180 years ago: The King is dead, long live the Nation!

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

On January 21, 1793, Citizen Louis Capet, formerly Louis XVI King of France, deposed and sentenced to death by the National Convention, was publicly guillotined at Paris on the Place de la Concorde. Probably one of the most significant events of these troubles that threw Europe into 25 years of endless wars, and instilled national consciousness in all of monarchic Europe (and South America as well).

 

Ironically enough, Louis XVI, loving engineering, had helped Dr Guillotin to perfect his killing machine the past year, himself redrawing the blade!

 

This anniversary date is yearly celebrated by mourning masses by the few French monarchists. Mostly folklore.

[B52STRATO 215]

And by some "Contre-Révolutionnaires" too

Ah, I just noticed, it should be 220 ​​years that King Louis XVI was split in two part ?

Edited January 21, 2013 by B52STRATO

[jeanba 1,920]

Louis XVI was the wrong person at the wrong time.

He lacked experience when he became king, and then it was too late

 

It must be added that in wwI and wwII lot of french officers were monarchist. And in 1940, some of them were so happy to see the republic collapse that they did not hesitate to compromise themselves.

Edited January 21, 2013 by jeanba

[Panama Red 22]

Is 180 (verusu 220) the new math that they use in Europe ??? If it is, no wonder thay are so deep in debt.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Ooops!! Not a wrong method of counting, indeed: substract to 220 years too much of 40% alcohol this week-end, matching about the number of IQ points lost in the process, you get 180. Or something close.

[JediMaster 451]

I was going to say "Elvis died less than 40 years ago, what's this??"

[hrc 156]

All in all, 12 more degenerate, inbred, hereditary, neofeudal monarchies are at throne on our beloved old continent. Citizens of the fifth republic should clean the rust of the guillotines, and hand them over to their republican brothers in those countries to cut of the serpents heads once and for all.

Vive la Republiqe,

Vive la Résistance!

Edited January 22, 2013 by hrc

[shotdown 8]

hrc, I'm not exactly happy with my current king, but every time we've tried the republic, it's been far worse, so I'd rather keep monarchy, thank you.

[B52STRATO 215]

Sometimes I will focus to cut some policies heads, as well as leaders of associated movements too. When I see that 5 years ago, several protesters were beaten up by others, and why ? Because they came to protest independently and without a membership card of any political party or trade union ! Today if you don't join a movement you are a "social traitor" (not too bad for a so said "people reunification" movement), an "anti-patriotic" (these idiots don't even get the true sense of Patriot !), or a "soft".

 

Flushing water is sometimes good for the whole house.

[hrc 156]

hrc, I'm not exactly happy with my current king, but every time we've tried the republic, it's been far worse, so I'd rather keep monarchy, thank you.

I also live in a republic, and I'm not happy with it. That is 'cause my country like many others isn't true republic. Republica, latin; res publica - public matter. Not kings matter, or matter of few ultra powerfull. Rather we live in oligarchical republics. If power is truly to reside in people, they would never vote for never ending indebtedness, deindustrialisation. overtaxation, massive unemployment, selling of fundamental public infrastructure to paper thin stratum of usurer financiers, dismantlement of economic and social rights that were fought for and build for decades. But in oligarchical republic, the little man can vote all he wants cause in the end he will be duped by the elite. Today european monarch is not an absolute monarch of of 19 century type, but he is rather inter crossed with oligarchy, and their common objective is what it always was, to loot the population and maintain their status. Genuine republic in my book is the best thing there is, foundation of USA and its course through much of the 19th century is the brightest example. And it was founded in struggle against oligarchical British empire that exists today in the very same form but not size.

Edited January 22, 2013 by hrc

[+Brain32 265]

Completely true, and judging by the way things are going we might see another one very soon...

[+Gepard 11,314]

The time of feudalism is over. Each single country in Europe which still has a King, a Queen or a Duke is also a Democracy. The british, dutch, danish, swedish, belgian, norwegian, spanish (which i have forgotten?) people have their parliaments which they have to elect, like the french, germans, czech, polish, italians or or or. Where is the difference? I cant really see one. The so called monarchies have their crowned person as highest (but powerless) "leader", here in Germany we have an Bundespräsident, who has also nearly nothing to say. Its the same, but without a crown.

