It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The French Revolution : Liberty, Equality...Conspiracy?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by Cathcart

Revolution was in the air, particularly with the American War of Independence just in short memory. Many of the Frenchmen were reading the works of Thomas Paine, along with other philosophers of the day, and looking at the abhorrent conditions they were living in. The objective conditions were poor enough that a few revolutionaries were capable of spinning the subjective conditions and riling the mob into a frenzy sparking the revolution. The propagandists went to town and so the crowds ate it up.

It could have all been planned, but the people can only bend before they break and retaliate.

Great OP!

reply to post by tintin2012

I disagree with your premise on how Freemasonry is structured. As Freemasonry allows men of various beliefs and opinions, there would have been Masons on both sides of the Revolution, but being a Mason doesn't define how we act and think.

Just to show my cards and to point out the obvious, yes, I'm a Mason and thus have a bias.

reply to post by poet1b

Masons may have been involved, but there is no grand design or conspiracy by the Fraternity to cause revolution.

I'm not trying to derail either. Sorry if it does.
edit on 5-2-2014 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:06 PM

It is worth remembering that the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh (Iran) was for the longest of time in the realm of conspiracy theory "nuts". Not any more. Same goes for the French Revolution. This was no grassroots movement. The seeds may have been planted there but the "gardeners" were in the upper class. To plant any "seeds" you need MONEY. No money and organization, no revolutions.

The French Revolution IMHO was planned for some time. I doubt it was an overnight affair., as overnight affairs have no lasting energy and there must be someone "feeding" the movement.

Very well put, couldn't have said it better myself. What's more, overnight affairs are confused and erratic, usually taking the form of riots. They cannot assume control of a state with such speed and precision, as it happened here. In fact, I find the French Revolution unfolded much like the Russian Revolution. However, no one in his right mind would argue that the Russian Revolution was a spontaneous movement. So then why do historians insist that the French Revolution was improvised?

The people behind the revolution would have to be in a "CLUB". Being in a club allows you to ,
- spread a "web" of individuals around the target
- study the people best suited for the revolt
- have an excuse to frequently meet to discuss plans and objectives
- to camouflage the organization I would have 2-3 tiers of members. Bottom being there to make the CLUB "look" like just a social org.
- level 2 are the CLUB's soldiers and levels 3 are the leaders. 2 knows as little as possible about 3 .

What you have above best fits into the structure called Masonic Movement. The hidden but open "web" of puppets.

Well, personally I'm a little skeptical (or at least ambivalent) about Masonic stuff, but that's still an interesting angle, one which will hopefully be explored in this thread. The French Revolution was a frantic period – intrigues by the bucketload – and is fertile ground for all kinds of conspiracy talks, including the involvement of secret societies.

That said, you are spot on about the M.O. of clubs. That’s exactly how the Jacobins flourished, with local chapters popping up in more and more cities, weaving a web of influence, until one day they pulled the strings. That's why I made them my #1 suspect. The Cercle Social was even quirkier, styling itself as a secret society (with ties to the Bavarian Illuminati, oddly enough). I will write about those groups in due time.

I would argue that it was not a strictly French nationalistic movement but an "internationalist" movement (lets call it IM).

I’ve got to disagree with you there. The French Revolution, at least on the surface, had blatant nationalistic undertones. It was only "internationalist" insofar as it wished the republic to spread and civilize the world ala Roman Empire (there’s a reason Napoleon still had a fair share of revolutionary support even after he turned the whole thing into a one-man-show). However, there could have been a secret internationalist agenda behind the scenes, that’s a possibility. And I happen to agree with your equation for revolution.

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:27 AM
The aristocracy had been losing power for a couple of centuries before the French Revolution ever got started. Once a legislative body was formed, where people not of the aristocracy or of the church, had representation, the process was in place to stand up against the monarchy.

A British King had already been beheaded long before the French Revolution.

The French Revolution is not something that happened all at once, it had been brewing for centuries.

A more accurate historical reality is that North Western Europe was only dominated by monarchies for a few centuries at most. The monarchies no sooner gained power, through the growth of the Catholic Church, before the masses started stripping that power away.

