instead of going along with the agreement of the king of the union being elected by nobles from each of the 3 kingdoms. The Stockholm bloodbath was the final straw, and that happened as far back as 1520.
Not to mention the Kalmar Union wasn't meant to be an absolute monarchy in theory.

'democracy' will never work, because eventually, women will get the vote and ruin it, we had a very stringent republic, only white male land owners could vote and look at us now, even fucking foreign women get to vote now, it's an unworkable system in the long term, the voting base will be perpetually expanded to include the most easy people to manipulate

Obviously. However you're missing the obvious here; Now that communism exists, it will inevitably become the dominant political force when peasants oppose their absolute monarchs.
The problem with absolute monarchy is that the monarchs tend to become completely disconnected with the political realities on the ground. The state starts to crumble at its foundation and the peasants, utterly lacking any political power, seek some sort of way to enforce their needs upon the state. Communism provides this in theory and of course when applied to the state it creates misery and stagnation comprable if not worse than what transpired under the monarch.

The solution to communism, as Rockwell pointed out, is an ideology that is people-centric. In otherwords, one needs an ideology that motivates the common man on a personal level and involves him in a deep, personal way in the functions of the state. The Nation-State provides this. A distant, all powerful monarchy that the peasants have no means of interracting with or influencing does not.

I disagree. He utterly, utterly mismanaged his nation, his economy, and his society. He dug his own grave and then jumped in. He had no clue what was going on at the ground level of his nation because of the aforementioned problems with Absoluet Monarchy.

To tell you the truth, I do not have an answer. No one does and they'd be lying to claim to know. It simply is a rule in history that national groups or "Peoples" tend to function like an extended community. I believe that the state must be built upon the foundation of a community of human beings spiritually and physically united by common blood, culture, and language. I believe that states that are not based upon the nation-state model are monstrous. Indeed, they tend not to last for the aforementioned reasons.

Wrong on all levels.
The Hundred years war was neither small tire nor did it not affect the peasants. Indeed peasants were targetted for massacres and depopulation in France and Normandy. The same is true of the 30 years war.
If you gave the men of the 14th century nukes, the earth would be destroyed.

Hispanics are white, meaning we're half way through

Attached: Screenshot_20190523-135706_Chrome.jpg (720x1280 373.5 KB, 365.11K)

Would you really want to live in a state that was constantly assassinating its leaders and fighting civil wars?
How about we base our system on something that works?

I concede that you are right. I'm open to monarchy if it could be designed to not fall prey to the same problems I mentioned above.

But I must point out the obvious here.
You say
and this is true. But the implication is that any monarchy that does not work out will get overthrown and this absolves Monarchy of all its problems. As if revolution is a corrective and essential part of that system.
But Revolution occurs when a system has failed.
And I'd rather start off in a System that works rather than live in a perpetual revolution.
Besides, revolutions today tend to replace monarchies with different systems.

I must also point out that while you are right that a powerful priestly class can check the abuses of an absolute monarch, OP's proposition is not to check the power of kings at all. He's an absolute monarchist.
Furthermore, I am suspicious of Christianity (I'm not going to expound upon my reasons here as we've had more than our share of D&C threads lately) and many other Nationalists are as well. But the idea that we can just force a Pagan Priest class into existence out of the blue is preposterous. From where would they draw their power if barely anyone actually believes in Thor, Zeus, Saturn, or Perun?
Thus, I believe that we'd need some other way of checking a monarch's power if indeed monarchy is what we go with as a system of government.

Attached: Louis-XIV-Portrait.jpg (629x1000, 72.41K)

In my country, the closest you'd find to that were the Carlists. Other European countries also had movements known as Integralism/Integrism, with similar goals.

The trouble here I think is ultimately "system-free", in the sense that the specific form a government takes doesn't matter too much when the forces that kept it as it was begin to deteriorate, in that case monarchy will fail too, but more or less any system will. People will waste lots of energy trying to find "systems" but ultimately a system is as good as the principles it is founded on, principles that have all the power this word carries i.e they are truths that are shared by essentially all, especially the elites. The chaos of the modern world stems to a large degree from a complete loss of principles or even an implied view of metaphysics allowing for principles to have all their power(death of God), except I guess the wildly spread superstition of attacking anyone who does have uncompromisable principles.

I myself am not necessarily for specific forms of monarchy, I'm all for forms of aristocratic republics too if needed, like The Republic of ancient Rome or middle ages Italian city states republics. Any "system" in any case is limited by its nature, it is an adaptation to specific circumstances. What matters is the source, metaphysical principle that glues everything together. When the principle of unity is lost, the rest slowly crumbles too, and I think as hard as one may work to find safety mechanisms and foolproof "systems", a degenerate type of man that doesn't know who he is, what are his duties and who are his compatriots will find a way to destroy it anyway.

