Posted on by Florent

On French Revolution (2)

French Revolution: during the reign of Terror the vast majority of guillotine victims were either peasants or from the working class. The guillotine of aristocrats concerned a small minority.

It was a terror mainly against desperate PEASANTS and the WORKING CLASS. Let that sink for a minute. Why? In the name of VIRTUE.

I’ll end this thread w/ a phrase of C. Desmoulins who wrote: “My dear Robespierre… my old school friend… Remember the lessons of history and philosophy: love is stronger, more lasting than fear”. Desmoulins was subsequently arrested and guillotined. He wrote from jail:

To be honest, reading numerous details and debates from that period is not only tiring but deeply disturbing. Not recommended for night readings. One can loose his sleep.

Another detail hidden from school books: Lafayette introduced white in FR flag: red, WHITE, blue. Why? It was the colour of royal House of Bourbon. Royalists dominated until late 19th century. Initially, the revolutionaries massacred anti-royal CIVILIANS (Champ de Mars Massacre).

❯ Voltaire = enlightened despotism.
❯ Robespierre = student of Rousseau (like Mao)
After the terror of guillotines, royalists dominated French politics.
❯ Parliamentary regime (= separation of powers) introduced by the July Monarchy under King Louis Philippe.

King Louis Philippe’s father – extremely rich – voted in favour of the death of King Louis XVI, his own cousin! Most propagandistic revolutionary material was printed in his palace. A game of constitutional monarchy (Orléanists) vs. naive [absolute] monarchy (Legitimists).

Comments

The Bolsheviks repeated the Jacobins history. Unsatiated bloodthirsty Evil. After they run out of innocent victims to execute they turned on their own comrades.
True! It’s an irony that Robespierre didn’t do a dictatorship. He didn’t use Stalinist methods to protect himself from the Convention who, in turn, sent him to guillotine. It seems that he was a believer in his virtue doctrine. A victim of his own absolute naive rationalisations.

The percentages shown are of the total killed in absolute terms, not for population of each class? Smaller “elite” numbers could be higher percentages relative to their class numbers? Sort of a progressive decapatation rate I guess. Be interesting to know the pop of each class.
Very good point. However, in their everyday proceedings they focused mostly on the compliance of common people, for example if using monsieur/madame instead of citoyen/citoyenne, the correct PRONOUNS. Sounds familiar? And journalism? Marat was CNN … with a guillotine.

what matters are percentages relative to the total population, not absolute numbers
That’s partially true. Imagine you’re a revolutionary administrator. You have to arrest people, study accusations, kill, gather dead bodies, it’s a loud mess. This chart proves one thing: their daily routine was to juge fellow citizens, not the aristocrats as the myth goes.

Source

Posted on by Florent

France and submission

It seems I hit a nerve here.

I’ll rephrase my thesis: France, in my view, is unique in Europe for institutionalising the medieval FEODO-VASSAL relationships of SUBMISSION. Both State & Church instruct submission to authority in a level UNIMAGINABLE to the average US/UK citizen.

In other words: french law officially recognises practices that are considered “normale” in France, and UNIMAGINABLE for the rest of the Europe.
ex.: Franco in Spain is named a “dictator”. Papadopoulos in Greece? A dictator. In France, no dictator! Never! Really?

The french law devises arguments to avoid any stigma around “bad words”. So, nazi occupation? No! It’s “État français” (the French State) instead of the “French Dictatorship”. No dictator. France will NEVER have dictatorship! It will change the name.

Example: This is what law students are taught in 2019 about current Prime minister :
“tout Premier ministre soit le vassal du chef de l’État” (every Prime minister shall be the vassal of the Head of State)
Can you imagine an American or UK textbook casually writing like this?

Can you imagine a student at Harvard, being publicly humiliated, for not being “good enough” for his “seigneur” (prof)?
Welcome to the most celebrated Fr higher institution: Science Po. Recently a famous Fr youtuber quit Science Po for same reasons.

Fr vs. US
Conservatives in US are fighting for the right to bare arms against a police state. And we consider them “dumb”.
Conservatives in France are fighting for the right of POLICE to make CHILDREN KNEEL to authority. Can you imagine this reporting by Fox news?