Throughout most of its history, North Western Europe has been primarily democratic.

edit on 6-2-2014 by poet1b because: typo

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:47 PM

reply to post by RedFunfzhen

So you think the French would be better off if they had never revolted?

They should have stuck with the King and the aristocracy? Like say, China?

To keep it brief - no. That is not what I think. I explained above.

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:08 PM

reply to post by RedFunfzhen

The French revolution wasn't occurring soley in France. All across Europe people were speaking out against the abuses of the old aristocracy.

Well, I beg to differ. Else it would have been called The European Revolution. Hell, throw in the American Revolution and let's call the whole shebang The Global Revolution Against The Old Aristocracy . And we'll just write it all off as one big, organic, accidental, simultaneous event, close the thread and be done with it.

No one was in control.

Well, this is the point where you and I have a pretty serious departure of agreement in opinion. As far as your link, I already referenced the subsequent Napoleonic Wars. And that it wasn't accidental that Napoleon landed on top of pile of decapitated heads.
edit on 6-2-2014 by RedFunfzhen because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:24 PM

You have chosen a good historical event to
We have the same problem that Carroll had (so I believe), no written evidence. We can only speculate and use deductive/inductive reasoning as would be done in Court

Such resignation with what I put in bold? The way I view it, us Conspiracy Nutjobs have no problem compared to those you referenced going through the court system. People have been put to death in those courts with an absolute fraction of the Circumstantial Evidence available to us on issues like this one.

Skeptics will hang people with much speculation and little circumstantial evidence. Yet, for some reason, in the realm of conspiracy theory, we all gotta throw all of it out the window.

Great post, btw.
edit on 6-2-2014 by RedFunfzhen because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2014 by RedFunfzhen because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by RedFunfzhen

My link pointed out that the Rovolution in France was spread throughout Europe. Any study on the history of Europe during that period will tell you the same thing.

Heck, you can believe the world is flat if that is what you want to believe, it doesn't change the history of the era.

I don't know why some people want to believe that the PTB are undefeatable, when history demonstrates quite the opposite.

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:32 AM

reply to post by RedFunfzhen

My link pointed out that the Rovolution in France was spread throughout Europe. Any study on the history of Europe during that period will tell you the same thing.

Hmmm. I understood that then and do now, as well. Spread is an important word in that statement. There was a point of origin. Namely, the French Revolution. I guess I don't understand why you want to lump them all together, instead of individual events in different countries. You could say there was no French Revolution and that what occurred there was nothing more than a continuation of what occurred here in the States.

But, that could very easily lead to one missing out on important details of certain events, such as said Revolution, leading one down the path of erroneous beliefs of accidental courses and incidents in History that are anything but.

Heck, you can believe the world is flat if that is what you want to believe, it doesn't change the history of the era.

So, if one wants to differentiate between the 'revolutions at different geographic locations and time frames across the whole of Europe' and the French Revolution, the are as 'idiotic' as a Flat Earther? Puuhlease.

I don't know why some people want to believe that the PTB are undefeatable, when history demonstrates quite the opposite.

History demonstrates nothing of the sort. Trading one oligarcichal master for another is anything but a victorious defeat of the PTB at the hands of the masses.

It's cute that you think that, though ...

Further, although there are obvious external arms and faces of the PTB, anyone of 'us' (including PhD academics) that claims we know who they all are, what they know that we don't and what the Grand Plan is, well, that's pretty damn cute, too.

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 02:13 AM
OK friends, I have not bowed out of the discussion but work and other responsibilities are my top priorities. I am preparing something as I watch what our OP offers.

Another book I would suggest on the French Revolution would be by Pierre Gaxotte. Enjoy

Now for the fun stuff.

I just came across this story which fits like a glove regarding the subject of Revolutions. We have here an example how the worker bees for the puppet masters are "adjusting" the puppets positions on the "stage" of the Revolution.


An apparently bugged phone conversation in which a senior US diplomat disparages the EU over the Ukraine crisis has been posted online. A voice resembling that of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland refers to the EU using a graphic swear word, in a conversation apparently with the US ambassador to Ukraine. The US said Ms Nuland had "apologised for these reported comments". The EU and US are involved in talks to end months of unrest in Ukraine.

