In the short term, the French Revolution was a complete failure. They had an absolute dictator, then seas of blood and chaos, then another absolute dictator for the next several decades after this failed revolution.
And in the long term, it didn't introduce anything to humanity that wasn't already introduced by the American Revolution, or the Dutch Republic, or other earlier revolutions.
So why on earth is the failed and unoriginal French Revolution so glorified?
Because it represents the manifestation of the ideological movement to overthrow altar and throne.
It ushered in the age of secular republics. Or, the "new world order," as opposed to the old world order, Christendom.
Because it was the first to happen in a relevant country (North American colonies were a backwater in 1776).
Because it kickstarted the end of monarchy, the fall of colonialism and stoped the shamanic genocide.
Shit was great, if you don't agree we have the guillotine ready for you.
Its the only war they ever won
One of the funniest historical tidbits is learning about just who was in the Bastille when they were 'freed' from oppression.
Again, the US prior to them was a secular country.
That's the thing, i always hear all these vague grand things about how it changed the world blah blah blah but i cant find anything about what different ideas the French Revolution actually brought to humanity
this
Yes, I know. We were the first secular, godless nation in recorded human history.
It brought the fall of Christendom after it had been theologically destroyed by Protestantism and ideologically destroyed via humanism in the Renaissance.
-t. historically illiterate swine who only knows history beginning in 1941
This. imo, the only reason people glorify the French Revolution so much is not because it actually did anything, but rather just because it was France and people are brainwashed to be obsessed with France and esp. Paris for whatever reason
Like why does almost every girl in their 20s dream of visiting Paris? Just pure pro-French propaganda
Again:
USA in 1776: South Sudan of the Brits
France in 1789: Second only to Britain
>glorified
By who? I don't think Hollywood has ever made a big movie out of it. The only one that comes to mind is 'Orphans of the Storm', which is almost 100 years old and explicitly against the event, painting it as a prime example of ideology run amok and social subversion leading to complete ruin.
French Revolution has the best tidbits
>It took Louis XVI several years to finally fuck Marie Antoinette after their wedding
>The day before the Estates General Louis fell from a ladder and would have died if it weren't for some nobody catching him (I strongly suspect he was suicidal
>Louis was frequently heard crying in his room when he thought himself unobserved
>Robespierre made several enemies because he was too autistic to recognize people he knew in the street, leading many to think he was snubbing them
>"Robespierre simply can't fuck and money scares the hide off of him" - Danton on Robespierre
>Parisians defeating the Prussian Army by Zergling Rush
Who's 'they' and how are they glorifying it? Even in France they seem kind of lukewarm towards it. They seem like bigger fans of Napoleon most of the time, with a bit of Danton lionization.
Because most members of the ruling dynasty were murdered by plebs.
It was the first time when the class deemed high and mighty, was shown to be mortal, and expendable, by those considered expendable.
Marie was the name of the first one; she had been servant of a notorious brigand quite recently put to death on the wheel, whipping and branding had been her penalty. She was fifty-eight years old, had almost no hair left, her nose stood askew, her eyes were dull and rheumy, her mouth large and filled with her thirty-two teeth, yes, they were all there, but all were yellow as sulphur; she was tall, raw-boned, having whelped fourteen children, all fourteen of whom, said she, she'd strangled from fear they'd turn out ne'er-do-wells. Her belly rippled like the waves of the sea, and one of her buttocks was devoured by an abscess.
The second was known as Louison; she was sixty, stunted, hunchbacked, blind in one eye, and lame, but she had a fine ass for her age and her skin was still in fairly good repair. She was as wicked as the devil and forever ready to commit any horror and every extravagance one could possibly demand of her.
Because of moralists.
Revolutionary ideology is always popular among moralists, because it justifies any crime in the name of whatever. French Revolutionism gave birth to Communism, Fascism, Progressivism and many other totalitarian ideologies. The radical followers of these ideologies are just giving credit to their forefathers who started this violent totalitarian nonsense.
