Why are europeans such submissive cucks?

Switzerland is the only european country that had no monarchies since the early Middle Ages. France did not abolish its monarchy until 1799, all others abolished it in the 20th century. We are still the only country with direct democracy. 50% of all popular votes worldwide are held in Switzerland. You can only vote every four years but it doesn't matter because you are governed by unelected eu officials. What's your fucking problem europe?

Attached: 1913.jpg (502x476, 102K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>freetugal

First for Republictugal.

what about san marino

>Switzerland is the only european country that had no monarchies since the early Middle Ages

That's because you were the pope's lapdog 24/7.

> I prefer democracy over absolute monarchy

Attached: B5AACE22-18BB-4772-85B8-D17B378B212F.png (732x772, 34K)

>I want daddy to fuck me in the ass

Attached: 1550066406390.jpg (960x492, 56K)

there was tons of republics before switzerland

>I haven't beheaded my monarch

Attached: Soy.jpg (387x437, 40K)

There is no real difference between a monarchy and a republic. Both can turn into dictatorships, both can either govern with the consent of the people or through intricate manipulations.
As an individual even if you vote amongst the millions your own voice is nothing, and even the most suppressive regimes can only govern with the consent of the people, who should submit. In practicality there was little difference between the lives of people in monarchies or republics.

hitler was elected democratically, jim crow laws happened in a democratic society.
If you think democracy IN ITSELF is a safeguard against getting fucked, you are wrong. Civil liberties, socialism and democracy developed together, many times supporting each other, but they are completely different things.

>I can live fairly certain that I will not be persecuted and that the government will not try to mess with my money too much in a democratic system.

You'd be extremely surprised.

the Swiss cantons were rural and urban communes. They did not have feudal lords even if they had aristocracies.

Attached: 1512140567459.jpg (645x729, 48K)

France is also the first country were the common people tried to rise up and take there destiny into there own hands.

Long live the Paris commune!

Long live the commune of France!

Attached: 1546668417884.png (1000x666, 56K)

this
last monarchy was in 1871

Rights of the people prohibiting oppressive power structures that dominate people and their rights is what needs to be upholded over democracy, freedom of rights > oppression by democratic dictators.

/thread

Would you rather live in Canada or Saudi Arabia?
Hitler had a veritable army of around a million men, ready to do violence at a moment's notice. He technically gained power through an election, but what followed was a series of coups. He was extreme because he wasn't constrained by the system which he quickly removed.

The reasons he could do this are that the government was extremely weak, and allowed the formation of million man paramilitary movements in its borders. Nobody is denying that democracies can be overthrown, especially if they are young and under severe economic/political pressure. But if you can get a democracy, it will probably be better for you than any other form of government.

I know. It's the one and only thing I envy the yanks on. No Monarchy, no hereditary aristocracy, no established church. Yanks were never cuckd but we are eternal cucks.

>being this much of a brainlet
Dictators and autocrats are only dependant on a small circle of followers they need to keep happy. Each of those has a similarly small circle. In an autocracy the only people who matter are the guys with the guns and the guys with access to foreign capital.

In a democracy, even if you individual vote does not matter much, politicians are still forced to avoid actions that are likely to cause backlash. The government is constrained by popular opinion because no matter how small your individual contribution, you still have a contribution to the leadership's position. In an autocracy, you don't. All an autocrat has to do is keep enough supporters to make an armed insurrection impossible. Given the force multiplying nature of modern weaponry, it's not all that much.

>Iceland
>Monarchy

Attached: 1533922273636.jpg (797x599, 26K)

>only thing I envy the yanks on
not all the money they make?

haha landlocked bitch

You were technically under Danish rule.

>Europe shouldn't be ruled by monarchs in 2019

Attached: numale.gif (413x243, 51K)

>I enjoy people having hereditary ownership over me

>Switzerland is the only european country that had no monarchies since the early Middle Ages
We were in the HRE until 1648, what are you talking about?
>birthplace of calvinism
>pope's lapdog
Not really.

Yeah and so were the countries of South-America under Spanish rule, but I doubt you'd call them Monarchies.

How is that a bad thing?

>France is also the first country were the common people tried to rise up and take there destiny into there own hands.
>euroeducation

I'm pretty sure revolutions have been a thing sonce the stone ages

>HRE
Very difficult to call whatever the HRE was to the Old Swiss Confederacy a "monarchy" even if according to some obscure legalese it was that.

How is being dominated bad?
You dont get what you want and are subject to another.

I guess if you're fine with being an expendable pawn in someone else's life it's ok. I personally don't find the idea of slavery appealing.

euros are natural cucks, nothing you can do about it
wether it's submitting to blue blood dick or arab/african dick, the european needs someone superior to him in his life

I wish you could be set under a facist tyranny and get the biggest reality check of your life. Such a big part of the swedes on Jow Forums are among the people that have accomplished nothing memorable or applaudable in their lives and need to resort to the groupthink "Lmao nåårdic aryan master-race" to have something to be proud of.