Now from the other side,
Russia Today

The conversation is mainly focused on Ukraine’s government and President Viktor Yanukovich's offer last month to make opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk the new prime minister and Vitaly Klitschko deputy prime minister. “I don’t think that Klitschko should go into the government. I don’t think it is necessary. I don’t think it is a good idea,” a female voice - allegedly Nuland - said. “In terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework,” a male voice - believed to be Pyatt - replied. “In terms of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together,” he said. As Nuland sees it, Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk should be in charge of the new government and Klitschko would not get along with him. “It’s just not going to work,” she said. Nuland added that she has also been told that UN chief Ban Ki-moon is about to appoint the former Dutch ambassador to Kiev, Robert Serry, as his representative to Ukraine. "That would be great I think to help glue this thing and have the UN glue it and you know, f**k the EU," she said in apparent reference to their differences over policies. "We've got to do something to make it stick together, because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it," Pyatt replied. US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki declined to comment on the tape’s contents, but did not deny its authenticity. "I did not say it was not authentic," she said, adding that Nuland had apologized to her EU counterparts for the reported comments.

And a cute video to let us see better who the puppets are. This is priceless.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by RedFunfzhen

I am glad you straightened out an understanding that uprisings against the wealthy were in fact taking place all over Europe, but you should read more history, and you would then realize that these revolutions had been taking place for centuries before the French revolution.

The French Revolution was not the origin, but more the culmination, a specific period near the end of long uprising against aristocratic rule in Europe.

So, if one wants to differentiate between the 'revolutions at different geographic locations and time frames across the whole of Europe' and the French Revolution, the are as 'idiotic' as a Flat Earther?

No, not at all what I was pointing out.

This next statement of yours is what I would equate with a dogmatic belief such as the flatearth theory.

Trading one oligarcichal master for another is anything but a victorious defeat of the PTB at the hands of the masses.

This is what you were taught to believe, and maybe even choose to believe, programmed by our education system that teaches the narrow western version of history that glorifies aristocracy, and trivializes everyone else.

If the various groups who have managed to gain power and control over large segments of the people through various periods scattered throughout history were so clever they would never have sought out that power in the first place, because they wouldn't have needed.

In general, the PTB are psychos who mainly owe their success to a combination of opportunism and ruthlessness. Sure, they are hard working, but to a fault. Their need for control essentially deprives them of the opportunity to live a good life, and leads to their downfall.

Yes, there are excellent people who lead very successful lives, do great things, but they are not the people who aim to control the world.

Throughout most of history, most people have lived relatively free from power and control. They taught you in school that these people were backwards, uncivlized.

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 03:32 PM

Throughout most of history, most people have lived relatively free from power and control. They taught you in school that these people were backwards, uncivlized.

Bravo Poet!

I like reading your non political stuff quite a bit. LOL

This is very true. It is the extension of imperialism in todays world. One where my country (and yours too) uses the rationale of saving people from themselves.

To draw a dark line in sharpie: we glorify nations once they are in the folds of the reserve banking system. Even our enemies like Russia...they are reserve bank backed, too. And we may play up our rivalry with them, but the fact that we give them the courtesy of at least considering them worthy of being a rival is a tip of the hat.

Meanwhile, The Phillipines ca 1900....full of savages and heathens. Post Smedley Butler: far, far fewer people survived, but now they are not savages any more.

The western mentality is that if western powers don't control it, it is in need of taming. It is wild and savage.

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks BFFT, I enjoy your posts as well, star you all the time, even when we disagree.

Something I have observed since Jr High, is that the people pulling the strings, the mindset that whole heartedly embraces the institutional structure, the way they think, is that anything outside of institutional structure is not civilized.

This is the big problem, IMO.

These institutions, that can last for millenniums, develop enormous power. While they are controlled by people of like mindset, they aren't controlled by any single person or group. These institutions an enormous puppet, an entity that people wear, and you never know who is behind the mask, manipulating the all too powerful puppet. No one is in charge, and this giant puppet can not be punished for its misdeeds.