A monarchy as opposed to a republic or something else is more a matter of ideals and principles I think, of reproducing a human hierarchy reflecting divine hierarchy or micro/microcosmic hierarchy, depending on how ones sees things, not so much of specific "practical" efficacy, as in any case, the principle itself leaves freedom for various forms of monarchies, each dealing with its own troubles and peculiarities of the subjects.

Myself I'm not a christian either, just pointed out what was for western civilization(I'm referring specifically to the civilization born from the ashes of the western Roman Empire under Catholic religion and Germanic rule) that "glue" so to speak, that old lost medieval Catholicism which for some good ~5 centuries since the coronation of Charlemagne, more or less fulfilled its role of spiritual support/hinge to the new Empire under Germanic rule, before the troubles started to emerge, particularly with the destruction of the Order of the Temple and the whole Avignon Pope clusterfuck. Then I guess the black death a few years later was both a presage and interlude for things to come.

Attached: D59_jc5WsAIWSY9.jpg (681x1024, 260.3K)

That's a Quebec flag in your graphic. You want this one.

Attached: 220px-Flag_of_Acadia.svg.png (220x147, 1.9K)

Nothing.Has.Changed.

Remember all the X+ movements? Skticism+, Gaming+, Faggots+?

Plumb Line United Service = plus

Pushing (((freemason))) shit into every little hole. That was their function.

based. hello fellow arcadian

And when communist peasants oppose their absolute monarchs, they will be crushed.
That's bad king, and bad government. Bad government does not govern well, it has nothing to do with any system.
So who rules the nation state and who decide that person to be the ruler?
The 30 year wars were long into the renaissance with semi-industrialized societies. The "100 year war" was a bunch of small skirmish with some big battles, it was not an annihilation war similar to WW2.
Proof?

WW1 pretty much ended monarchism once and for all. Done and done.

Reminder that monarchy is incompatible with National Socialism and that Florian Geyer (the leader of the 16th century peasant revolts) was celebrated as a folk hero in the Third Reich.

Attached: 8th_SS_Division_Florian_Geyer.png (2000x2422, 322.95K)

Yet earlier you (I presume) claimed that revolution was "divine right" when a monarch no longer ruled effectively. Furthermore, just because you say something doesn't make it so.

True. However this is a recurring problem with monarchies. They tend to be overthrown precisely because they fail to create societies that regular people like to live in. You can say everything is always the jews but that doesn't cover it. Regular people don't just revolt for no reason. And the French king in 1789 was overthrown because people felt that he was mismanaging the country and ruining their lives.

Again, I am not arrogant enough to claim to know. Maybe monarchy is the way and you're just not explaining it well or I am not understanding. However, somehow the people must be involved in the political structure or they will not be loyal to it. Why should any man be loyal to a government that does not represent him?

That is proof. The same governmental systems that governed the Middle Ages continued into relatively recently. Monarchs of the past waged constant wars upon one another. Terrible wars. Your claim that they were just border skirmishes is absolutely false and anyone literate can factcheck your claim. Wars between monarchies have been as brutal as the technology allowed. Give them machineguns, napalm, tanks, chlorine gas, gunpowder, and automobiles and you will get WW1… which is exactly what happened.

Attached: Bait.jpg (900x1357, 117.5K)

The jews have always been the problem and what philosophy besides the jewish derived philosophies keep on promulgating literal jews in country? Monarchies were destroyed for this reason because a King makes no sense to his subjects when he becomes a pawn of the jews and a "raise in taxes" forces the poor into having nothing and so must make revolt, which also works to the benefit of the jews.

Why do you think during most of those Peasant Revolts many Churches and Cathedrals were destroyed? It is because the peasant saw either explicitly or implicitly that any hierarchy would lead to jewish control and wanted none of it, that is philosophy behind leftism and thus the desire for the Liberals to create Democracy and Republicanism, of course which works well for jewry. The, rightist or those who wanted hierarchy back then didn't understand or didn't care about what the jews did to their own kin and so lost time and again due to their own profiting. Only through National Socialism by naming the jew can you have a hierarchy which must make its foundation in the continuation of the people of the nation at all costs.

Attached: almost Communism.mp4 (640x480, 10.14M)

I'm glad that there are still some wise individuals on this board such as yourself.
It is true that all systems are only as good as the principles that they're founded upon. Certainly a nation held together by common cause would be far better run than one populated by degenerates and desperate cultures and races. Regardless of whether it's a monarchy or even a pure democracy. I'd rather live in a homogeneous monarchy than a "fascist" state that was multi-racial and populated by degenerates if ever such a thing could happen.

