this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
125 points (97.0% liked)

Slop.

421 readers
588 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fennec@lemm.ee 25 points 2 days ago

Do people mot understand what a Monarchy is?

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 117 points 2 days ago (5 children)

There are many things wrong with this, but weren't literally all of the "Never" countries absolute monarchies at some point?

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 92 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Also unsurprising but still funny how every single Soviet state within the Soviet Union is ruled a dictatorship despite having been far more democratic than any of the countries listed outside it.

[–] huf@hexbear.net 35 points 2 days ago

orban is apparently not a "dictator" (this contradicts standard EU opinion and also reality) wat.

[–] Z_Poster365@hexbear.net 56 points 2 days ago

they are still monarchies to this day, and they aren't just ceremonial despite beliefs of that. They still have institutional power, veto powers and political tools.

[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 31 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I don't think Switzerland ever was.

[–] Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net 30 points 2 days ago

If you really wanted to split hairs you could go back to the Helvetii tribes and say they were dictatorial with the fast and loose way they use the term. It doesn't matter though because this is all a waste of time and OOP has rocks for brains.

[–] Lemister@hexbear.net 23 points 2 days ago

The Helvetic Republic era was the closest

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Finland has not been a monarchy since the Russian revolutions, and prior to that they had foreign monarchs. There has literally never been a Finnish king. (Unless we count Frederick Charles, and we shouldn't)

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

They did ally with the Nazis tho and killed a ton of their own civilians.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago

Yes. But that's still not a king.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LodeMike 18 points 2 days ago
[–] Tiocfaidhcaisarla@hexbear.net 57 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A single NEVER hovering over both Britain and Ireland is a nice touch

[–] yet_another_commie@lemmygrad.ml 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

You're out of time but you're out of my head when you're not around

[–] ProletarianDictator@hexbear.net 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The words "dictator" and "authoritarian" are the two most destructive words to critical thinking that exist.

[–] Monk3brain3@hexbear.net 21 points 2 days ago

My moron cousin told me communism is bad because it's authoritarian, you end up with dictators and you don't have freedom. I shit you not. I no longer engage with people like that. Like propaganda has turned you into a literal NPC

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 46 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Imagine labelling all those countries with former monarchies as "never".

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 25 points 2 days ago

England had Cromwell, who fits most liberal definitions of dictator.

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 66 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Dumb anti-communism aside,

Britain/Netherlands still have a monarchy (and there is actual domestic opposition to them, since they aren't as powerless as the PR says).

France had De Gaulle. Erdoğan is not a dictator. Putin, even if you hate him did actually win the elections (and no, skirting around term limits does not make you a dictator).

Zelensky is literally serving an unelected term. It's constitutional yes, but that just makes him a constitutional dictator.

[–] edge@hexbear.net 46 points 2 days ago

Even if you don't count de Gaulle, you have to count Pétain.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] regul@hexbear.net 58 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Ah yes, when the Soviets were ruled by the iron fist of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Pizza Hut guy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lemister@hexbear.net 55 points 2 days ago

Oliver Cromwell? Even British libs think so

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Keld@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They're generally excluded from the definition.

[–] ClathrateG@hexbear.net 16 points 2 days ago (4 children)
[–] Keld@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In part because of the historical origin of the term dictator, so a monarch would inherit power while a dictator would rise from a republican government. In part because the fact that the British government isn't meaningfully freer than what they call dictators would hurt their pride

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 53 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"jewish_israeli_mapping" yeah that figures — what makes Putin count but not Orbán or Quisling?

[–] indeed@hexbear.net 24 points 2 days ago

what makes Putin count but not Orbán or Quisling?

well you see, you silly tankie, I've heard of Putler before but not those other guys smuglord

[–] nuko147@lemm.ee 50 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Ok but putting 1870 for france and ignoring the kings in other countries is a bit of mistake.

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, a king isn't a dictator because a kind rules by divine right sweaty

[–] Staines@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago

It's an anti-communist propaganda piece, not an actual historical analysis.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Keld@hexbear.net 36 points 2 days ago

Quisling?
The rule by department chiefs in Denmark?
Cromwell?
Petain?
Nazi rule in the Netherlands and Belgium?

[–] BelieveRevolt@hexbear.net 43 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

East Germany wasn't a dictatorship? Was this made by a TANKIE?

[–] SoyViking@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Denmark, being a monarchy, has had plenty of dictators. For some reason though the term dictator is often understood not to include monarchs and you can argue where the exact line should be drawn between a leader being a dictator or just a really big asshole. Here are some candidates for the title of "last dictator of Denmark":

Johann Friedrich Struensee (1770-1772): Prussian court physician who gained the trust of the absolute monarch Christian VII who was suffering from severe mental illness. Struensee also gained the trust of the queen to such as extent that he is widely considered to be the father of one of her children. He was appointed de facto regent by the king who was too unwell to govern and given a blanket authorisation to issue decrees. He embarked on an ambitious programme of modernisation and sensible liberal reforms such as banning torture and the slave trade, fighting corruption, enacting meritocratic hiring policies, land reforms giving land to peasants and abolishing censorship. People hated him for it and the newly freed press vilified him. Eventually Struensee was toppled in a reactionary coup centered around the queen dowager and executed by public beheading.