Maybe you're just playing along with the meme. Maybe you're just in your late teenage years. But I sincerely hope that you sooner rather than later find an outlook on modern life that doesn't merely consist of
>REMEMBER STOOORMAKTSTIDEN NÄR MÄN VAR MÄN OCH BÖGAR BLEV BRÄNDA PÅ BÅL

Not in 1913.

But parts of empires that were ruled by monarchs technically and practically lived under a monarchy. In south america the spanish king would appoint viceroys to rule in a monarchic fashion.

Technically we were imperially immediate (reichsfrei) subjects of the emperor and feudalism still existed here, but instead of barons and counts we had city councils who exploited the rural populace. We were a hotbed of peasant rebellions until very late in history. That we went full democracy in the middle ages is poppycock and propaganda and has nothing to do with historical reality.

based fuck m*narcucks

Attached: monarchucks.jpg (899x960, 94K)

oh god, the moralfag twat has joined the game

fucking brainlet you are the result of our shit tier education system

//Thread

Don't stop buying Paradox stuff though, I put all my investment cash in that basket

Borderline retarded Swedish idiot.

>Be France
>Have one of the most authoritarian monarchies in Europe
>Chimpout and establish a republic which is even more authoritarian and violent than the monarchy just to maintain itself
>Military coup, guy eventually crown himself because why not
>Emperor gets BTFO, King come back gets BTFO by Emperor, Emperor finally get ousted
>Monarchy returns for a while
>Monarchy gets replaced by republic
>New guy in charge becomes dictator and crowns himself Emperor
>Emperor gets BTFO, republic established by far right guy who hates democracy and is a renowned commie killer
>Republic is constantly on the verge of collapse because of anti republicans
>End up voting itself out and give full power to far right dictator
>New republic is established, very corrupt and authoritarian just like the previous one, very instable too
>Military coup, guy writes a new constitution which makes the new republic a quasi dictatorship but it's ok because he's pretty popular and the economy is great
>Guy dies, new presidents are increasingly unpopular in the following decades, many people chimpout at the "presidential monarchy", more and more are calling for a new republic
>To be continued
This country is hilarious

>He thinks hes free right now

sad

>France is also the first country were the common people tried to rise up

lol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts

Eyyy, no problem bro

Attached: BismarckundNapoleonIII.jpg (640x425, 52K)

Fuck you pal, morality is underrated

>Technically we were imperially immediate (reichsfrei) subjects of the emperor
Exactly. In the HRE this means in practice you had no monarch. Imperial immediacy was essentially independence unless the emperor could actually show up at the head of an army and make you do something.
>and feudalism still existed here, but instead of barons and counts we had city councils who exploited the rural populace.
I know that. But it's no longer a monarchy when you had a bunch of local patrician councils running things.
>We were a hotbed of peasant rebellions until very late in history.
Yes, I am aware of that.
>That we went full democracy in the middle ages is poppycock and propaganda and has nothing to do with historical reality.
Most historical democracies didn't include the lower classes. Usually it was the propertied bourgeoisie and rural gentry. This includes Athens and Rome.

Cringe

Im.not answering to any master so yes.

>monarchies

Attached: 1536428208398.jpg (2048x1218, 308K)

I'm freer than my great great grandparents were under the tsar or my parents were under the communist party.

>Cringe degenerate cuck
Bingo!

That doesn't mean that a country is (one of) Monarchy.
I refuse to accept the label of Monarchy for Iceland unless someone can somehow prove to me that an Icelander ruled as a Monarch in Iceland as Icelanders have always been a separate nation apart from the Norwegians and Danes.

Have you ever thought about splitting the country up?

>the habsburgs wuz good i swearz

Attached: monarchuck meetup.png (720x444, 259K)

if you don't want to look like a pathetic twat please refrain from using
>le coolness
>le popularity
>le maturity
arguments in debates about the merits of systems of social organization. Instead, you should focus on the cause and effect relations, how certain systems respond to certain kinds of inputs and how the outputs would be more or less favorable to hypothetical agents with given goals (people with some values or desires) interacting with them.

Attached: 1547222812113.png (640x479, 115K)

SAVOIA WILL RULE ITALY AGAIN

Attached: princess of italy 32.jpg (692x441, 52K)

I tend to agree, Iceland was pretty free to do its own thing. But most overseas territories were on a much shorter leash.

Remember, OP made a meme map to make a bait thread.

At worst they were inbred literal retards, but they also produced some great statesmen and reformers, Maximilian I for example with his monetary and military reforms. It was sort of like the Targaryen coin flip in real life.

Habsburgs were good and we're going to reinstate then as rightful kings of the Croatian Kingdom. We're working on it and you better believe it.

Sadly we never really tried that, should be fun

they turned their entire empire into a shithole they imported gypsies and jews, filled hungary with slavs and romanians so no fuck them

Oh yeah because the person I responded to sure was the pinnacle of a refined debater

Besides, I used none of those terms you pathetic twat

look at these cucks!!! they are dominated by a man wearing a crown!!! real men get ruled by a man who wears a cravat!!!