[B52STRATO 215]

This will probably, and unfortunately, never be possible. It will take at least that trust is in everyone within a people: the Teletubbies world, dancing hands in hands around a table. Look, even in the world of the Care Bears there are "vilains" and "goods".

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

I also live in a republic, and I'm not happy with it. That is 'cause my country like many others isn't true republic. Republica, latin; res publica - public matter. Not kings matter, or matter of few ultra powerfull. Rather we live in oligarchical republics. If power is truly to reside in people, they would never vote for never ending indebtedness, deindustrialisation. overtaxation, massive unemployment, selling of fundamental public infrastructure to paper thin stratum of usurer financiers, dismantlement of economic and social rights that were fought for and build for decades. But in oligarchical republic, the little man can vote all he wants cause in the end he will be duped by the elite. Today european monarch is not an absolute monarch of of 19 century type, but he is rather inter crossed with oligarchy, and their common objective is what it always was, to loot the population and maintain their status. Genuine republic in my book is the best thing there is, foundation of USA and its course through much of the 19th century is the brightest example. And it was founded in struggle against oligarchical British empire that exists today in the very same form but not size.

The reign of perfect virtue may not be perfect either. Back to the French Revolution, only one French politician in History has earned the nickname 'The Incorruptible'. This was Maximilien Robespierre, the mass guillotiner who sent dozens of thousands of his compatriots to the 'National Razor', after swift mock trials, under the slightest pretexts of speculation, at the most pointless denunciations of corruption... Universal virtue, righteousness, and perfection were the ultimate goals of this bloody madman, whatever the means. He wanted his compatriots either spotless, or dead. Under his rule, the reign of virtue was also the reign of terror. But Men are not perfect, and a world ruled by Men can't be. An unperfect world, is thus still a world proving alive.

[hrc 156]

Completely true, and judging by the way things are going we might see another one very soon...

Sorry bro, didn't understand, what another one are we going to see soon?

The time of feudalism is over. Each single country in Europe which still has a King, a Queen or a Duke is also a Democracy. The british, dutch, danish, swedish, belgian, norwegian, spanish (which i have forgotten?) people have their parliaments which they have to elect, like the french, germans, czech, polish, italians or or or. Where is the difference? I cant really see one. The so called monarchies have their crowned person as highest (but powerless) "leader", here in Germany we have an Bundespräsident, who has also nearly nothing to say. Its the same, but without a crown.

What do you call when a person, somebodies mom or dad who works 9-10h a day, 27 days a month, and gets a wage with which they cannot pay all their bills or buy school books or pair of shoes for their children, while at the same time the owner of the company where the person works cannot decide what yacht to buy for upcoming season. And when you ask your government what they think of it they say that gvnmt. shouldn't dictate minimum wages, that it shouldn't intervene cause in "free market" things regulate themselves and that workers should work longer before they are allowed to go to miserable pension. It's neofeudalism. Then there are two types of capitalism: industrial capitalism and financial capitalism. Ind. capitalism employes large numbers of people and produces tangible goods, financ. capitalism on the other hand employs very few, and produces nothing, but extra profits for the elite (these are hedge funds, investment banks with their fin. securities, credit derivatives,and other speculative junk). You are fortunate to live in a country where industrial faction is very powerful and influetal, like in Japan or Korea, where ind. capitalist understand that in order to sell their products workers need to be able to buy them, and must have decent wages. In a country where financ. capitalism is at large, the only results are selling of hard assets in order to make a bundle of money, skyrocketing unemployment, bubbles and debt.

As far as monarchies go, all British and Belgic primeminister and top party officials were members and come directly from royal institutes, round tables and other nondemocratic assemblies that are set by king.

When asked, what kind of politics do they represent and what they stand for, current queen Elizabeth II answered: "We are older than capitalism or socialism" , and that's true because they represent feudalism.

Edited January 23, 2013 by hrc

[+Gepard 11,314]

It's neofeudalism.

 

Nope its typical capitalism. Perhaps you can find an old book of ol Marx. Its well desciped there.

 

Feudalism is a kind of society with typical marks like ruling a land by the aristocracy. No land in Europe is ruled by aristocray (maybe Monaco). All lands with a king or queen are constitutional monarchies. What means that all people of a land have to follow the rules of the constitution (inclusively the King or Queen). The true power in this contries lies in the parliaments and not in the hands of the kings or queens. Today the royal families are politicaly unimportant. They are important as attraction for tourists and as such a "good" investment for the touristindustry. On the other hand a king or queen can be (not must be or is, depends on the person) a very important factor for the morale of a people. A leader of high morale and integrity can act as moralic mainstay, which in hard times and in disasters is very helpfull. The kings and queens of europe are outside of politics, so they can play the role i descripe. Some act fine in this role (danmark, norway, sweden as excamples).