The trouble is we're all theorizing out an ideal society and can't agree upon the nature of the people we're trying to govern. If we could somehow get everyone in America (for example) to adopt Platonic ideals and apply them to their lives and if we could find ourselves a principled and intelligent king who genuinely cared for the nation… and assembled for him a bureacracy and governing class of virtuous individuals, then obviously that'd be swell. But we all know how unlikely that is. Even the concept of monarchy is so foreign to Americans that I doubt we could even resurrect monarchy as a concept, let alone put it into practice.

Another problem with monarchy as a concept is that even monarchists themselves can't come up with many reasons for regular peasants to feel any loyalty to their own hypothetical government. When a nation belongs to a king, there is little reason at all for a peasant uninvolved in the power structure to feel any loyalty to the government. It is only when kings belong to nations ala Nationalism when people become loyal to kings. But to do that necessitates involving the peasants in the power structure and thus taking away the absolute power of the king.
I cannot stress how important a concept this has been historically. One of the reasons why Napoleon Boneparte was such an effective general was because the French people were awakening out of their feudal state and embracing nationalism. Napoleon smashed kings like William III of Prussia not just because he was a superior general, but because he didn't need to waste resources keeping his citizen soldiers in line like other monarchs did. Prussian armies for example could not camp near woodland because of the fear that soldiers would desert. Napoleon could because he knew they wouldn't. His soldiers were not fighting for him but for France.
That is how monarchy can be done correctly. The raison d'etere for a nation should not be the king but the Nation. Napoleon may have been a tyrant or not. That's up for debate, but he delivered a message directly to the people and made them feel like they were fighting for themselves.

The problem with Napoleon is that he eventually fell for his own myth of invincibility and began declaring wars he had no chance of winning without a clear plan to carry them though.

Attached: Napoleon Bonaparte.jpg (850x1143, 262.1K)

A revolution/uprising does not inherently mean a communism revolution.
Every communist revolutions are crushed by country with strong king/government.
Please find me a government system without bad government.
Again, loyalty to your king because your king does the best for your country which will end up benefiting you. You do not represent "your country", your king does.
It doesn't? The government in the renaissance were not the same government as the middle ages.
Which did not end in annihilation nor as terrible as modern wars.
WW1 happened had "democracies" joining in the war, and were just as bloodthristy as the monarchists.

Really, so naming the jew means your hierarchy will work?

that's the nintendo 64 logo

Essentially yes, by singling out the jewish parasite and removing the jewish parasite the natural European Hierarchical structure can form and work. That won't mean that everything is fine in Europe, there will still be conflict between European groups. Though the European race without jews will survive, but with jews the European race will be liquidated and fed upon until the jewish parasite moves to another host.

Attached: Catching a Horrifying Parasite That Liquifies Organs.webm (1280x720, 8M)

This is just simplification problem.

It seems some of us literally believe if the jews are removed, everything would turn out fine and dandy.

It's a mental gap.

I just said, "That won't mean that everything is fine in Europe, there will still be conflict between European groups".

My point is that it's a mental gap that keep european from removing jews.

It's hard to believe, but all europeans need to do is rise up and storm the gates and kill all the jews in their government.

The only question is: why don't they do that?

The jewish parasite theory can readily be used to explain that.

Just like a parasite the jew has mechanisms to prevent the immune system from dealing with it by using jewish words and philosophy to create a special borough from which the jews can feed on the host. I'm speaking in generalities here but you can fill the how in with concrete examples. Such a picture can pretty much work in any of the centuries jews have been in Europe.

Also like some rare parasites the jews also through their knowledge of the immune system of the host can use it against the host to cause damage to parts of the body the parasite is threaten by. In this way the jew uses the natural European immune system to destroy White Nationalism, labeling White Nationalists as rebellious cells who are forming a cancerous growth when actuality the jewish parasite is.

With just these two mechanism most of the European cells either won't know to rise up by not noticing an enemy, or will be destroyed by fellow Europeans for rising up against what the European body thinks is a part of itself.

You ever met an aristocrat? Absolute garbage (((people)))

To involve the masses in politics, the fuedal system had designated families as nobility that were in charge of fiefdoms. These royal pretenders could accrue wealth to the extent their realm allowed and threaten the crown. Participation in the system was unnecessary, but involvement in its affairs was a matter of course. Totalitarian systems like citizen democracy bite off more than they can chew by allowing the underclasses a stab at legislature. You really don't need that much civic participation

Restorationism, similar to what happened in Japan when they put the Emperor back into office.

Look up Prince Klemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar, Prince of Metternich-Winneburg zu Beilstein, Austrian diplomat and chancellor, he basically lead the European Nobles who wanted to reestablish the Holy Roman Empire more or less.
Their goal inside the German Confederation was to unmake all the changes that happened because of the French Revolution.
He lost because Bismarck had other plans.

Attached: Prince_Metternich_by_Lawrence.jpeg (1570x2000, 494.71K)

Use your head. In a post marx world, communism has become the dominant political force for anti-monarchist revolts in the non-Arab world. We're not in 1789 anymore. It's the 21st century.