It is from these institutions that the darkest deeds of humanity are done.

edit on 9-2-2014 by poet1b because: typos

posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by Cathcart

Well done. Do you also see similarities with the so-called American Revolution?


posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 03:14 PM

You have chosen a good historical event to study because it is sufficiently far in the past and not to close to the present to show how "capital" rules.

It is worth remembering that the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh (Iran) was for the longest of time in the realm of conspiracy theory "nuts". Not any more. Same goes for the French Revolution. This was no grassroots movement. The seeds may have been planted there but the "gardeners" were in the upper class. To plant any "seeds" you need MONEY. No money and organization, no revolutions.

The French Revolution IMHO was planned for some time. I doubt it was an overnight affair., as overnight affairs have no lasting energy and there must be someone "feeding" the movement.

Lets take a look at what you have proposed,

What a brilliant piece u wrote, I think OP's timing to post this thread is superb. Now Regarding your post.. I think we all follow your logic and OP's being it planned and well funded by the upper class.

My question is... If we use this as a baseline... What have we learned from the civil unrest in Kiev? Egypt? Tunesia?Libya...

Intriguing thread OP

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 03:32 AM
This conversation has been thought provoking for me, because I think I had problems understanding the full point at first,
but it finally dawned on me that that is because it is objecting to a view I did not already have!!

I guess you mean to challenge an idea that the revolution signifies a peoples overcoming a power structure.... without any "head" behind them?
Was it ever thought (really?) that a revolution can happen without anyone behind the scenes and action acting as the brain- stimulating action, projecting goals and intent, using whatever provocations necessary to stir up emotion and action, in order to attain their own power in the future...?

I never considered that a possibility, and I am not sure the french do in general. Though it gives me something to ask them and discuss with them.

The impression I have always picked up here is that it is understood that certain individuals were behind the provocation and stimulation of the people, and with intent to grab the empty space left once the nobility was removed (and they did).

The lesson remains though- that the force of many is formidable. The emotional frenzy of a crowd is like the dropping of a powerful bomb, and once released, it is not controllable, and will destroy all in it's wake and all that is visible.

So... the peoples that are not happy, that do not feel taken care of, or respected, are vulnerable to being influenced by others.
Challengers to the current governing power can whip them up into a frenzy by whispering in their ear.

(same thing between individuals- treat your spouse like crap, it is easy for another man or woman to come along and subtly magnify their discomfort, provoking them to revolt against you).

In France, what I perceive is that people in general do not seek responsibility or power as individuals that much - they understand that that is not such a fun position, you take a lot of crap, and are always under threat of disgruntled inferiors. But they understand that SOMEONE has to do it. Someone has to be the fall guy, someone has to be the one to blame. They do not search for no "head" at all. Their view is not that the revolution brought about a people without leadership... only that it scared the following leaders into recognizing that they are sitting on a bomb. They better keep them happy, or a competitor will light the fuse.

(in my mind, I think it worked!) I see this mentality everyday in my work life, where the way a boss appeals to their employees is a whole different relationship than what I know in the states. They spend a lot of time apologizing to their employees, trying to please them, to prove they care about their personal lives.

I find it weird. But whatever.

My point being- even if one thought there were no behind the scenes ambitious people orchestrating the french revolution, and it has just come into awareness for you,
that doesn't take away from the ultimate lesson of the revolution- that the power of numbers (and the crowd mentality) is a formidable and highly flammable force to consider for anyone in a position of power and responsibility.

It was Gustave Le Bon who wrote "The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind" (a french man) which tells me that the revolution taught them a lot about the power of the people... and how to use it.

edit on 10-2-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 04:02 AM


That's not at all what I said, nor my intent. The simple fact is that the public was whipped up into a murderous rage by a few folks, all seemingly tied to Secret Societies - and other things.

Hell yea, band together. Just make sure it is YOU controlling the banding and revolution.

I hope that the above made a bit more clear my position here? I do not believe that the individuals in a crowd CAN be controlling the banding and revolution. The french people don't seem to see that as possible- the force of a herd is exactly in the non-egotistical states of the participants (or lack of individual thought if you will).

