>>17954791
Scusi?

monarchy france:
>complete shithole
>everyone is forced to work in the fields
>early monarchy was created by filthy barbarian invaders
>made france hundreds of times weaker and poorer than it was during roman times
>complete loss of all knowledge during antiquity
>less than 1% literacy rate (the state and church worked together to get the literacy of the population as low as possible)
>huge taxes
>mendatory church attendance
>serfdom and enslavement
>unfair society where some people are just allowed to do crimes

late monarchy under louis XVI
>ruled by a foreign monarch
>population lives in abject poverty
>starves half the years
>insane ammounts of corruption
>the king bankrupted france and took huge debts to his court jews (the last french king owed the jews more money than the total value of france at the time)
>potential completely wasted
>no industry
>extremely inefficient system
>all the provinces had different laws and even measurement units and languages


revolutionary france:
>defeats all of europe combined 3 times in a row
>extremely popular, the king couldn't find a single soldier willing to kill napoleon during the first restoration after the french defeat to russia
>invents modern science
>invents the metric system
>home of the arts and intellectuals
>most militarily succesful country of all times
>extreme nationalism
>women's rights revoked
>banking and usury are banned
>feudalism, noble priviledges and indentured servitude are banned
>welcomed as liberators wherever the republican army went, with sometimes the entire army of other countries joining the republican army

literally every single thing france is famous for happened after the revolution

The age of enlightenment was a good thing. The church losing its power was a good thing. The rise of secularism was a good thing.

>>40837557
based

>>511051771
>>511052076
>submit to my daddy or you are an anarchist leftist libtard!!!!
Move to North Korea, retard.

>>509848253
>As for Louis XVI, there has long been a debate as to if he was ever formally initiated into a lodge as his brothers probably were. When he ascended the throne, Louis XVI was quite liberal and progressive; like all young progressives at the time he saw the masons not only as harmless, but as a group who would benefit society by active good works. Some of this explains his initial acquiescence to certain measures in the beginning of the Revolution which were damaging to the Church, especially the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. He admits as much in the Vow to the Sacred Heart which he made under house arrest in the Tuileries in 1791

>It is true that many monarchists were masons and many revolutionaries were not masons. However, in the years preceding the Revolution of 1789, masonic lodges formed a network that fomented discord, spread propaganda against the King and especially against the Queen. The lodges were used by a core of aristocrats and politicians who wanted to secularize society, and destroy the Church, or at least enervate it, by destroying or by seizing the crown

>Marie-Antoinette came to see this quite clearly. In August of 179o she wrote to her brother Emperor Leopold of Austria: "Be well on your guard where you are with regard to all associations of Freemasons. You must already have been warned that it is by this means that all monsters here count on attaining the same end in every country. Oh, God, preserve my Fatherland and you from such misfortunes." ( Lettres de Marie-Antoinette, edited by Maxime de la Rocheterie, 2 vol., 1895) For Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI, the warnings had not been heeded, until it was too late