Perhaps you remember the attempt of coup d'etat in Spain a lot of years ago. The spanish democracy was young and the military tried to take the power. The spanish King had spoken to the spanish people and supported the democracy and so the coup d'etat failed in hours. He had had no political power. But he was a moralic instance. And this was important.

I'm not a friend of kings and queens. But if some peoples in Europe are happy with their kings ... Why not.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Gepard

[+Brain32 265]

Sorry bro, didn't understand, what another one are we going to see soon?

Violent change of system...like the French Revolution but like I said...maybe...

[hrc 156]

Neoliberal capitalism or neofeudalism are synonyms. The only difference between feudalism then and neofeudalism now is in their source of exploitation. Then it was mainly land and peasant, today it's pretty much everything that can get monopolised, apart from maybe intellectual work and similar stuff.

I believe all humans are born equal, so the fact that kings cast are born more equal than others in 21century is beyond me.

I'm not fond of violent revolutions, , 'cause whenever the sea gets wavy, filth tends to come up. But if they cannot be avoided... ...Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. J.F Kennedy

 

P.S., Marx and Engels were definitely on to something, on the cause of the problem at least, but their solutions were perhaps too radical.

[macelena 1,070]

No matter what the system is, it will go corrupt. As ancient greeks said, Democracy gets to become demagogy, Monarchy becomes Dictatorship, and Aristocracy becomes Olygarchy. No matter how the system is on paper, it will get corrupted, because besides all the class warfare, everybody wants his share of the cake to be bigger. The ones oppressed will become the oppressor.

 

That´s why democracy and capitalism work better than other systems, because it is better suited against corruption. Indeed, in any revolution or war, as hrc hinted, by mere natural selection the good people dies while the inmoral profits.

 

True revolution is not about changing the system, it is about changing the people. The way they act individually in their ordinary lives, and as a group. How do democracies fare in countries without that enlightement? It is the people that makes a democracy what it is. I would rather live in a tiranny with decent citizens than in a democracy with servile serfs.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, but would you rather live in a democracy with decent citizens or a tyranny with servile serfs?

 

The type of gov't you have doesn't dictate what kind of people live there, it's the reverse.

 

The biggest problem I have is with the constitutional purists. It was great for the first almost 100 years of the country, when things were pretty much the same. The Civil War proved it was flawed, yet no major changes were made in its wake. The people and the world have changed a lot in the last 150 years, but other than a few relatively unimportant amendments dealing with things like succession there have been no fundamental alterations.

 

The founders intended for the Constitution to evolve and grow, and outdated things to be discarded, as the nation and its people evolved and grew. People who blindly put them on a pedestal and say "we shouldn't change a thing!!" are totally missing the point. If you want to live in 1820, the original Constitution is ideal. For 2020, it needs changing. There are things today totally undreamt of back then that need to be considered.

 

Of course, that would require consensus, and every group in this country thinks ONLY they know what is proper, and all the rest are misguided at best or stupid, tyrannical, or traitors (ie "unAmerican") at worst. In the past few decades "compromise" has become a 4 letter word, which is ironic as it's the principle the Constitution was based on and patterned to embrace. Instead of groups taking turns having things their way, they want it their way 100% of the time. If they don't get it, they demonize and insult the ones who did. What's best for the country has taken a back seat to what's best for them, even if it hurts the country, because they believe hurting the country NOW is ok because when they get their way EVENTUALLY things will be better.

 

Oh, and bin Laden and Al Qaeda won the war even if they lost every battle. This country was so much better off in 2000 than now, even after the dotcom bubble burst, because of all the things we've done since then. I think it safe to say very few people like the state of the country in 2013 more than they did in 2000, no matter what they support, even though they likely will give different reasons. The answer is simple, though: in an attempt to combat what we thought was a grave threat from outside (far more people died and money was lost due to our responses to 9/11 than we actually lost that first week) we destroyed what it was to be living here. We were fiscally, internationally, and morally irresponsible for over a decade and everyone is at fault for letting it happen, if not actively causing it (like those losers in "Congress").