Saturday, 15 July 2017

Is the French revolution responsible for most of the world's problems today?

SHARE
'For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.' Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
An academic called Dr Cliff Arnall has discovered that is the day when we English feel happiest each year. 

I love the balmy days of July in Bucharest, despite the merciless heat, but July 14th is Bastille Day and not a day on which a conservative can rejoice.

I have always been one of those who blames most of the world's problems on the 1914-18 War but I start to think Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn may be right. 

I remember Gorbachev in Paris in 1989 praising the French revolution as the progenitor of the October 1917 revolution in Russia and thereby hugely embarrassing French Communist historians who had spilt much ink (this was the era before computers) arguing that this was not the case. 

In fact Gorbachev was a better historian than the historians. Practical men often are. Though come to think of it, Gorbachev misunderstood Leninism and thought that it could be made democratic and liberal.

Marx's doctrine of a revolution bringing about communism is derived from the template for revolutions that the French revolution created. Lenin, in this respect influenced by the Social Revolutionaries, wanted to emulate the terror of Robespierre.

It has always been my opinion that, even though Goebbels said when the Nazis took power in 1933 that
This is the end of 1789,
in fact Nazism too is a product of the French revolution. Why so?

Fraternity has proven as dangerous a principle as equality. Fraternity became nationalism and nationalism, a liberal and progressive idea though one fraught with huge peril, begat in time Nazism.

The nineteenth century nationalists were heirs of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment sought to replace God and, what flows from belief in God, submission to the lawful authority placed by God over them, with the sovereignty of the people. A people in Europe means, or meant, for nationalists certainly, a race.


Whereas both the kings and the republicans tolerated Jews, the latter demanded the end of the Christian state, the separation of church and state and Jewish assimilation to the secular nation. The nation or the state replaced God. This liberated but endangered Jews, particularly ones who wanted to practice their religion and live within their own community. 

Paradoxically, it was in the country where Jews were most assimilated, Germany, that Hitler came to power. The country where they were most assimilated after Germany, Hungary, also became at times intensely anti-Semitic.

The idea of the French revolution is essentially the idea that men "shall be be as gods", a revolutionary concept first uttered in the Garden of Eden by Satan and brought to fruition by the Communists. It involves discarding both God and organic, ancestral tradition, replacing both with the worship of reason. It is, if you think about it, the remote cause of most of our problems, from climate change hysteria to the migrant crisis.

On the other hand, could things have been otherwise? 

In the USA, despite the unnecessary, unjust and bloody war of 1776, they inevitably were otherwise, because society was not hierarchical (unless you had the misfortune to be a slave) and because, even though the Americans were originally mostly British, it was not or did not remain an ethnic state. 

In Great Britain things were very different too, for reasons that included parliament, constitutional monarchy, Protestantism (I have to admit), the wonderful idea of being two (or three if you count Wales) ethnic states in one, and the huge convenience of being an island free from foreign rule. The common law tradition of freedom (a Catholic invention, by the way) is very different from the French liberté. These are very important reasons for Brexit.

Could things have been otherwise in Europe? Of course. 1789 could have been the moment when France became a constitutional monarchy with an established church and a legal system that protected property rights and other freedoms. A country that did not go to war with her neighbours. A country that copied her Anglo-Saxon neighbour.

The fall of Rome and Constantinople, the Reformation, the French revolution and the war that started in 1914 and only ended when Eastern Europe broke free of Bolshevism in 1989 were the five great disasters in the history of the West. A term which we learnt from American writers, after Donald Trump made his speech the other day at Warsaw, is seen by them as polemical and borderline racist. 

The sixth disaster is the unprecedented decline in birth rates that began in the mid-1960s and will lead eventually, if immigration policies do not change drastically, to the end of European ethnic states and a majority Muslim Europe.