Thérèsewas sixty-two; she was tall, thin, looked like a skeleton, not a hair was left on her head, not a tooth in her mouth, and from this opening in her body she exhaled an odor capable of flooring any bystander. Her ass was peppered with wounds, and her buttocks were so prodigiously slack one could have furled the skin around a walking stick; the hole in this splendid ass resembled the crater of a volcano what for width, and for aroma the pit of a privy; in all her life, Thérèse declared, she had never once wiped her ass, whence we have proof positive that the shit of her infancy yet clung there. As for her vagina, it was the receptacle of everything ungodly, of every horror, a veritable sepulcher whose fetidity was enough to make you faint away. She had one twisted arm and limped in one leg.
The fourth was called Fanchon; six times she had been hanged in effigy, and not a crime exists in this world she had not committed. She was sixty-nine, she was flat-nosed, short, and heavy; she squinted, had almost no forehead, had nothing but two old teeth in her stinking maw, and they were ready to fall out, an erysipelas blazed all over her ass and hemorrhoids the size of your fist hung from her anus, a frightful chancre consumed her vagina, and one of her thighs had been entirely burned. She was dead drunk three-quarters of the year, and in that condition, her stomach being very weak, she vomited over everything. Despite the batch fo hemorrhoids adorning it, her asshole was naturally so large that all unawares she blew driblets and farts and often more besides. Apart from acting as servants in the luxurious recreation palace the four friends had in mind, these women were also to lend a hand at all the convocations and render all the lubricious services and ministrations that might be required of them.
Because brown skinned people were there and they listened to other people and were not harmed as if they would not be able to do any good by what they were hearing.
France being more important doesn't mean that their copying of American ideals makes them more special lol
We've had several replies and literally not a single one has shown why the failed French Revolution was any more glorious than the successful American one, other than that France was more important at the time.
Except the people leading the fight were also the high and mighty.
If anything the FR darkly parallels today, where we have erstwhile anarchists and corrupt loonies dressing up their fascist behaviour as 'freedom loving' and 'diversity'
Why is the Syrian conflict and arab spring romantacized?
Do you guys even know the French Revolution was about totalitarianism?
Yea i'll give you this one. Finally a good answer, props user
>If anything the FR darkly parallels today, where we have erstwhile anarchists and corrupt loonies dressing up their fascist behaviour as 'freedom loving' and 'diversity'
Which is why I say that if it were not for the mad philosophies of the likes of Locke, Voltaire, and Jefferson, we would have no SJW.
I wonder the same shit. It's like how everybody wants to automatically go to California.
>France being more important doesn't mean that their copying of American ideals makes them more special lol
Hm. What would the world be without France's strong free speech culture?
>We've had several replies and literally not a single one has shown why the failed French Revolution was any more glorious than the successful American one, other than that France was more important at the time.
France had a Republican revolution, which ushered a totalitarian regime that drowned the world in wars. So did America, the dictatorship is just better hidden.
Also, the French revolution led to the desctruction of the Thousand Year Reich.
Because the French revolution was actually a revolution, whereas the American revolution was really a war of independence, not a revolution.
Well said
t. learned history from Paradox Games
Better answer. Immediately after the opening of the Russian Revolution Lenin commissioned a statue of Robespierre.
explain.
SJW is just a modern incarnation of an attitude that has always existed. Losers who collect grievances and look for problems with society always inevitably rally together behind retarded causes and accomplish nothing good.
The FR didn't come out of nowhere.
>Protestantism: rebellion from theological authority
>Renaissance: rebellion from Christian philosophical authority
>French Revolution: rebellion from Christian temporal authority
Through this breakdown of Christendom, we get Marxism.
As Antonio Gramsci, the father of cultural Marxism states, "The philosophy of praxis is the crowning point of this entire movement; (...) it corresponds to the nexus Protestant Reformation plus French Revolution. It is a philosophy which is also a politics, and a politics which is also a philosophy"
Rejecting the Holocaust is free speech?