Greeks hate order, they respect unwritten law (e.g. Jesus, Socrates).
Germans love ORDER by the TEXT of law. Protestantism, a german movement to return to the ORIGINAL TEXT.
French respect ORDER enforced by AUTHORITY. Protestantism never rooted in “revolutionary France”. Why?

Another concrete example: The latest constitution (1958) was created by ONE MAN! Yes, the “revolutionary France” passed a law in 3 June 1958 and gave the authority to ONE MAN (Charles de Gaulle) to write the whole f***ing Constitution by himself & his close friends.

In the face of this procedure (1958), the left-wing François Mitterrand wrote a book “The permanent Dictatorship (Le Coup d’État permanent)” (1964). That was before he became a president. After, Mitterrand will also use absolute powers to impose his own ideas.

Now French stormed the streets wearing the same Yellow Vest. Can you imagine Americans or Greeks wearing the same piece-of-clothing?
French are trained to act in group. To dress in group. To conform in group. To revolt in group. Waiting for the next “seigneur” to submit?

All these remarks are NOT to underestimate the significance of yellow vest movement, or the role of Charles de Gaulle or the French Revolution.
I’m just stating there is a strong medieval féodo-vassalique CONTEXT in Fr POLITICS that most either underestimate or are unaware of.

For those who want to dive a bit deeper into French psyche it’s indispensable to study Napoléon Bonaparte. How he took power and how he paved his way into history.

An interesting debate.

Source

Posted on by Florent

On terrorism

Since idiotic left-wing approach to terrorism has gone viral, lets elaborate:
Who caused the bloodbath?
a) a LONER who woke up in the morning and took a gun?
or
b) organised by a GROUP that was TRAINED & MOTIVATED to do so?
a = possible mental
b = terrorism (e.g. Bataclan)

(1) mass shooter kills 40
(2) trained army kills 40

Only (2) and not (1) can be a declaration of war.
Similarly:
(1) mentally ill loner does an assault.
(2) group of mentals are FINANCED / TRAINED to assault. It’s NOT the same, although both cases share underlying elements.

Source

Posted on by Florent

On IQ and correlation (2)

A test, ANY TEST, claiming to make prediction of X must be accompanied by two metrics: sensitivity (detection of X) & specificity (exclusion of non X). Without those two metrics we would have no medical tests. Only BS. Exactly like the IQ-test literature: BS pseudoscience.

Statistical correlations (if not faked) often linked to high sensitivity / low specificity. It looks impressive… with no value. Example: we find students that excelled in math in Africa had a pencil. No pencil = awful at math. So, pencil is the secret of a math genius!

The second problem is tautological correlation. If you measure how much you can run in 60 seconds, when you’re 10 years old, it may be correlated with survival in the special forces at 20 years old. Why? Cause the context is almost tautological: physical exercise.

The same with IQ and a system were education & finance are becoming more abstract and complex. The same root causes that increase excellence in processing visual/abstract/verbal information (school, academy, video games) are pushing up the IQ, a measure also devised by academics.

Tautological correlation gives the impression of “discovery” of causality. It’s an illusion. IQ-test doesn’t even define the “X” that it predicts, let alone sensitivity or specificity of X. I’m not persuaded it’s is a test, in stat terms.

Source

Posted on by Florent

On a misconception about French Revolution

Most know Voltaire due to his aggressive marketing in spreading radical anti-christian ideas. However, it is another author considered as foundational for the legal framework of the French Revolution: Ironically, a Catholic priest: Sieyès.

Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès or l’abbé Sieyès. This savage dude demolished the legal framework of the Ancien Régime. Established the modern concept of Nation, the need of national assemblies based on active citizens and not privileged casts & rejected utopian revolutionary BS.

In 1789, as the representative of the third state he proposes the most radical idea on French history: to rename the “Chambre du Tiers état” (Chambre of Third State) as « Assemblée des représentants de la Nation » (National Assembly). At that point, the revolution starts.

This detail is exemplary of the level of illiteracy & idiotic ignorance of modern scholars, claiming that “the enlightenment” was just an anti-christian or anti-religious movement. Sieyès, a PRIEST, was PRESIDENT of the Assembly (1790) drafting the 1st constitution.