33 comments:

  1. I prefer to celebrate today, July 15, Mgr. Alfred Gilbey's birthday. '"I WAS born the day after the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne and the day before that of the fall of the Bastille. Neither historical event is one that I feel I can celebrate.' So said Monsignor Alfred Newman Gilbey, sitting beneath the chandeliers in the dining-room of the Travellers' Club and pouring out white burgundy with a strong hand. He was looking forward to his 90th birthday on 13 July. There can be few left among us who bother to regret the French Revolution; but this charming and elderly priest is clearly lined up with the ancien regime." http://archive.spectator.co.uk/.../the-monsignor-at-ninety

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree... Why do they celebrate the day, though? It ended up with the terror perod, murders, beheadings...

    ReplyDelete
  3. A terrible thing to celebrate. Every year my jaw drops further at the ignorance and ghastliness of those who make whoopee with it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 2 unnecessary world wars is what did us in.
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  5. Firstly, I dont believe "the world" has problems so I reject your question. Nations have problems.

    The French Revolution had many good effects on Britain. It quickly created a conservative mood for traditional
    Institutions (e.g. The Sunday observance act of 1780) and held back socialism for a century.

    the revolution was inspired by atheism. It is atheism and all its offspring (secularism, humanism, environmentalism, statism etc) that has eroded traditional institutions. I blame Hume, Rousseau, smith and Kant for kicking this off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Secular humanism, socialism and Marxism are far more related to Christianity than atheism, as Spengler and Nietzsche observed. Christianity is the reason the European homeland is currently being overrun with millions of violent retards from Africa and the Muslim world and nothing is being done to stop them. It is Christianity, not atheism which pushes the lie that all people are the same and that Europeans have anything in common with the aliens flooding into their countries. Atheism is not an ideology or a religion, it is simply a rejection of a baseless assertion.

      Delete
    2. There is all the difference in the world between Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Confucian atheism. Atheism in the West is very strongly influenced by Christianity. So too certainly is Marxism, a Christian heresy. Socialism largely derives from Christianity.

      Delete
    3. Atheism requires a big leap of no faith.

      Delete
  6. Evola said the same.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://stream.org/solzhenitsyn-mourned-bastille-day/

    ReplyDelete
  8. The 1535 dissolution of the monasteries and abbeys had as traumatic and lasting an effect on Britain as the 1789 revolution had on France.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Paradoxically, it was in the country where Jews were most assimilated, Germany, that Hitler came to power. The country where they were most assimilated after Germany, Hungary, also became at times intensely anti-Semitic."

    Yes, I've been scratching my head about this paradox for years. I mean Jews made up only 95% of the leading figures in the Bela Kun dictatorship, and only nearly the entire Stalinist installed Rakosi regime after the war. It baffles me as to why Hungarians would develop negative feelings towards this loyal and assimilated minority which produced patriotic Pro-hungarian philanthropists such as George Soros. I just don't see any pattern there.

    The outburst of German anti-semitism is similarly a mystery. I mean, aside from dominating the German Communist party, playing a leading role in the Red uprisings in from 1919-1923, promoting Cultural Marxism from the (nearly 100% Jewish) Frankfurt School, I struggle to see what problems Jews in Germany were causing. I doubt that it had anything to do with their domination of the early Bolshevik government in Russia either. I think we should just put it down to irrational bigotry and jealousy on the part of the Germans and Hungarians. This unlucky minority have been expelled from 109 different locations since 250 AD and in each and every case it had very little to do with their group behaviour. The problem is with everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Too early to draw conclusions!