The French Revolution was a good thing. Fight me.
Get outta here Jefferson
>fight you
But the Franks are fucking trash tier in AOE2.
Do you actually consider yourself knowledgeable on this subject? I suppose that the name 'Charles the First' means absolutely nothing to you.
The French Revolution was about the destruction of institutions which supported the arbitrary delegation of power if it was about anything.
Do you also think the America revolution was a bad thing?
Who?
Because France was a relevant country, unlike the US. It also happening in mainland Europe also spurred fear to their neighboring countries. And oh yeah, a huge part of the French Revolution was the existing bloated class system, that made it a unanimous progeny and focal point for all future class conflicts after it. If you actually study the aftermath--the Legal changes and legacy, and Napoleon, you will see it was much more significant than the US revolution
It's a complex issue. The revolutionaries railed against the Church.
They committed genocide against the Vendee, the Catholics who stood against them.
The French soldiers executed many of these Vendee in mock sacraments like tying a man and woman together nude and throwing them in the water (mocking of sacrament of matrimony and of baptism).
The revolutionaries paraded around the actual heart of one of their fallen, mocking the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
They sacked the clergy and took over the Paris cathedral, enthroned a prostitute on the altar and crowned her "goddess of reason." One person complained that she was perfect in every way except for her teeth.
These "enlightened" individuals created a 'cult of reason', altered the number of days of the week, and instituted a mock religious system elevating human reason to the status of deity.
They sought the king's and the Church's destruction even after the king gave concession to them.
7 people. 4 put in there for forging and the other 3 were literal lunatics. One had been put in there by the family in order to avoid the shame of public scandal.
Honestly i feel that the Americans massively exaggerated Britain imposing taxes upon them.
I mean, Britain almost went bankrupt partly due to having to defend their American subjects from the French and Indians. Seems only fair that the Americans pay their fair share (though Franklin argued that the did but meh)
So i don't agree with a lot of the "grievances" against the King (though i agree with some, like quartering troops is bs) and think a lot of them were overblown (but then again, i didnt live back then)
So no, i'm not really a big fan of it, though some good did come out of it.
so i take it our old friends the jews were somehow responsible for all this blasphemy?
daily reminder that not only did the French Revolution bring democracy (the real kind, not the Am*rican one) and progressivism to the world stage, but it also rose the concept of nation stated that all the great States (minus tax haven city states) in the world are based around.
Well, the Masons were heavily involved. They claimed to have orchestrated the entire thing after the fact.
Napoleon, in his classical liberal madness, emancipated the Jews. Interesting enough, within one hundred years, France came to be ruled as debt slaves to Jewish usury.
The 1898 issue of Civilta Cattolica entitled The Jewish Question covers the perfidy of the day and touches on this issue.
One thing we have to thank the French Revolution for: Fine dining.
Here's how: Once the French nobility had fled or faced the guillotined, all the people they had employed found themselves unemployed. For the ones who worked in the kitchens of the nobility, the solution to this was to offer their expertise to the general public with food made to order from choices written on a card or "a la carte". This is why most culinary terms are from French.
I don't know but I suspect it has something to do with the jews
The revolutionaries brutalized the Catholic Church but I don't agree with classifying the French Revolution as being explicitly opposed to Christianity. Every institution which formed a part of the old regime had to go. It wasn't opposition to the church's tenants as much as the fact that it was so closely entwined with Feudal France. The revolutionaries destroyed the old calendar too, anything old had to go. The particular brutality with which Christianity was oppressed I think can largely be attributed to the natural attraction that counter-insurgency holds towards psychopaths and the zeal with which the Christians were willing to stand up for their beliefs, leading to a stricter reaction out of fear.
>the concept of nation
Bogpill me on why this is worth a damn. The French Revolution destroyed every smaller culture in France and replaced them all with Parisian. Not completely of course but France went from many dialects to the one language for all, for example. This is great for efficiency's sake but tragic for culture. Also bigger states start fuckhueg wars and get into all kinds of retarded politics, it's hard to accidentally annihilate half a continent when you're thinking in terms of villages and towns.