For example, I experience on a daily basis french people who feel it is almost evil to think for yourself. They say to each other, and to their children, "you mustn't listen to yourself" as a moral lesson. This confused me at first, but with time and questioning them, I have come to see that they consider the source of all stupid decisions and sin come from individual thought. The opposite of our american thinking. Alone you will drink too much, for example, whereas in a crowd, peer pressure will keep you from over doing it (it is unacceptable to get drunk).

But an underlying reason for this "morale" is that if you pull out of the herd mentality, then you not only take away some of it's power, but are no longer under it's protection. You are vulnerable to it's violent force. If you are going to be an individualistic thinker, with your own personal goals and intents, better keep your head down and not visible.

Individual power remaining hidden and acting under the scenes is the essence of french culture. We have friends with expensive sports cars or homes- that hide them outside the city they live in, so it won't be known by their customers and everyday entourage. -And these are people who made their money legally, ethically, and through hard work!
I tried to find the french translation for "passive-aggressive" one day, as I wanted to complain about it being the main force amongst my co-workers. There is no word for it here! It considered being "subtle", and is considered proper and correct behavior.

In other words,
The french revolution taught these people that someone has to be behind the scenes in power.
There is always a "head", there is always an ego, with an agenda for itself.
But it would do best to stay hidden, manipulate the herd force under cover illegitimately, or be crushed by it.

Can you see what I mean here? It seems to me that all humans might be naturally more individualistic, or more social, no matter what culture they grow up in. But in this culture, the naturally social minded do not aspire to being otherwise- they are fine with knowing they won't be in charge of the direction of the crowd. The important thing is that those in charge keep their head down and remember they are faced with threat at all times.

The more individualistic minded often do aspire to being less so, and wishing they could destroy their tendancy to think for themself- because it is dangerous. Because individual power is a thing that is temporary and fragile. Better to hide it if you can't change it.

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 09:39 AM
For me the The Revolution French is like a Spider's Web, once you start to look closer the paths demand that you look elsewhere.

Lets look at Necker a bit closer.

Necker was born in Geneva, Switzerland. His father was a native of Küstrin in Neumark (Prussia, now Kostrzyn nad Odrą, Poland), and had, after the publication of some works on international law, been elected as professor of public law at Geneva, of which he became a citizen. Jacques Necker was sent to Paris in 1747, to become a clerk in the bank of Isaac Vernet, a friend of his father. By 1762, he was a partner and by 1765, through successful speculations, had become a very wealthy man. He soon afterwards established, with another Genevese, the famous bank of Thellusson, Necker et Cie. Pierre Thellusson superintended the bank in London (his son was made a peer as Baron Rendlesham), while Necker was managing partner in Paris. Both partners became very rich by loans to the treasury and speculations in grain.

So he got his start with Issac Vernet. Issac Vernet was a Swiss banker. Had a brother who was a Jacob Vernet. But lets not go there, his brother that is, because we will never get out these rabbit holes.

Jacob Vernet wuchs als Sohn des Kaufmanns Isaac Vernet (1664−1706) und der Jeanne, geborene Richard (1663−1733) in Genf auf. Die Familie Vernet emigrierte im 17. Jahrhundert aus der Provence und sein Grossvater Jacob erlangte das Bürgerrecht (Bourgeois) im Jahre 1659. Sein Bruder Isaac (1700−1773) war Banquier und ab 1738 Mitglied des Rates der Zweihundert (Conseil des Deux-Cents') und in seiner BankLabhard et Vernet in Paris begann Jacques Necker seine Karriere.

Isaac Vernet had retired in 1762; ... in the firm; three years later, Necker assumed the sole direction of the bank, while Thelusson took over the London branch
Now this is anything but this simple, his career that is.

Lets look closer at the wheeler-dealer Necker,
The Female Revolutionary Plutarch
contrast that with a more contemporay description of how Necker made his money in this book,
Madame de Stael
OK, this is just one data sample but we only have so much time in the day to study this. However we can see that the first is much more blunt ,don't trust this guy, than the second one , made millions by being a clever investor. Which is it? I chose the first because on those levels I think honesty is in very short sypply.

Another things that pops out is the speculation in GRAINS. The "stuff" that if not present in sufficient quantities can causes you to go hungry and be angry. So, did Jacque and Friends cause a shortages to "heat up" the citizens of France for a change of order in the "pyramid of powere" ???