Attached: 1549959025301.png (817x443, 34K)

>Such a big part of the swedes on Jow Forums are among the people that have accomplished nothing memorable or applaudable in their lives and need to resort to the groupthink "Lmao nåårdic aryan master-race" to have something to be proud of.
>your position is only held by individuals of low social status

the man who wears a cravat doesn't have a personal gang of thugs to steal your lunch money. the thugs only work for him so long as he doesn't piss off too many civilians. in a monarchy, the thugs will work for him for as long as he can pay them.

It honestly sounds like France is too big to be ruled by one man.

You're a slav, mr. Horvat. You just speak a fully language imposed onto you by an aristocracy trying to expand their ethnic clay in the 19th century.

Our government uses our king to announce higher taxes and controversial laws & treaties so everyone gets angry with the king and not the government

Attached: Prinsjesdag.jpg (1024x682, 299K)

why is it always croatia that sucks austrian dicks literally no ex-habsburg country does it except for you

>he belives this bullshit
you do realise that the country had 4 million hungarians before the importation of the subhumans

Assburgs were shitty rulers and their "empire" was a trainwreck

what are you talking about

They don't since the king doesn't make any laws.

We had electional monarchy with a very weak position of the king, which resulted in weakened state and getting partitioned by more strict absolutist monarchies.

not to mention that halpomemes and genetic studies disprove that meme aswell.

But sure
>Absolute monarchy isn't le cool, and there's a reason it isn't a le popular idea among le mature people. Putting all power in the hands of anyone merely born by the correct parent and with no real way of dethroning him, is basically giving anyone on the street all the power, and leaves your entire country's future up to a stupid lottery. World leaders right now are often smarter than the average person, or at least way more educated in their field of expertise since (almost) nobody would vote for a crazed drooling retard, but with an absolute monarchy, that is sometimes what you end up with, with no way of taking away his power short of rebellion.

the fundamental difference between monarchy and democracy

Now that's an actual argument. Now if you look at the thread you will see we are on the same side.

> he doesn’t know Poland had the earliest democracy in Europe
> he doesn’t know Democracy is what caused Poland to decline and disappear

mhhh you know tax collectors exist in republics too ?

>there are people in this thread who literally thinks that any form of political system is legitimate beyond moral and ethical values
the only political view that fits it is the libertarianism. any other form is imoral at different levels, be it a fascist, socialist, oligarchic or democratic regim.

Anti-Monarchism is Communism.

Europe was at its peak when enlightened monarchs ruled the continent.

Monarchy is also the only form of government ordained by God. Jesus is the King och Kings, not chairman of the Politburo.

Attached: 12347698_10154376254938294_64534498638204293_n.jpg (638x960, 63K)

Czech because they're heretics still butthurt about being crusaded on. Although Czech have elected a pro-Habsburg monarchist party to rule some neighborhoods. Czechia is both the most Habsburg and most butthurt of the ex-empire countries.

Slovaks just recently got together a pro-Habsburg group because they're late with everything, as usual.

Polish have their loyalties elsewhere, although their view of Habsburgs is positive.

Slovenians are cucked leftists in comparison to Croats and their state is doing very well, so there's not much dissent.

Hungarians are filthy leftist revolutionaries who we sent peasants against in the 19th century to keep the empire together. Which was one of the defining moments for Croatian nationalism. For God, crown and country. This left its mark, and especially now that we're experienced Yugoslavia, we realize how good it was under the Habsburgs and since EU is giving us cultureless degeneracy while commies still govern our country, we can only look back at the 19th century for guidance. There's a strong and often hidden reactionary streak in Croatian culture and I believe it's surfacing again.
Just my thoughts.

Is having accomplished nothing memorable or applaudable the definition of low social status? I was speaking about the human psychologic need to find pride and sense of accomplishment in a life void of personal achievements, the quick-fix way to find it is through nationality or race, although this is in no way something you can applaud your self of.

>the government will not try to mess with my money too much in a democratic system
They will if people vote for it

>is a monarchfaggot
>muh nationalism
lmao what a true brainlet

I know we both dislike monarchy, it's just that I'm tired of morality somehow being ruining the thread while shitposting a cuck-wojak-strawman argument in favor of absolute monarchy gets a free pass

>Anti-Monarchism is Communism.
Not liking bananas is pro-apples? Fuck off with these arguments

>Europe was at its peak when enlightened monarchs ruled the continent.
According to which definition? Are you talking about the dark ages full of conflict and war? Stop romanticizing the past, this is simply not true. Look around you outside on the luxuries and technological wonders that you have at your disposal. An enlightened king from your past would call this a paradise where almost no man goes hungry and live in excess.

>Monarchy is also the only form of government ordained by God. Jesus is the King och Kings, not chairman of the Politburo.
Grug heard shaman say skydad give berries and protect tribe. Grug believe.