Parricide, Sade and the French Revolution

[livius drusus]

I didn't want to derail Moosie's Marie Antoinette thread, but this essay (http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html) was linked to in a thread in the MA forum she posted about and I figured I should inflict on y'all. Misery loves company and all that.

It's written from an (obsessively) anti-socialist, quasi-royalist perspective, and it rather marvelously links notions of political and economic equality to the Marquis de Sade, French Revolutionary atrocities, parricide, and loss of liberty. Democracy is anti-freedom, you see, and if you weren't such a sad victim of years of school-inculcated fatuity, you'd understand that.

The French Revolution has been seen by most authors as predominately a political, social or (under Marxist influence) even as an economic event. Burke, Young, Rush, as well as other British and American visitors to France before the revolution point the finger at the aristocracy, the clergy and the upper classes; however, both skepticism and atheism had made inroads into the highest circles, and there existed among the clergy what Spengler called the "priestly rabble," or what we would call today our left-catholic "progressives." Censorship in the hand of the forerunners of the liberals, who suffered from moderno-snobbery, favored the left-wingers and persecuted the right, so as not to be labeled "reactionary. " All that gradually influenced the middle and lower classes as well.

[Ymir's blood]

At the very bottom of the page:
History of Jacobinism by Abbe Barruel with a new introduction by Stanley Jaki. Published in four volumes beginning in 1798, Barruel's book documented the realization that the French Revolution was not an innocuous moment in the tradition of dissent, but a conspiracy which began with the philosophes, was furthered by the Illuminati, and which would not stop as long as there was a priest at the altar or a prince on his throne. Indespensible for understanding the Enlightenment and the world we live in today.
:foilhat:

[godfry n. glad]

History of Jacobinism by Abbe Barruel with a new introduction by Stanley Jaki. Published in four volumes beginning in 1798, Barruel's book documented the realization that the French Revolution was not an innocuous moment in the tradition of dissent, but a conspiracy which began with the philosophes, was furthered by the Illuminati, and which would not stop as long as there was a priest at the altar or a prince on his throne.

I rather prefer the viewpoint of Denis Diderot.

[livius drusus]

Diderot is directly responsible for mothers and babies being baked alive in Vendee ovens, godfry, you brute.

The German Revolution, which began in the year 1933, also went through a relatively humane phase; however, June 30, 1934 was a flaming warning signal, which was followed by a steep and ineluctable plunge, like the kind described in Greek tragedy, into the hell of totalitarian left-wing tyranny. As with the French Revolution, the way had been paved in this direction from the beginning. The same thing is true of Russia. Just as in France it was the writings of the Encyclopedists, Morelly, Rousseau, Diderot, and Sade, and in Germanic countries, the writings of Haeckel, Chamberlain, and Rosenberg as well as those of Hitler and Goebbels, so in Russia it was the writings of Marx, Tschernyschewsky, Plechanow and Lenin which determined subsequent political development. What eventually took place in the the French Revolution, especially in the Vendee, in Brittany, and in Anjou was in its internal logic simply the realization of the great materialistic atheism of the first Enlightenment.

And Ymir's blood, don't forget the Freemasons.

The first phase of the French Revolution, which played itself out as economic boom, as well as state financial crisis and a series of liberal reforms, had a predominately aristocratic character. The "new ideas" of the first enlightenment - the misunderstood American war of independence, Anglomania, the visions of Rousseau, Voltaire's (a man who held the common man in contempt) critique of religion, and the still turbulent Jansenist controversy - all this had confused the spirit of the upper classes. Freemasonry, newly imported from England, also played a role in this transformation. It is possible that even Louis XVI was a freemason. Beyond a doubt he was a devoted reader of the Encyclopédie. As a result a huge vacuum of belief came into existence, which was quickly filled by radical left-wing ideology, which just as quickly infected large segments of the population. The left-wing "Intelligentsia " acted as the ice- breaker for the revolution in such a way that, at the beginning at least, the monarchy's existence was hardly questioned, while aristocracy and clergy abdicated and "married" the bourgeoisie.

[Ymir's blood]

I can't understand how anyone could possibly claim that the Nazi's were left-wing. That is insane. National Socialism was the ultimate expression of the idea of a monarchy, the state made god with the ruler as its avatar.

[livius drusus]

I've seen that argument made before, actually. "Hey, it's the National Socialist party, ergo, the Nazis (and their crimes) were leftist."

[Ymir's blood]

Ooh, the dictionary argument. I remember a poster on IIDB years ago who told someone that they (the other poster) couldn't be an anarchist because they didn't want disorder.

[Watser?]

Hahaha, the nazis were left wing??!! :lmao:

They were the capitalists wettest dreams. German corporations made more money than ever before.

[California Tanker]

Social Democrats tend to be right wing, so it totally confuses Yanks.

Like all Democratic Republics, it's a communist dictatorship

NTM