Okay… now I'm starting to suspect you're arguing in bad faith. We went over this three times already. Revolutions take place when a system has failed ie because of corrupt, incompetant, weak, or unpopular kings.
I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but this is the fourth time I've had to explain this basic bitch concept to you. Revolutions occur when the population at large no longer has faith in the legitimacy or reliability of the government.

Perhaps I have been unclear and must rephrase what I said because you don't seem to understand.
People feel no loyalty to a government that they feel they are not participating in. What part about this concept do you not understand?
Please explain why a peasant should feel even the smallest sliver of loyalty to a state that he has no part in shaping.

And? It's not like only the communists would do revolution.
So in system that actually have strong kings/strong government, that shit doesn't happen. And I hope you understand THAT every government system has its bad phase.
And they are preferable to the point, unless the revolution is communist.

But if you are trying to idealize a perfect government where it can stay reliable and legitimate forever.

Hell, the worse system is the current republicanism where the peasants are fed so much they are too scared to do any revolt.

Peasants are protected by the king, thus they stay loyal to him.

Without the king, the peasants would be enslaved by other kings or tyrants.

Honestly, I don't see any philosophies outside of mere pacifism (which is cancer) that is holding the white men back.

The only thing is straight cowardice.

White men are afraid of cops, of jail and losing they have built all those years to risk it to kill jews.

In this way, the white men of today are worse than the peasants of yesteryear.

...

Quite obviously that time was far superior one, OP. It's actually pretty simple to describe the problem today; Females are, and have always been, ignorant graspers for power. Basically, they are children. The kikes know this ofc, and wield them as very effective weapons against (((their))) number one threat to existence; the Aryan peoples.

Coercing White men to abandon their prerogative of masculine leadership–indeed their very manhood–by rabble-rousing the females in the West to engage against them with continual browbeating and henpecking until females were given the vote was literally the finest hour for the International Jew. It spelled the downfall of Western Civilization, with all the floodgates of degeneracy these stronk, independent womyn enabled against their own peoples.

Putting that genie back in the bottle is ofc impossible today. God alone can save us from this evil, and afaict, it seems likely that He will not intervene to reverse this.

Now, here's some information on Jewish emancipation in the UK, which came a bit later.

Description of cartoon: 'Immolation of the Jew!', 1835. A platform with a steaming cauldron labelled Christian intolerance . Two figures stand over the cauldron, to which ascends David Salomons, refusing the Lord Mayor's entreaty to renounce the Jewish faith in order to become an Alderman. Salomons was a leading figure in the campaign for Jewish emancipation in Britain in the 19th century. He was eventually elected an Alderman in 1847 and went on to become the first Jewish Sheriff of London and Lord Mayor of London as well as one of the first two Jewish MPs"

Attached: jewsrelief.png (1133x662 593.16 KB, 89.66K)

This is hopelessly naïve. You're being "protected" from other states right now by your government. Yet you feel no loyalty to it because you feel uninvolved in the power structure and you oppose it ideologically. A communist tyrant can protect peasants just as effectively as a king can and arguably moreso given their militaristic and quasi nationalistic nature. They can raise bigger armies and ideologically motivated fanatics make better soldiers than disinterested mercenaries.

Look up the history of Western states post 1900

Which monarchy tends to create less of due to strong pressures upon kings to become 100% involved in court politics and pay no heed to the needs of the peasantry.
Then revolution happens and monarchy is abolished.

You don't get to choose which revolutions are unsuccessful just because you hate communism. Whatever revolutionary ideas the peasants want will become implemented when they overthrow the king. Post 1900 revolutions tend to be socialist in nature.

Brits out REEEEEEEEEEEE..

Attached: Hogan's_Flying_Column.gif (2057x1133, 809.11K)

Take a look at any detailed 19th century's timeline. One can easily see how Western civilization slowly degenerated into things such as the Weimar Republic.

en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_19th_century

Looks like 1848 was a prolific year. It's also a testament to how much time it took back in the day for "new ideas" to get traction. In the case of women's suffrage, no less than 50 years. The 20th century was much different in this aspect, especially after TV was in every home.

Attached: 1848.png (762x98, 6.82K)

You absolute retard.
The 1700s hosted the Enlightenment, and many European rulers were already buying into Luciferian tenets which created the foundation for France's Freemasonic revolution.
The Enlightenment shit started during the early 1700s, and European monarchies were kiked for hundreds of years prior.

Jews might not have held public positions in governments, but Jew bankers and secret societies were already dominating them.

britain wasn't kiked until cromwell stabbed us in the back

The Jews have likely planned each century far in advance, or receive orders from an entity like Satan and are linked together in a hivemind.
The only way to solve this problem is to eliminate the Jews and also wage spiritual warfare, to prevent a demonic entity from creating another race similar to kikes.