Look on page 50 here,
The Famine Plot Persuasion in Eighteenth-century France

If you read just the first paragrah on the left hand side of this page then another means to "heat up" society will be exposed.
Lets Cut Spending

The king wants to do "The Right Thing", by saving money, but by doing this he creates enemies in the WRONG PLACES. Around himself. This mistake in my opinion costs him his head. You can not saw the branch on which you sit.

Lets see who else we can relate to Necker because for sure he is not ALONE.

First one that I found was this Gentleman who resided in England !!!!!!

Peter Thellusson

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Peter [de] Thellusson (27 June 1737 — 21 July 1797) was a Swiss businessman and banker who settled in London. Thellusson was a member of a Huguenot family which had fled France for Geneva in the 16th century.[1] His father Isaac had started a Swiss bank (Thellusson, Necker et Cie) and became the Genevan ambassador to Paris. Peter, with the help of his brother George-Tobie, managed the successful bank in partnership with Jacques Necker, the Thellussons managing the London branch of the bank from 1760 with Necker managing the Paris branch. Both partners became very rich by loans to the treasury and speculation in grain. He started his own finance house in Philpot Lane and in 1761 took British nationality by Act of Parliament. On 6 January 1760[1] he married Ann, daughter of Matthew Woodford and sister of Sir Ralph Woodford of Carlby, Lincolnshire.[1]

So we see have a foreign connection here. More interesting information is found here,
Peter T
Thellusson in turn is related to this french citizen who also lives in England !!!!!!

Fonblanque was descended, according to a member of the family, from the Greniers of Languedoc, a Huguenot family ennobled by Henri IV. In 1740 Abel de Grenier, Comte de Fonblanque, sent his two sons to England to be educated as Protestants; one of them, John, who succeeded his father and disposed of the French estates, settled in London as a merchant in partnership with his brother Anthony and was naturalized. After his death in 1760 his business fell into the hands of Peter Thellusson his bookkeeper, who secured it for himself.1

So the picture that I get from this is that we have a network of bankers who have Ventures in America, Speculate, Make Loans, Have Graineries, are involved in supplying food to troops and on and on. These bankers are connected to their kind in London, Amsterdam, Geneva etc. Where ever there was banking business I suspect they were somehow connected. Necker's English connections is an interesting aspect.

Necker knew what he was doing. He was helping Louise saw the branch on which Louise was sitting.

The top players of the Revolution who were killed ,

Louis Phillipe II, brother of Louis XVI (Freemason) supported the revolution - guillotined.
Danton – guillotined.
Desmoulines – guillotined.
Marat – assassinated.
Robespierre – guillotined.
Brissot – guillotined.
Mirabeau – poisoned.

WHY ? Why no bankers ?

edit on 10-2-2014 by tintin2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by RedFunfzhen

Your right. What I am trying to do ,in measuring my words, is to simply say "Hey I don't have all the cards."

But I am very glad we got the chance to listen to the Nuland tape. Those are REAL CARDS that are in play.

The Fu*& U is a side show. The good stuff is hearing her say "how the game is to be played".
Some keywords
"Put him on the spot where he fits in ..."
"I don't think Klich should go in ... it is not necessary ..."
" .. let him do his political homework stuff ..." Who gave him the homework ?

"... we want to keep the moderate democrats together ..."
"... by you reaching out ... helps in personality management ..."

This is priceless. This is "management" by an outsider and not someone "suggesting" a course of action. Even in this case, Ukraine is a sovereign country unless that has been redefined. Turn this around, what if Russian Ambassador was "helping" out the Tea Party leadership to get organized?

The Media has focused this on F U and "it is a private conversation", but that is misdirection. It's a trick.

Back to the French Revolution. The same thing would also need to be done as above by Nuland. "Personality management", "reaching out to ..." , there would need to be planning.