I don't think the jews played any part in the French revolution.
This is an obvious lie. Think of a major event, any major event. It was jews.
1789 is a story good enough to turn the cattle against their masters. If the parallels too today gain traction, they can just counter it by deconstruction what would be like deconstructing the narrative foundations of democracy in the west.
Promoting the meme of 1789 is how the right can win against the jew.
>And in the long term, it didn't introduce anything to humanity
Holy fuck, AMERICAN EDUCATION Y'ALL. Why are Americans so retarded? You're all pushing this "Americans are dumb" meme way too far.
The French Revolution started the trend of European countries becoming bastions of democracies and meritocracies. It started the decline of monarchies all over Europe and got them replaced with republics. It is literally one of the most important events in all of human history.
After Napoleon conquered Europe, he passed down the Napoleonic Code, with British historian Andrew Roberts describing it as, "The ideas that underpin our modern world—meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on—were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon.".
The French Revolution and Napoleon really are responsible for making Europe the way it is today.
>but I don't agree with classifying the French Revolution as being explicitly opposed to Christianity
The entire Endarkenment philosophy is anti-Christian. It is made clear in Voltaire's, Locke's and Rousseau's writings.
Which is why I am confused why Christians of today identify with the revolutionary politics of classical liberalism when it is at its very foundations aimed at secularizing and dechristianizing society.
Got any examples of jewish involvement?
I'm kinda curious, why are you against the Enlightenment? Is it just because of its anti-christian bias? Or do you disagree with its basic tenets (i.e. liberty, property rights, equality before the law, etc.)
You're right. It was shit. Bit its significant because it was the first of many revolutions based on the same bullshit secularist thought. Technocrats were going to create an egalitarian paradise with "science" and "reason". The state was going to be run by scientists and wngineers, and it was going to be for the people.
This always turns out terribly.
Communism. Which requires the abolition of absolute monarchy. Which means the jews were probably responsible for every modern revolution.
>In the short term, the French Revolution was a complete failure.
And in the long term it was a total fucking catastrophe.
The hardcore thinkers behind the revolution held strong anti-Christian sentiments but how long do the thinkers tend to hold influence in revolutions? Their manifestos, pamphlets, dictionaries, essays and all the rest were very scandalous but the heart of the revolution seems to me to have been hardworking people feeling fucked over by a system that forced them to supply gibs to a bunch of poncey do-nothings and a church which largely seems to not give a shit (I know abbes and nuns were often fantastic but many of the bishops are undefendable).
I have to say though, of all the anons ITT including me you seem to have the strongest idea of what you're talking about by far. Got to go now but maybe the thread won't be dead when I'm back.
Since (((they))) took over Britain how many none ((())) dictators/emperors do you know who were successful and didn't have an entire continent suddenly on their back?
This is why Catholics dislike Vatican II. It instilled democratic structure over the hierarchical. An entire society was made in reaction to this called the Society of St. Pius X, SSPX. They are recognized priests of the church
The entire Dark Enlightenment reactionary position proclaims the tragedies and flaws of Enlightenment ideals. It's one of the deepest red pills anyone could swallow
I'm aware of jewish involvement in the communist movement, but I was asking about examples from the French revolution.
It seems improbable to me that jews played any part in it since they were still second class citizens. Robespierre, Saint-Just, etc. were all French noblemen.
>property rights, equality before the law
These things existed before the Endarkenment.
The "liberty" it introduced is license. Liberty, as it was understood for over a thousand years in Christendom is the freedom to do what is right; not the freedom to do as you wish under arbitrary law.
I say arbitrary law because, without government having an objective foundation to operate from, you end up with the "laws" and societal decay that we have now: sodomite unions and the like.
In short, the fruit of this secularization is this:
>1000+ years of Christendom: Western civilization
>200 years of secularism: children confused as to which bathroom to use
>"liberty"
Because Americans never made their own money, which never pissed the British off because they couldn't collect interest off their own money, so they never made those paper notes illegal and never forced the colonies to pay the jew tax, which never lead to the revolution.