Frederik VIII (1848): The last absolute monarch. As heir apparent he had led a tumultuous life, he possessed no talents speak of and he showed little interest in matters of state. In 1848 at the age of 38 he became king when his father died as the result of bloodletting-induced sepsis. Liberals had long pushed for a modern constitution that would introduce democratic elements to the government and revolutionary waves were sweeping Europe. The work-shy failson king welcomed the idea of not having the bother that goes with being an active dictator and shortly after gaining power he signed a draft constitution, ending the absolute monarchy.

Jacob Brønnum Scavenius Estrup (1875-1894): Conservative prime minister. When the conservatives were defeated in the general elections of 1884 he simply refused to resign. The king and the largely unelected upper house backed him up. When the liberal majority in the lower house refused to pass Estrup's annual budget in 1885 he made up the concept of "provisional budgets" which he used nine years in a row. The budgets were mostly concerned with spending on the military and the police state. The same year he survived a point-blank assassination attempt which came as a convenient excuse for restricting the freedom of the press, increasing the powers of the police and creating "the blue gendarms", his own special police force that he used to suppress dissent. In 1894 liberals and conservatives finally agreed to pass a budget and Estrup resigned shortly after. He holds the record af the longest-serving prime minister and to this day his portrait is hung in the must prominent position in parliament's gallery of prime ministers.

Christian X (1920): Honorary mention for attempting to be a dictator and failing. In 1864 Denmark had lost Schleswig-Holstein in the second Schleswig war. Following the end of WWI referenda were held in 1920 in Schleswig and the northern part voted to rejoin Denmark. The social-liberal government, backed by the social democrats, accepted the result of the referenda but the reactionary forces such as the liberal and conservative parties, king Christian X and several powerful oligarchs wanted more. The king, described by some as "a dim-witted officer type" and "a Mercurial psychopath", summoned prime minister Zahle and ordered him to call for snap elections. Zahle who was backed by a majority in parliament refused and the king dismissed him on the spot. Instead he appointed Otto Liebe, his personal lawyer who had never been politically active, as prime minister. Strikes and massive protests erupted led by the social democrats and after a few days the king, faced with the threat of a general strike, folded and fired Liebe whose administration has been nicknamed "the administration that never slept". The king and the reactionaries got their elections shortly after though where they won bigly but they never got any more of Schleswig back. The crisis put the fear of Jesus into the royals who have ever since kept their big mouths shut about anything that could be perceived as "political".

Nazi occupation (1940-1945): When occupying Denmark in 1940 the Nazis didn't want to have too much trouble out of it so they aimed for a "peaceful occupation", allowing civil government to continue mostly uninterrupted. However, political power grows from the barrel of a gun and the Nazis had all the guns, giving them significant influence. Although German soldiers referred to Denmark as "the whipped cream front" and although the occupation of Denmark was arguably among the least brutal nazi occupations the nazis were still nazis, a gang of murderous psychos. The Gestapo hunted freedom fighters with all the barbarism you would expect and gangs of Nazi terrorists carried out terror bombings against random civilians in retaliation for resistance activity.

The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (now): Do I need to say more?

[–] DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

He embarked on an ambitious programme of modernisation and sensible liberal reforms such as banning torture and the slave trade, fighting corruption, enacting meritocratic hiring policies, land reforms giving land to peasants and abolishing censorship. People hated him for it and the newly freed press vilified him.

Least reactionary e*ro country

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They hated him because Denmark basically had a regal cult and Struense was more or less openly cuckolding the king. While the reason for the aristocratic resistance to his rule was his liberal reform spree, he was convicted of lese majeste and that was what the press was mostly mad about. One of the big accusations was that he had beaten the king, which was somewhere between unthinkable and heretical.

Somewhat ironically the king's son would later take power by actually beating the person behind the arrest of struense who had installed himself as regent.

[–] gramxi@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago

a realistic take on what would happen to time traveling lib isekai protagonists

[–] DerEwigeAtheist@hexbear.net 12 points 2 days ago

That's why you keep the censorship.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The dictatorship period of Denmark is either the scavenius prime ministership per 1942 or the rule by department chiefs per 1943, it is not the entire occupation as Denmark was allowed to maintain their government

and to this day his portrait is hung in the must prominent position in parliament's gallery of prime ministers.

Helle Thorning has a wall to herself.

[–] kristina@hexbear.net 39 points 2 days ago

the irish simply had an amicable discussion with the brits

[–] WizardOfLoneliness@hexbear.net 26 points 2 days ago

i'm pretty sure that england literally originated the european tradition of divine right of kings with the whole schism with the catholic church and consequent fallout

[–] WeedReference420@hexbear.net 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

r/Damnthatsinteresting ass graphic

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Incorrect. England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland last had a dictator in 1660. Also Vatican City currently has a dictator.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anaesidemus@hexbear.net 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›