Necker's "mistake" places the Monarchy in grave and destabilizing situation. It has a HUGE debt. Lets repeat that word a few times,

Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt Debt

Debt is a world changer. Then create an "event" to ignite the whole thing and get ready to profit on it. Money is the greatest ignition material available because many can be found who will reach for it WITHOUT thinking. When you have people like Necker involved I suspect it was sprinkled around generously to create the right crowds and the right people involved. Heck the returns were almost guaranteed.

Cui bono

Monarch is a hermetically sealed group. You can only be born into it. You can not buy into it. That does have certain advantages, it is a greater guarantor of integrity of the wealth (I have mainly in mind land) than if you have a bunch of small owners who can be "setup" to give up what they have. So how to change this?

If there is an insurrection, riots, revolutions, civil war, war you will generate ,among others, PANIC. People in panic are in a hurry to go where there is less panic and it is safe. If what they own is in the form of land and property then they need to get it into a more concentrated form, paper money, gold, precious stones etc. And this is where the opportunists come in. I don't need to be there to know this, but if possible they will offer to those in panic next to nothing. So the people fleeing will be fleeced. This is now a TRANSFER of WEALTH. The rich become poor, the poor poorer, and SOMEONE else (the one in the middle) richer. Instability = Profit. If you orchestrate it YOU profit. 30 Years War was a boom for the money lenders, but they are not mentioned much.

Now we can argue who that someone is, but there IS someone in the middle that is profiting here and profiting BIG. To think that these people are only the Frenchmen is to not know history and what is happening today. These people would be called speculators, financiers, bankers and they could be living in London, Amsterdam, Florance, Frankfurt, Madrid ..... They were there then and they are there now. It is an exclusive club, but I suspect a paranoid one. There is no friendship among thieves.

Did England profit ? I'd say yes. Did anyone else in the neighborhood profit from a weak France ? For sure.

MessageforAll My question is... If we use this as a baseline... What have we learned from the civil unrest in Kiev? Egypt? Tunesia?Libya...

"Revolutions" to get access to raw resources (oil, gas, coal, gold, etc.) ,markets (those little people who will take credit and buy crap that breaks ASAP), eliminate competition etc. Same game different objectives, but the same Super Greedy People. As time goes by they are accumulating more and more MOJO and as we see making a Poorer Earth. Oceans polluted, bio-diversity dying off, air quality reduced, food modified genetically so that it is resistant to their pesticides (GMO), non-stop wars and on and on.


So where is the Enlightenment my friends ? I say it is Madness.

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:00 PM
Sorry for the delay. Anyway, let's get down to some more, shall we say, martial matters :

The National Guard

At first glance, the National Guard doesn't seem too interesting a subject. Its historical significance, while recognized, is viewed as relatively low-key, or if you prefer, as a side-effect of the revolution rather than one of its prime movers, and thus it rarely gets more than a passing mention, except maybe for the events of 10 August 1792. In essence, the National Guard was an institution akin to a police force. In the beginning of the revolution, June-July 1789, the city of Paris was succumbing to chaos. Seeking to protect themselves from the surrounding mercenary troops, the popular riots, the looting and criminality, as well as the ever-ambiguous "aristocratic plots", citizens of Paris gathered and organized an armed militia charged with maintaining law & order. Soon, other cities followed their lead, setting up their own guard, until it became a nation-wide institution. Martial law was voted, giving them full power to intervene. Strongly associated with the middle class, they drafted from all active citizens. They are most remembered for being under the command of the Marquis de Lafayette, of American Revolutionary War fame, and for their iconic uniforms which matched the revolutionary tricolour. Prior to the beheading of the monarchy (figurative and literal), they were in service to the municipalities, and thus to the king, who was still nominal head of state. For this reason, the National Guard are considered as proponents of constitutional monarchy, and are not counted among radical revolutionary forces. However, things changed in 1792, when they began recruting volunteers, called fédérés, who then subverted the organization for their own agenda, using it to stage a coup (March on the Tuileries) and depose the monarchy. Following the Thermidorian Reaction, the guard fell under royalist control, until it was finally dissolved by Napoleon. That's the gist of least in mainstream interpretation.

As you can imagine, I've got a couple issues with this narrative.