After the crazy times of the Terror (Maximilien Robespierre), Sieyès returns, once again, to propose something equally radical: the first Constitutional Court to control the constitutional conformity of laws. Ahead of his time.

Voltaire proposed no concrete solution for any sociopolitical problem. BS generalisations were cardinal of “anti-christian humanism”, nothing more than a liberal bloggers virtual signalling from a safe distance. Individuals like Sieyès actually put their skin in the game.

Source

Posted on by Florent

Human rights have a religious history

Human rights are classified in “droit des personnes” of “Droit civil”.
Even today, in 2019, law manuals teach the religious history and sacred nature of those rights.

“la primauté de la personne” is the fundamental principle of human dignity in the legal system, founded in article 16 of French Civil Code.
“article 16 of Civil Code should be traced to the christian doctrine”. source: Droit des personnes et de la famille; 2017, p212

The “right of dignity” is, by definition, OPPOSED to the interests of science and the society.
So, if all medical experts want to harvest your organs, even if they prove how this will benefit the society, it has no legal basis. Why?
Rights are sacred & non-scientific.

Another example is the respect of human body after death. The body can’t be legally classified as “person” so it can’t benefit from any human rights.
However, the body holds a “sacred nature” and therefore it can NOT be considered an object based on the science of biology.

Source

Posted on by Florent

Feudalism

Byzantium: no feudalism + 12th century renaissance
Britain: Magna Carta (1215)
France: Philippe le bel (1268 – 1314): created Parlement & États-Généraux

British copied the Byzantines while defaming them.
French copied the British while defaming them.

The reason why the British didn’t have a “French revolution” is cause they didn’t have divine-right monarchy to begin with. The reason why Byzantines didn’t have Magna Carta is they didn’t have western feudalism to begin with. Greek language & culture was normative.

Orthodox byzantine church took official decisions through councils. No need for Magna Carta. The idea of a single Pope controlling the Church was shocking, heretic, ridiculous, hubris, against the teachings of Christ, against the normative greek culture…. thus, the schism.

Source

Posted on by Florent

Decentralisation (localism) VS. Centralisation

I hate to brake the news to my twitter friends, and it feels like funeral news, but localism & decentralisation is NOT the answer. I can’t find a single case where a centralised cultural/political/econ. crisis resolved this way.

Cleisthenes CENTRALISED 10 Tribes of Athens and … boom! Athenian democracy!
Rome CENTRALISED the power of 35 tribes… and boom! Roman Republic!
13 US colonies CENTRALISED their power into a single motto (“no taxation without representation”)…. a Confederation and … boom! American Revolution!

Pre-revolutionary France was marked by the attempts of the monarchy to impose central control. They couldn’t achieve it. It was AFTER the French Revolution & the Declaration of Human Rights (1789) that CENTRAL power was established to resolve social & economic disparities.

We could go on and on with how Britain became a UNITED Kingdom and how better UNIONS (not better devisions) were always the natural solution to hard social issues.

Promoting abstract models of better borders, localism & decentralisation as the solution for modern evils is like being physicist and vouching against gravity. It’s not that it will not happen, it’s that it can’t happen.

This question roots back to the most ancient text of western civilisation: Iliad of Homer. It’s a text that envisioned, for the first time, the CENTRALISATION of Greek city-states as the SOLUTION to an EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

This “Homeric Vision” is exactly what Alexander the Great enforced, not hiding his Homeric poetic inspiration. The Homeric strategy of CENTRALISATION of greek city-states was enough to establish the dominance of the western culture vs. the east for the first time.

For those who don’t get it, the ‘western culture’ was dominated by one characteristic: THE REFUSAL TO BOW TO DESPOTS. When Alexander demanded from his soldiers to bow, for the first time, he was heavily criticised by greek historians & then mysteriously found dead.

After systemic corruption & roman dehumanisation, Christianity appeared, and colourfully described CENTRALISATION of Rome as the evil Antichrist, posing one solution: the CENTRALISATION around the body (ecclesia) of Christ, the saviour.