    ReplyDelete
  11. As happened finally in all the enlightenment of modern times with the French Revolution (that terrible farce, quite superfluous when judged close at hand, into which, however, the noble and visionary spectators of all Europe have interpreted from a distance their own indignation and enthusiasm so long and passionately, UNTIL THE TEXT HAS DISAPPEARED UNDER THE INTERPRETATION), so a noble posterity might once more misunderstand the whole of the past, and perhaps only thereby make ITS aspect endurable.—Or rather, has not this already happened? Have not we ourselves been—that "noble posterity"? And, in so far as we now comprehend this, is it not—thereby already past?
    - Friedrich Nietzsche
    Beyond Good and Evil 2:38

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1) It was Great Britain that beheaded their king 150 years before the French did
    2) You clearly omit the fact, that the French Revolution originally intended on replicating the British model. Yes, the 3rd state rebelled, because the king did not want to cave in and realise that wealth equals power.
    3) You seem to confuse the terms "assimilation" and "acculturation". German Jews spoke German but clung on to their Jewishness. The process of assimilation means that all discernible factors vanish or become negligent. Did that happen? No.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll go one better, most of the word's problems can be attributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. If that is too far in the past, then let me provide a 20th century example to the point. Most all our modern problems can be traced to the failure of the 2nd Reich to win the Great War--rise of communism, rise of fascism, another world war, the final breakdown of a Eurocentric world order which had ruled most of the world since Alexander the Great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bertrand Russell made the point that it would have been far better had Germany won the First World War than what in fact happened. This is indisputable, but I'd add that the great calamity was Francis Joseph of Austria Hungary going to war with Serbia in 1914.

      Delete
    2. This is not a convincing argument to me. The belief that European nationalism/fascism made war inevitable is flatly contradicated by the fact that it was the Axis side which begged for a cessation of hostilites at the height of its power and the "democratic" elites of UK and US that wanted to go on with it. And only a section of those elites at that. Churchill's refusal to make peace in 1940 and choosing instead to escalate a pointless war completely reversed Europe's trajectory. Up until WWII Europe had been moving away from decadence, egalitarianism, liberalism and materialism - towards discipline, faith, heirarchy, the promotion traditional gender roles, better mental and physical characterics and Faustian goals. The crushing Allied victory meant the forces of European racial self preservation were abruptly and totally extinguished. Now our entire culture and religion has been with hedonistic nihilism and degenerate consumerism, all our economies are based on unpayable debt and we are being physically replaced and outbred by Africans and Muslims. Europeans may linger for another century or more in isolated enclaves but short of an enormous turn-around we will soon reach the point of no return within a few decades. Thanks to Churchill the race which built the glory of Rome and Greece, established its dominion over every other race and put a man on the moon will soon vanish into eternal darkness.

      Delete
    3. I didn't say nationalism made war inevitable. Fascism didn't make a world war inevitable. It is foolish to argue that Nazism was a conservative force trying to preserve civilisation. It did more than anything to break the world. I see that Timothy Snyder argues that the Hitler was not a conventional nationalist (think De Valera or Antonescu) but a racial anarchist. Nor was Nazism a reaction to Communism in Russia. Ian Kershaw says that in all Hitler's speeches in 1918 which are extant he attacks Jews but without mentioning Bolshevism.
      Nor did Allied victory in 1945 necessitate feminism, loss of religious faith, mass immigration or the other things you blame on the West.

      Delete
    4. Austria was a great power (on paper), and great powers do not let small powers pull their tail. The "greater calamity" was Russia, followed by France, declaring war to preserve a runt in the Balkans.

      Delete
    5. I wasnt suggesting that Hitler's movement was a just a reaction to Communism in Russia. It was more a reaction to the perceived injustice to the Treaty of Versailles and circumstances specific to the Weimar Republic. Hitler became anti-Jewish when he began to see that Jews, in so far as they were involved in public life were distorting German culture in very negative ways, in the press, theatre, art and literature. One could argue that these Jews were mainly Ostjuden and were more vocal and conspicuous than the older assimilated majority but the fact of Jewish prominence in anti-German activity cannot be disputed. The utter devastation wrought by the Frankfurt school since the post war period is clear evidence that Hilter's fears were more reality-based than not. Had Britain made peace with Germany the Frankfurt school and other communists might have remained free to subvert the liberal democratic countries but the subversion would have encountered far more opposition and their influence would in any case have been eliminated from mainly nationalist mainland Europe.

      Delete
    6. The main point is that when Hitler's eccentric form of nationalism was destroyed along with Mussolini's and other right-wing authoritarian states, there was nothing to match the hostility, organisation and ruthlessness of the Marxian left. There were only efette christian democrats and conservatives who were too weak or attached to bourgeois comforts to seriously fight and oppose the Gramscian march of the Left through the insititutions. And liberal democracy as a system is not equipped to deal with it. This and the deep and widespread infiltration of the US government and media with communist agents created a safe climate for the Left to dominate and destroy every Western nation. Now pretty much the entire West has irrevocably ruined within a historically insignificant amount of time. Entirely within the adult lifetime of many people still living today. So for this reason, I think Britain's decision to remain at war with the Third Reich was the far more critical watershed in the collapse of the West than 1914 or 1789. Had the decision gone the other way the collapse of the West would have been averted. After WWII it was pretty much over.

      Delete
    7. This is absolutely not true. The old fashioned parliamentary systems in England and France were able to cope very well with the threat of communism, partly by moving left and creating welfare states, partly by the cold war and partly by an intellectual war against communism. In the 1950s, in many ways a golden epoch, the far left was at a low ebb in Western Europe and America. The man who did most to help Communism was Hitler, whose invasion of the USSR led to half Europe being ruled by Bolsheviks. I agree about widespread infiltration by Communists but this had happened in the 1920s onwards. The 1950s saw the old hard left in trouble especially in the USA but also in France and Italy.

      The 1960s social revolution was not the result of the Allied victory but a result primarily of the unexpected economic miracle that took place starting in the 1950s, though there were, of course, other factors, including loss of religious faith.

      Delete
    8. Many German Jews, for reasons that are understandable, became Communists and many became prominent. Sir Alfred Sherman, who was a communist in his youth, said that international communism provided young Jews with a homeland, but there were many other reasons beyond this. However, the overwhelming majority of Jews did not become communists, except in countries where everyone was forced to be communist.

      Hitler was horrified by the sight of Jews in Vienna in traditional costume. Assimilated Jews were the glory of the German cultural space that extended across Austria Hungary before 1918. Their murder incalculably impoverished German culture. I accept the existence of Marxist Jews with malign opinions, like Adorno, Eric Hobsbawm and many others. Ralph Miliband's views was pretty malign too, come to that. It is simply not true that they or Allied victory in 1945 explain the great move leftwards in the 1960s.

      Delete
    9. The 60s revolution was not primarily due to an unexpected economic miracle. The poisonous ideas that have ruined the West came from somewhere. Westerners didn’t decide all of a sudden to open up their borders, and accept a host of anti-white, anti-family anti-morality ideologies because they were becoming more affluent. This was entirely a top down revolution, imposed on unwilling Western populations by academic fraud, subterfuge, censorship, judicial activism, media manipulation and propaganda over many decades. Jewish ethnic interests were at the centre of this cultural revolution rather than generic left-wing idealism. Their ultimate purpose was to benefit Jews as a group. Even Paul Gottfried a Jewish expert of Frankfurt School acknowledges the specific ethnic agenda of its members. The fact that most Jews were not involved in these subversive Jewish-led movements is not the point. This cultural revolution would not have succeeded had European nationalism not been destroyed militarily, because this created a very favourable environment for their ideas to take root. Hitler was gone so everthying that he stood for must also go. If it was wrong for Hilter to exclude Jews, then why should white Southerners have the right to exclude blacks? Or British people Pakistanis?
      http://www.returnofkings.com/62716/the-damaging-effects-of-jewish-intellectualism-and-activism-on-western-culture

      Delete
    10. Jews had nothing to do with the reasons why non-white immigrants came to the UK from 1948 onwards.

      The 1960s social revolution had complex causes. The period until 1960 was shaped by the war and lack of money. When Churchill returned to office and the Queen ascended the throne it seemed like the 1930s were back. Look at the films of the period: Anna Neagle and Alistair Sim, etc. Then came Suez.