Issue #1: The formation of the National Guard, the circumstances and the manner in which it was conceived, is a rather hazy affair. Details are vague, and many sources give contradictory indications. For example, 15 July 1789 is sometimes cited as the date of its inception, but others say that it existed long before this date, perhaps under a different name, and it seems to be the case. Does anyone know when it truly began? To further complicate matters, the narrative implies that the National Guard filled an urgent need for law & order in Paris, but that's hardly the case, considering that the city already had an institution of this sort, called the Bourgeois Guard, itself a successor to the Guet Royal, which filled the exact same role. How was the National Guard related to this previous institution? Was the old Guard judged too ineffective or untrustworthy, and they had to start from scratch? Or was the National Guard simply an upgraded version of the Bourgeois Guard? A reform? A name change? What's more, there's even some debate about the date where martial law was put in effect. Let's just say it brings up many questions.

Issue #2: Oh my goodness! Have those guys ever been minimized or what? Unbelievable! The National Guard has been involved in pretty much every single event of the French Revolution. I wish I was joking. Take almost any civil incident of this period, and you'll find that the National Guard played a part. They are literally everywhere. They are often the common link between otherwise unrelated events. From the Storming of the Bastille, to the Great Fear, to the Women's March on Versailles, to the September Massacres, to the the fall of the Girondins, and throughout the Reign of Terror, their influence is all over the place. And that's not even counting the times when they actually did act as a police force, such as the Champ de Mars Massacre. There's no two ways about it, the National Guard were one of the main actors of the French Revolution, if only by sheer presence. Things would have unfolded differently if it weren't for their continuous interventions.

Issue #3: Why are those guys viewed as partisans of constitutional monarchy, again? I've rarely seen a more unruly bunch. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the National Guard spent most of the period in a state of open revolt. They repeatedly refused to break up riots, and often joined in themselves. They took part in lynchings and summary executions, killing for the republican cause. They were seen leading crowds during protests, and strikes in the countryside. In the women's march they defied Lafayette and threatened mass desertion because he ordered them to disperse the movement. They frequently disobeyed the rule of the municipalities, sometimes leading to legal conflicts. They certainly did not accomplish their peacekeeping duty, quite the other way around. I think they would qualify as a radical revolutionary force. The National Guard was rebellious from day one, and I'm puzzled why historians think the fundamental nature of the guard changed in 1792 before they assaulted the Tuileries; it was a very in-character move for them, fédérés or not (and how does that narrative even make sense in the first place? Why would hiring a bunch of volunteers from the provinces suddenly make the National Guard take a 180° turn and become pro-Jacobin? Seriously?). Only in some instances did they hold a repressive role, like when they broke up a grain-distribution initiative for the sake of liberal economy, or in the events of the Champ de Mars, where they shot protesters under a draconian application of martial law. No matter, the National Guard weren't held publicly responsible for this incident either. The blame fell on the shoulders of Jean-Sylvain Bailly, who was mayor of Paris at the time (he was later executed for it after a mock-trial). It also made the king even more unpopular, and it was one of the reasons why they asked for his head. The Guard itself wasn't accused. Which leads me to the next issue.

Issue #4: How come the National Guard, as an institution, is never attributed any kind of agency? It seems whenever they did something repressive, it was always blamed on the government, and whenever they did something rebellious, it was always blamed on rogue individuals. Given the kind of independance it demonstrated during this period, why refuse to consider that it wasn't a string of isolated events? That the militia had an agenda quite unlike their stated duty?

Am I paranoid for thinking the National Guard were the foot soldiers of the revolution? Am I mistaken in thinking they belonged to the government in name only, and in reality obeyed to the Paris Commune and the men behind it? Am I crazy to believe they acted as agitators and willfully exacerbated the crisis?

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 08:07 PM


Well done. Do you also see similarities with the so-called American Revolution?


Not really, though I could be mistaken. The circumstances were quite different. The American Revolution was mostly a separatist conflict (though nobody calls it that way, since "separatism" has become a dirty word in politics). The American Civil War was also a separatist conflict, in which the breakaway state lost. Clear territorial goals, with the fighting occuring on a defined frontline. I don't think America has ever known a period as messy as the French Revolution, and that's a good thing.

But if you have any theory about conspiracy in the American Revolution, I'd be interested to hear.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in