Today we face the following challenge:
– Evil cartel(s) consolidated central role in politics & economy. e.g. European parliaments collectively apply the same central EU directives.
– A bunch of illiterates consolidated power in higher academic institutions

Summary:
DECENTRALISATION = divide & conquer
CENTRALISATION = the ancient fight against [centralised] good vs. [centralised] evil. SOLUTION = (the last 2000 years)
UNION around true humanism: virtues of Christ & vision of Homer. Balance btwn individual and common good.

Source

Posted on by Florent

Where is real marxism?

Stalin was not a real marxist, Maduro is not real marxist, Mao was not…. you know the story.
Lenin was a real marxist?
On April 15 1919 Lenin issued a decree “On creation of the forced-labor camps”.
Also known as GULAGS.
Is this real marxism?

In May 1922, Lenin issued a decree calling for the execution of anti-Bolshevik priests, causing between 14,000 and 20,000 deaths. So… was Lenin a real marxist?

Were the nazis real marxists? “The Nazis in the early 1920’s closely observed Soviet concentration camp practices with the intention of emulating them once they came to power.”

In Mein Kampf Hitler admits that he copied design colours (red/black) & methods from the marxists. Marxist & Nazi aesthetics are like two drops of water in the same bucket. So, were the nazis real marxists?

Was Karl Marx a real marxist? In “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, No. 136, 7 November 1848, Karl Marx wrote that there is only one means to shorten the MURDEROUS DEATH THROES OF THE OLD SOCIETY and the bloody birth pangs of the new: REVOLUTIONARY TERROR.

Karl Marx did NOT support a constitutional republic.
Karl Marx did NOT support institutions of direct/indirect democracy.
Karl Marx did NOT support referendums.
Karl Marx proposed “DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat”, a form of enforced enlightened despotism.
That’s real marxism.

A “real christian” is a Saint who mimics Christ and sacrifices HIMSELF for a higher purpose. A “real marxist” is a militant who mimics Lenin and sacrifices OTHERS for a higher purpose.

Today Tsipras’ officially evoked Lenin while speaking in parliament. Also today, his political party, SYRIZA, expressed support for Venezuela’s Maduro.
So, what do Tsipras, Maduro and Lenin all have in common? Are they real marxists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw

Source

Posted on by Florent

On “Macedonia” (2)

Things are not so complicated.
– Tsipras typical marxist agent for Germany (see Lenin)
– He signs a treaty with pseudoscientific claims: e.g. Macedonian language doesn’t exist in linguistics, it’s Bulgarian.
– 70% Greeks disagree. Ask for REFERENDUM. Gassed by Tsipras’ regime.

Imagine if nationalists in US claimed “we are Parisians speaking the Parisian language”. 1st they aren’t in Paris, 2nd they speak English, 3d NOT such thing as “Parisian”, it’s French. Similarly the Greeks say “you’re Albanians/Bulgarians crazy nationalists, you speak Bulgarian”.

The irony is this. The majority of Greeks disagree and are labeled as “white nationalists”, while the same media support the ACTUAL white supremacists of “Macedonia”, w/ pseudo-historical claims & grandiose national rhetoric similar to Hitler Aryan race.

As I’ve already shown in previous thread, George Soros is not hiding his excitement for the “Macedonian” nation. In his NYT article he promotes the map for the “United Macedonia” ultranationalist project to exploit Greek history & N. Greek territory.

Macedonia is a region “bought by Soros” writes Helene Ahrweiler, Principal of Sorbonne, Paris.

It’s also a strong investment by Germany. 1) download “Soros leaks” to see how Open Society Foundation lobbied Merkel. 2) Lenin was FINANCED by Germany to deceive the Russians in favour of Germany. Tsipras with same marxist BS deceived the Greeks.

1944, the US Secretary of State under President Roosevelt made a clear evaluation about the “Macedonian” issue.

Today Nimetz, the Representative of UN openly warned (threatened?) Greece for “negative consequences” if refuse to sign the treaty. He used “Google translate” as scientific argument that “Macedonian” is a distinct language. Well… you can take the quiz:

Comment

My theory is this: nobody won a battle against Alexander. It’s more probable for nato & europe to go down than to survive by stealing the memory of Macedonia. Nobody dared this level of Hubris, not even Hitler, without nemesis hitting the door.

Source