>All the ideologies and mass movements of the last two centuries were born of the French Revolution. They were born of it and none against it. The revolutionary currents were substantially three: the liberal one, interested in consolidating new civil and political rights, the socialist, ambitioning to extend the revolution to the socio-economic field, the nationalist, dreaming of a new kind of social link that would substitute the old loyalty of subjects to the king and eventually finding it in "national identity", in the almost animist sentiment of solidary union founded on the unity of race, language, culture, territory. The synthesis of these three was summarized in the motto: Liberty-Equality-Fraternity.
>The equalitarian conspiracy of Babeuf and it's crushing marked the break between the first two ideals, announcing two hundred years of competition between capitalist revolution and communist revolution. That each would accuse the other of reactionary, nothing more natural: in the power struggle between revolutionaries, wins the one that best manages to clean up his image of all contamination with the memory of the "Ancien Régime". But to cleanse oneself from the past, it is necessary to defile it, and in this, the propagandists of both sides compete with overflowing creativity: the Church's lands, guaranteers of the poor's subsistence, retroactively become hideous feudal exploitation; the general french prosperity, immediaty cause of the social rise of the burgeoisie, becomes the myth of growing misery that supposedly produced the insurrection of the poor; the plunder of small landowners by the new bureaucratic class that replaced the local administrations (and which joined the administration en masse) becomes a crime of the feudal lords. The popular image of the Revolution is still largely based on these thick lies, for whose credibility contributed the fact that they were simultaneously proclaimed by two enemy parties.
Redpill for you
Other urls found in this thread:
olavodecarvalho.org
pastebin.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
fiatjaf.alhur.es
youtube.com
olavodecarvalho.org
olavodecarvalhofb.wordpress.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
ncregister.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>The third faction, nationalist, comes to almost monopolistically embody the revolutionary spirit in the phase of the struggle for national and colonial independences (...). The partnership with the other two gradually becomes open competition and hostility, encouraged here and there by occasional alliances between nationalist revolutionaries and local monarchs dethronned by the Napoleonic empire.
>By the end of the XIXth century, the liberal revolutions had ended, the liberam regimes entered the phase of peaceful modernization. Triumphant liberalism could now reabsorb surviving religious and moral values of the old regime, rendered harmless by the suppression of it's social and economic foundations. He no longer bothered to personify the "right" in the eyes of it's two revolutionary competitors, renamed "soviet communism" and "nazi-fascism". Thus began the death struggle between the socialist revolution and the nationalist revolution, each one accusing the other of complicity with the liberal "reaction".
BREAK THE REVOLUTIONARY CONDITIONING
t. cuckolutionary slide shill
bumping a quality thread
source for quotes
olavodecarvalho.org
translation by me
posted other text by the samefag another day but it didn't catch on
...
if there's any interest
pastebin.com
ah, great
my best friend is gaucho, he'll help me with the translation if i need it navigating the site
i'm just drinking before i go and enjoy a cigar but how do you feel about the argument from NatSocs that their philosophy was a way of dealing with the shift from agrarianism to urbanism, an agricultural to an industrial society?
I'd ask why they still shill for it then, since that ship has sailed long ago.
I'm not familiar with the nazi argument per se, but this is related to the idea of Sonderweg right?
It's similar to what some commies say of soviet Russia
The most interesting text from this author I've read lately is "Who is the subject of history?" but it's copyrighted and I don't want to be sued and shit.
It explains why Soros, the Rotschilds etc and the study of families like these is as relevant to understanding politics as studying religious groups, old dinasties, people like napoleon and political parties
Duginists hate him tho for not being a russian shill and liking the US
>All the ideologies and mass movements of the last two centuries were born of the French Revolution.
>Hes already forgotten the reformation
>last two centuries
>reformation
Do you honestly not see the foundations of communism and liberalism in the struggles and ideas that emerged during the reformation?
The french revolution was merely the adolescence of these ideologies.
> schismatic detected
1083 or gtfo
but in all seriousness
> i'm not familiar with the nazi argument per se
it's something along the lines of the following (this is off the top of my head):
industrialization caused a population shift from rural to urban areas
along with the shift in the locus of population, you also experienced a growth in total population as the products of such industrialization also resulted in greater ability to provide for the maintenance of the same
with a growing ratio of population in the urban areas versus the rural areas along with the total growth in population, your began to see a shift in mechanisms of control from the local political fora (the traditional Earl (along with his Sheriff)-Marquis-Duke-Prince-King hierarchies to more concentrated urban administrative systems
these were polarized by interest parties, deracinated, despotic, and miserable
unchecked capital and unchecked command economics lead to many of the travesties of the modern era
however, with natsoc, they sought to achieve a balance between these unchecked paradigms by promoting a sort of "volks-positive" industrialization (not preventing industrialization or trying to preserve old power dynamics as mentioned above), while being highly intentional in promoting (what had already been) "traditional values" and social cohesion in highly-displaced migratory populations
anyway this is terrible and NatSocs will attack me for it but i think that's the argument
and i haven't heard a good counterargument yet from the traditionalist/monarchist crowd
all i ever wanted was to be a fat blacksmith -
loyal to his priest and royal and sheriff and guild - celebrating the holy days drunk off mead while still somehow managing to be a good father to his ten children
nobody fucking asked ME though
>Chalcedonian detected
451 or gtfo
The great schism didnt have the same ideological ramifications to cause trouble.
if you weren't in pic related, you are basically the cancer that is killing christianity
t. oldfag
it boggles my mind that the American Revolution actually happened before the French one, indeed it was the inspiration for the frogs to revolt.
for years i thought it was the other way round, and strange how the french get blamed for the revolutionary spirit when the yanks kicked it all off a couple of years earlier.
yah shouldn't have fucked with our representation schema
the american revolution was one for traditional english liberty . . . and just look were you are now in terms of speech and arms (not even a thing anymore, are they)
still didnt happen in the last 2 centuries
No English revolution happened before the American one , England was at the beginning the inspiration for the revolution ( they wanted to create an constitutional monarchy )
(we should have paid the taxes though) (and by "we" i mean my mom's people . . . my dad's people were in germany at the time)
the american one was far less normal and less revolutionary than the french one
at least they didn't fuck up so bad they became an unstable shithole
Ans mouvement that were supported by English and have support the English during the war between English and French like the franc masOns supported a lot the revolution
the american revolution was a conservative movement . . . it sought to preserve English liberty
America had the fortune of not only being left alone but having foreign allies to protect it (even if they were only anti Brit)
What do you think the US would have been like if the British, Spanish and French joined to topple it?
i agree, but i'd go further and reiterate what an earlier poster said: it's a ll the fault of the protestant revolution.
the revolutionary spirit simply cannot abide authority and obedience. they simply will not bend the knee, and from this selfish evil all manner of chaos flows forth....
masonry is pure evil. literally top of the pyramid evil.
Can I get a little more info on what this is from?
Like author, name of text, publication date etcSaw you posted link but idk where on that site this info would be
Yes you are right , revolution was a mistake and the king was way to much tolerant for this organisation and for "the lumière " It is this time that we see the difference between beautiful theory in book that become genocide when you put on the ground
One key difference is this, that they looked for tradition before creating the new government, magna carta, bible, etc.
Another key difference is that they were a colony, so fairly young and without a strong old regime, so they didn't change so radically like the french, the radicallest people around back then
Thus they had 2 different government systems in 200 years and only one war while france became a clusterfuck with a fuckload of restaurations, new republics and constitutional changes
Nvm found it
It's this guy
en.m.wikipedia.org
Thanks for translation op, ironically this guy was a main critic of Popper, the Jew behind the "tolerant society" thing
do you think we are in the middle of the "great apostasy" as outlined by Saint Robert Bellarmine is his analysis of the coming of the anti-Christ?
I do not know about him can you give me some text about his théorie ?
Author Olavo de Carvalho
in a newspaper (before he was banne) named O Globo in July 8, 2000
He has some texts in english
He's a student of traditionalism and similar shit (Lavelle, Voegelin, etc)
fiatjaf.alhur.es
(a bunch of them in english)
You can see what kind of stuff he say based on what books he recommends
Or just watch his interview with molyneux
youtube.com
the wikipedia article, as you may notice, was written by butthurt leftists and ancapists
is this the one about the last pope?
thanks for the worthy thread lads
i'm cashing out for the night
god save the queen
>pastebin.com
thanks
ure welcome
texts in english (not his best btw)
olavodecarvalho.org
mostly facebook stuff but a few more relevan texts and vids
olavodecarvalhofb.wordpress.com
some vids (there are more but couldnt find right now)
youtube.com
these are official, from one of his own sites
youtube.com
youtube.com
the molyneux vid above too, and soon you might be able to find the recent documentary about him on torrent or something (if someone subs it, that is)
it is the Catholic teaching on the Second Coming, which will be preceded by a time of near-total apostasy (save for "the remnant"), and the coming of the anti-Christ, a man of the Davidic line (so obviously a Jew), who will reign in either Jerusalem or Rome.
More here:
ncregister.com
>. He no longer bothered to personify the "right
He should be it btw, as in "triumphant liberalism ho longer bothered"
thanks, will read
Which one was the one who predicted there would be a last pope who people always say is Francis?
Malachy of Armagh. He gave a list of Popes, which ends now.
i dont know, you might be thinking about the Fatima prophecies which are very interesting, especially since this is the 100 year anniversary, which will be commemerated later on in October.
remember to say at least one Hail Mary every day, preferably 3, preferably a decade of the Rosary, or even more preferably a full Rosary.
but alwasy at least one.
If you wonder why, read about the Miracle of Hiroshima:
it was this one Thanks anons