Consume Product

>liberalism (all forms of "modern" republicanism and democracy) are purely jewish because they take power away from the White Christian monarch

Liberalism is economic. Which the French revolution was indeed economically liberal. However, the stated aim of removing the monarch had more to do with just copying the americans. Moreover, there was factionalism and huge disagreements on whether they wanted to remove the monarch and let him live, kill him, or just instate a constitutional monarchy.

But there are republican movements that aren't jewish. The IRA is anti monarchy and allied with hitler and fought the ZOG British government. Or the Italian fascists, who only entered an alliance with Victor Emmanuel for optics and really wanted to lynch the dude. Even hitler himself really had no love lost for monarchy and was a bitter enemy of the german conservatives. The Spanish falangists also hated monarchy just as much as the Republicans did.

>Notice they're not pushing these things in any nonwhite country

But non white countries did overwhelmingly end up republican too. Every South American revolution, the Xinhai revolution, most African countries after colonialism (how poorly they implemented it is another question entirely), etc

>They didn't destroy the Church "for no reason" they did it to destroy objective morality and bring in an era of subjectivity where there is no truth and anything is permissible

Yes. You're correct. It wasnt for no reason. That being said, when juxtaposed with the economic concerns that led to this happening, it *was* for no reason, because there was no economic reasoning for doing this. And the factors that led to the french revolution happening were economic factors. They just kind of decided to do all the other random bullshit because jews. Did it advantage anyone? No.

From a purely pragmatic view: economic systems change throughout history. There are a multitude of examples of monarchs being deposed because they and/or their nobility did not embrace the economic shift that occurred after the colonial era. Monarchy is just a system of government, it has, in itself, nothing at all to do with economics. North korea is, for example, effectively a socialist hereditary monarchy. There is no contradiction here. However, if the monarch wanted to get to enjoy, well, staying alive, the historical trend has always been that they must embrace capitalism and elevate the bourgeoisie above the feudal lords. Japan did that, and Japan was very successful. So did the hohenzollerns. France was severely in debt, and its people were suffering. The king tried his best to do right by everyone, but the nobility held a sword to the king's head. Thus he ended up doing right by nobody and not by his own fault.

Capitalism is jewish. At least, it's very jew-friendly. It's the most jew-coded system of economics of all time. That being said, it's also a necessary one and it didn't necessarily have to be that bad, at least at this time, and it was, well, quite inevitable really. The middle class of the medieval ages grew economically stronger than the lordship. Thus, now owning most of the money capital, material capital, and labor capital, they wanted to throw off the now largely useless aristocracy and have representation for their own interests.

Russia is a bizarre example where the monarch tried to embrace capitalistic change but pissed away everything good that was happening by getting Russia involved with multiple wars and other dumbshit foreign policy excursions that Russia had absolutely no capability of handling whatsoever.

Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed