The French revolution was one of the most disastrous events to inflict the western world. The instigators were some of the most vile, contrived, and vindictive people to ever plague the history books, and it was one of the most unjust power grabs by satanic actors for a lack of better description.
I remember turning 18 too. Tell me, why was the fall of Rome and the rise of German barbarian kings a positive?
Or tell me why the Roman polity was superior to the traditional Hellenic city-state?
No. The thread is about the French Revolution you fucking autist.
>The French Rev was the worst event in history
>NO YOU CANNOT COMPARE IT TO OTHER EVENTS THATS CHEATING
The Roman polity was only superior to the Hellenes because they were able to take city-state ideals (ie. diffusion of power and the responsibility resting on each citizen) and weave it into a homogenous-enough policy which allowed them to expand outward. Whereas the Hellenes were focused primarily inwardly, only stopping fighting amongst themselves long enough to fight off the Persians, then immediately falling into constant state of civil war; the Roman civilization was completely unified, but isolated against foreign cultures like the Umbrians, Samnites, or Etruscans. This is to say, Rome was basically a Greek colony cut off from any support back home, and forced to turn their focus on survival and total anhilation of their enemies (eventually), instead of polite Thursday-Wars ending in peace treaties.
Let it be a lesson, anon. Many retards, particularly political fringe, will try to convince you that true human progress has only been made in times of revolution and great change and destruction of culture for more revolutionary ideals, but time and time again, we see that "revolution" is nothing more than peasants' agitation and revolt being capitalized upon by the bourgeiose class of revolutionaries who color and eventually direct the anger of the masses (ironically, most bourgeiose claim to hate the bourgeiouse, like during the French revolution, but this is only a virtue signal in order to convince the angry mob they are no threat). America is the relative exception to the rule, because our Revolution never truly descended into total anarchy, but even so, the American revolution was very much founded upon the anger of peasants / farmers directed by the merchant class against the British.
>"revolution" is nothing more than peasants' agitation and revolt being capitalized upon by the bourgeios
It also helped that the peasants were starving but theres nothing like a good conspiracy theory
It's not much of a conspiracy theory. Every revolution in human history, which has been successful, found initial motivation among the hoi polloi, who provided the initial spark against the ruling class. It's only after that initial spark, in retrospect, that some portion of the Bourgeiouse, like rats off a sinking ship, try to throw their lot in with the masses and give it political or cultural veneer. but you're right. The vast majority of the time, that initial spark, the peasant's motivation, doesn't extend beyond "im starving, this guy is rich, fuck him".
>"im starving, this guy is rich, fuck him".
The King allowed himself to get fucked,this caused a power vacuum which the borgeious filled, after all they were educated and organised
I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that no power vacuum is ever filled by righteous, self-checking, self-correcting systems. Power vaccuums are very dangerous and 99.9% of the time are filled by radicals and revolutionaries, by nature of the vacuum itself (a power vacuum only exists once the status quo has deteriorated to a significant extent).
I'm also making the point that the bourgeious aren't educated and organized at all; because it's not the middle class who's collectively coming together to make these decisions, but always a very small group of revolutionary actors who might be super educated about a single particular topic (Trotskyites, for all their faults, were very educated about the division of agriculture, which makes sense because that's what the revolution was founded on).
I forget who this quote is from, but here goes: "Centrist does not mean weak. It does not mean watered down or warmed over. It means well balanced and well grounded. The american people are instincitvely centirst. So should be our government. America's political parties should return to the center, where the people are." It is only during times of intense stress and hardship that the public flock to anything but the status quo, but this often exacerbates the problems, like with the Trotskyites' land re-distribution.
t. enlightened centrist
I used to be a radical Right until my buddy, a PhD student at Harvard, convinced me to join the Enlightened Centrist crowd. I realized a lot of my talking points were co-opted from the radical Left, and that politics isn't a horseshoe so much as a conduit, where the actions of either Left or Right are immediately counter-manded by the opposite side of the aisle. only by entering the equation with the initial assumption that all political and cultural actions have an equal (or greater) opposite reaction can true progress be made.
>It is only during times of intense stress and hardship that the public flock to anything but the status quo
That's because the status quo is intense stress and hardship.
If the current system has proven unable to deal with the new challenges that inevitably arise in the course of history and isn't willing to change, why should it not be replaced with a different one?
Because legitimate and meaningful change can be brought about through the system, through the status quo, but it usually takes longer to achieve than simply autistically revolting and upturning everything. Consider a minor crisis like the 2008 Financial Crash: it took a little while, but change (or at least economic solvency) was eventually achieved through the proper channels. What revolution has actually solved the crisis which brought about the revolution in the first place?
The soviet union saw the greatest concentration of wealth into the hands of the oligarchs ever, which was the initial reason the Soviets were even formed.
The french revolution was ostensibly begun to overturn the "tyranny" of the French crown (to be fair it was fairly tyrannical), but Robespiere literally went on to say that "terror was the order of the day".
Once again, only the American revolution, miraculously, was the exception to the rule, mainly because it wasn't a revolution so much as a social war (social war in the Latin sense, not the modern sense).
Are you historically illiterate? France was being invaded by monarchist armies, the US didnt have to deal with that issue so there was no need for enforcement of terror
France wasn't being invaded; the Prussians and the Austrians made it clear they were only pushing into France in order to gain leverage and try to get the Committee to release poor old citizen Capet. And I fail to see how the enforcement of terror actually aided the French? IMHO the French won in spite of the terror, not because of it.
>France wasn't being invaded;
Is this what is called cope?
>they were only pushing into France in order to gain leverage
So invading to gain leverage, so france was invaded, making the terror a necessity for the people who they were hoping to gain leverage over
>I fail to see how the enforcement of terror actually aided the French
It kept the directorate in power, something poor citizen capet could not do
Well, what makes change legitimate?
Besides, I think that the point that
> legitimate and meaningful change can be brought about through the system, through the status quo
is disproven by your own examples. Yes, a revolution is not inherently progressive or good. Its success is measured in terms of the new system's success in solving the problems that birthed the revolution in the first place. That's why some revolutions (the American one, the overthrow of the Roman kings) are successful - they solved the problems that have brought them about in a generally satisfactory manner.
But some problems are genuinely not solvable within the old system. Notice that your examples of revolutions bringing about no or negative change (the October revolution and the French revolutions) were themselves overthrown by revolutions, because change was not possible within these systems.
The problems that plagued the Soviet Union could only be solved by letting go of communism. Some changes are not possible through the system. Now the real reason why some system changes take the form of reforms (like the reform and opening up period in China) and others that of revolutions has more to do with the people defending the status quo than the ones seeking change. Are the old elites defending the status quo by force? Then you get a revolution. Are they ready to follow the transition to a new system? Then you get reforms.
you almost said something intelligent but you choke as soon as you link it to bourgeoisie.
A revolution, by definition, is a radical shift in balance of power where one or several groups of interests take over. saying that its only one class that led an another ignore the fact that every class has leading figures, which can be themselves considered as a new class.
For a practicall example, the French revolution allowed some lawyers and intellectuals to gain power (Danton, Robespierre yadi yadi yada) yet the average lawyer and intellectual did not gain much power, or if they did, its nowhere near as what those individuals reached.
What you call "Bourgeoisie" is but the anthropological phenomenon of leading figures emerging from the masses. there is no such things as a separation between "the people" and those who led these people against the ruling class, until they become a ruling class themselves. had shoes and bread being a source of power, bakers and Shoemakers would have governed france.
You could see early on during the run up to the rev that there was a split between the Bourg and proto proles. The former started by advocating for free trade, etc. while the latter wanted things like communal workhouses and wealth redistribution. The leaders casually cucked to the proles for long enough to start the revolution and walked back all their promises after.
>NOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR BAD RULERS
The turmoil which led to the revolution was largely financial. Events which occurred because of the ~~*banks*~~, not the monarchy.
>French revolution is da jooz fault!
Are you serious right now? France was an absolute monarchy. They could nationalize any bank with the wave of their hand.
The monarchy and nobility are solely to blame.
The French monarchy was not nearly as absolute as people think. If it were, they would have been able to fix their financial problems before things got out of hand.
How quickly the poltard mask comes off
That's ironic. israelites lived in ghettoes. The position that israeli banks created a French civil war is a supremacist claim.
>The instigators were some of the most vile, contrived, and vindictive people to ever plague the history books, and it was one of the most unjust power grabs by satanic actors for a lack of better description.
But enough about the Unification Of Italy
>The French revolution was one of the most disastrous events to inflict the western world.
Wiping away clerical obscurantism and medieval monarchies was a good thing
The French aristocracy was decadent and corrupt. The Marquis de Sade wasn't an aberration, he was just one of the few who happened to get caught in the act. BASED bourgeoisie revolutionaries put an end to all of this btw.
Remember, this is the guy that OP wants to submit to. This fat lard is who OP calls his natural superior, who has a god-given right to rule. OP would spread this guys flabby asscheeks and shove his tongue up his shithole for one chance to call him "Mon roi"
King shoulda just give them fair representation instead of like trying to israelite his way out the problem.
Nah. It was based and needed. The French Revolution gave absolute monarchies an expiration.
>By satanic actors
Correct. America is a nation of Satan and people should all become Satanists like the founding fathers were unironically.
The French Revolution started the era of the most brutal governments in human history that claimed to be an age of enlighment, when was actually more violent than all catholic monarchies that preceded it.
I think it was pretty cool because simping for feudalism is for retards
But what about impassioned young men standing up and giving their lives in the name of eternal values such as compassion, brotherhood and love?
Roberspierre did nothing wrong. In my opinion he didnt kill enough people.