      The Frankfurt School writers were discovered by the 1960s radicals. It was not the Frankfurt School that created the radicals. The 1960s was a Hegelian antithesis of the 1950s. But most people in the 1960s remained as conservative as ever.

      I was 8 when the 60s ended and I knew it was a dreadful era.

      Undoubtedly the Holocaust and Hitler were the reason why racial and later on other forms of discrimination became hard to justify, starting with the Civil Rights movement in the USA. And anti-racism and anti-discrimination measures did originate with politicians like Johnson and Wilson, rather than being by popular demand.

      Of course, when you say that, had 'nationalists' (meaning Hitler) won the war, things would have been very different, no-one will dispute this.

      Delete
    11. http://pvewood.blogspot.ro/2012/03/meditating-on-hitler-and-euro.html

      Delete
    12. You say the defeat of the Axis is the reason for anti-morality policies in Europe. I think the Nazis were anti-morality.

      Delete
    13. I think killing Jews, gypsies and Down's Syndrome people was immoral. The Nazis were certainly not conservatives or (which is somewhat different) reactionaries. True reactionaries, De Maistre for example, esteemed Jews as conservatives who preserved their religion and culture.
      Two things that were important in causing the 60s revolution: decline in religious belief and the leftward shift among the clergy. Both were partly caused by the war. In the 1960s people thought religion would die out, made obsolete by science.

      Delete
    14. Isaiah Berlin's argument that De Maistre prefigured fascism is superficially attractive, especially to a liberal like Berlin, but in fact fascism would have appalled De Maistre.

      Delete
    15. "True reactionaries, De Maistre for example, esteemed Jews as conservatives who preserved their religion and culture."

      1. What is a "true" reactionary and what is the relevance of this?
      2. De Maistre never lived to see Boasianism or Marxism, Critical theory or any of the other Jewish dominated intellectual movements that have wrecked the West. He lived at a time when Jewish influence in Western culture was much more limited. Also De Maistre cannot reasonably be expected to have known of the strength of the far more hostile, compact, Talmudic-ruled Jews of Russia who would later play the pivotal role in the Bolshevik revolution and sustain the Soviet beauracracy, most importantly the Cheka.
      3 Nobody said Jews are crap at preserving their religion and culture. Jews are overwhelmingly patriots of their own nation, fighting to preserve their race and extend their people's power and influence, often at the expense of the interests of other groups. This is why Jewish groups such as the Frankfurt School by attacking the social cohesion of gentile society (they never attacked 'authoritarianism' among Jews) are persuing conservative goals from the Jewish point of view. Living as in a minority in a homogenously white nation makes Jews less safe as multiple examples from history show. Therefore ending the ethnic homogeneity of White societies is conservative from the Jewish view. Jewish support for generous immigration into the West (but not Israel) is motivated by their perception that this advances Jewish interests. The person most responsible for Britain's post-1997 immigration disaster, the Jewess Barbara Roache even explicitly said that her Jewish identity was the reason for her pro-immigration views. The various race relations Acts and the race relations industry which have muzzled resistance to third world immigration in Britain was largely the work of Jewish MPs and lawyers such as Lord Lester. Without doubt Britain's modern multicultural police state owes much to Jews.

      Delete
  14. "A terrible thing to celebrate. Every year my jaw drops further at the ignorance and ghastliness of those who make whoopee with it..." Oh yeah! And how many deaths does the Ancien Regime have to account for you think over a period of 1000 years???? Just because they are commoners they are not that important perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The French revolution like all revolutions bring with it a legacy of violence which is carried forward by the following generations. In general violence leads to more violence and enlightened human beings are pushed to the side by power hungry leaders who convince the masses that they have the answer to eternal happiness. It is our leaders who are to blame if they fail to deliver on promise that they should never have made in the first place.

    ReplyDelete