Right? Right. It was about tea. And stamps.
>without government having an objective foundation to operate from
This objective foundation is supposed to be the Bible? I think natural rights are a more objective foundation than scriptures, but that's just my opinion.
>you end up with the "laws" and societal decay that we have now: sodomite unions and the like.
I'm really unconvinced by this argument. Social degeneracy only started in the 1960s. How do you explain the preservation of conservative social mores during the period 1770s-1960s?
Yes, the French government was rife with problems at the time. Yet, the poison of secularization spread throughout the world and destroyed its ancient foundations.
It is hard to talk about the FR without first talking about the Protestant revolt, though, as they are both intimately connected in ideology.
Dominus vobiscum, fra.
And let's not kid ourselves the liberal 19th century was the apex of western civilization.
>social degen started in the '60s
>Not taking the degenerate 1920's, 1900's, 1870's... into account
You sound like someone whoes history starts with 1945
Well I mean yes there's always been degenerates, but rampant social degeneracy was contained. Following your arguments one can claim that the ancien regime was also degenerate because of individuals like the Marquis de Sade, but that would be silly.
Because Napoleon rose from the ashes and defeated six consecutive international coalitions.
The objective foundations of revealed religion that built Western civilization, yes and no. There is nothing wrong with the concept of natural rights insofar as it does not conflict with natural law.
Classical liberalism is, by nature, government by popular opinion. When a society is based upon the whimsical societal feeling of the day, there is no firm foundation.
Classical liberalism naturally leans leftward and organically tends toward further liberalism. There is no return to 1776.
My man.
I know nothing about the FR in that respect, however Catholics still talk about the Protestant Reformation because of what it did to government. The Enlightenment would not have happened if the PR didn't happen
I have zero doubt that degeneracy today is a result of the Enlightenment. "Free-thinking" man, unbound from duties of the divine. What you see today is what man really is without God.
>they were still second class citizens
Not behind the scenes. Rothschild had established enormous wealth by then and was a key financier in the Napoleonic Wars that followed. He and his family profited enormously from the French Revolution.
seems like they were dealing with all the problems todays society does . AKA first world problems
The Declaration of the Rights of Man is the greatest document in western human history.
Prove me wrong
>There is nothing wrong with the concept of natural rights insofar as it does not conflict with natural law.
Sorry, I actually meant natural law, not natural rights.
Also you do realize that the concept of "natural law" is a product of the enlightenment? (with Christian inspirations, granted)
>Classical liberalism is, by nature, government by popular opinion.
Not necessarily. For instance universal suffrage in the UK is super recent, it only appeared after ww2. But its Parliament is far more ancient.
Classical liberals are opposed to mob rule just as much as aristocrats.
Napoleon wasn't a failure. At least not until the invasion of Russia
Which French revolution? There were quite a few
This
Rothschild was not French, and I'd have less trouble believing you if you provided sources.
>and was a key financier in the Napoleonic Wars that followed
To the enemies of Napoleon, not to the French!
>The Enlightenment would not have happened if the PR didn't happen
Absolutely. It was a slow slide toward godlessness.
>Protestantism, 1517: Christ yes, Church no
>Freemasonry, 1717: God yes, Christ no
>Communism, 1917: God doesn't exist
Gramsci clearly saw this continuum. It has gotten so bad now that even the successor of Peter is marching in lockstep with Marxist thought; whether or not he considers himself Marxist. As long as the society has been pervaded with these ideas, people don't need to become Masons or Marxists or whatever, they've already come over to the 'secret society', they've already come over to their side.
It was the moment the international banking cartel had its first triumph over the aristocracy (their major barrier to national, and ultimately, world hegemony). WWI was the crushing finale, and WWII was clean up.
yes sir. I will defend to death to uphold that right!
youtube.com
I know it's gonna seem like I'm baiting, but I'm not. What's so bad about godlessness?
To make it clear where I stand, I'm an atheist lolbertarian.
fuck you just opened my eyes.
Because it brought us the beautiful guillotine.
>USA in 1776: South Sudan of the Brits
Britain already knew the US was set to become economically powerful in only a few decades. See Edmund Burke's speeches in parliament, or literally anything that has basis in fact and not cliches for simpletons. There is no reason why the example of a relatively large Western nation wouldn't have influence on other western nations.
The Revolution itself was not an immediate success, but its echoes effected a great deal of change. Napoleon, who saw himself as the guarantor of the failed revolution, spread some of its values all throughout the continent europe.
The Church was speaking of natural law long before the revolutionaries set their axes to it. Their definition of natural law was an iconoclasm, a defacement, stripping God of his rights and relegating man, his pleasure and leisure, as the capstone.
>being this bluepilled
>reddit as fuck
He helped orchestrate the French Revolution so as to destabilize Europe, make a shitload of profit and subsequently enslave the now war torn countries with debt.
Of course there are no sources detailing the jewish conspiracy.
>Of course there are no sources detailing the jewish conspiracy.
Convenient.
Its an old and well known story. Look it up yourself
Man has absolutely no faculty over his own governance if God is not in the picture. There is no moral right if there is no God.
>but atheists can be good people too
Yes, but the object of goodness is not an abstract, it is provided from Life, from Being, from God. Goodness is alive just as God is alive. The only hope that Man has at being truly good is to pray for its presence on Earth, because Earth hosts Death. Man is bound by Death, not just physically but psychically as well. Man is tempted into blindness without ever really knowing it. That is human nature.
It's more theological than philological but that's how I personally see it.
I was never an atheist but I used to be an agnostic libertarian; basically a practicing neo-pagan.
I can't really answer that any better than a quick look around our society. This is the product of godlessness. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, this [bolshevism] happened because we forgot God.
>Its an old and well known story.
Unfortunately I'm inclined to believe that it's just that: a story.
user do u have any reading to further my understanding of this
Source?
It was good for the Jews so it is good history
you have to go back
10 seconds on google
en.wikipedia.org
>one instance, the family network enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers.[21] Rothschild's first concern on this occasion was not to the potential financial advantage on the market which the knowledge would have given him; he and his courier immediately took the news to the government.[21] It was then repeated in later popular accounts, such as that of Morton.[23][24] The basis for the Rothschild's most famously profitable move was made after the news of British victory had been made public. Nathan Rothschild calculated that the future reduction in government borrowing brought about by the peace would create a bounce in British government bonds after a two-year stabilisation, which would finalise the post-war restructuring of the domestic economy.[22][23][24] In what has been described as one of the most audacious moves in financial history, Nathan immediately bought up the government bond market, for what at the time seemed an excessively high price, before waiting two years, then selling the bonds on the crest of a short bounce in the market in 1817 for a 40% profit. Given the sheer power of leverage the Rothschild family had at their disposal, this profit was an enormous sum.[22]
Let me offer my viewpoint.
I fully agree that goodness is not an abstract notion, but instead of believing that it derives from the divine impulse contained within Man, given by God, I rather think of it in Darwinian terms as the product of the evolution of human behavioral characteristics: moral behaviors make for better societies.
So what I guess I'm saying is, I agree that moral relativism is pretty evil and that there does exist a moral way of life, but that rather of it being imposed by some deity, it is derived from human nature.
And in a society which understands and accepts that, God is not needed.
I would recommend a book published in 1899 on liberalism. It is online now:
liberalismisasin.com
When the above book ends, the website owner put a bunch of other links that aren't relevant. Just a heads up.
Also, perhaps a.co
It is a tome of a book, heavily sourced, but a real eye-opener.
You can find some of the author's speeches in lieu of this book online that are just as good and make great primers.
youtube.com
youtube.com
awesome thank you. is this the liberalism that people claim "is the real liberalism" before all this new left wing progressivism?