Saturday, December 15, 2018

A Fresh Look at the French Revolution- The Liberals vs the People

 We had some commentary regarding the french revolution as compared to the yellow vest protests. Most people wrongly believe the "french revolution' was all about the people tossing an insolent ruler to the curb. And then gaining enlightenment. It was nothing of the sort.

Forget the "French Revolution" of 1789 as a model, if that is what you are referencing, because it was probably another (the first?) bankster revolution.
"the "French Revolution" of 1789 as a model, if that is what you are referencing, because it was probably another (the first?) bankster revolution"
Yah, and it spread "enlightennment" as was claimed, but, I don't actually think so- story for another day!
Really a pity you can't read french. The books and conference of Marion Sigaut are wonderful eye openers concerning the history of the revolution and the pre-revolutionary regime. 
There's one thing that most people miss with the French revolution, is that the "liberals" had put in place their agenda "free market and liberalism"

gallier's comment continues below:
"(called the physiocrats) long before the revolution (Turgot died in 1781 for example). That was in fact the big fault Louis XVI made, he put the liberals in charge of the realm. This is, what drove people to rebel. The bourgeoisie then took over and installed the terror regime. The repression was done against the old order of things and it is clear from the historical record that the normal commoner sided with the old regime and wanted a restoration of the kingdom as it was before the liberals ran things. This can be seen with the rebellion of the Chouans that was repressed in what can be called the first genocide"
The King put the Liberals in charge.... the people revolted and death ensued. Sounds familiar
Chouannerie 
The Chouannerie (from the Chouan brothers, two of its leaders) was a royalist uprising or counter-revolution in 12 of the western départements of France, particularly in the provinces of Brittany and Maine, against the French First Republic during the French Revolution. It played out in three phases and lasted from the spring of 1794 until 1800.[1]

 Gallier the Elder sent the piece below that clarifies reality vs the multitudinous lies of l'histoire.
Merci. And yes, the information is worth publishing


To have a pertinent historic view about "french revolution" and the
movement gilets jaunes a translation of a text and video from Marion
Sigaut (Historian). I'm sure it is very important to understand the
great difference between the two events, once and now. There is need to
publish it, but it is needfull to clearly unterstand the context. The
old "game" of power and wealth for few against the many whom creates
wealth. In biologic you may call it parasitism.

The link:
http://marionsigaut.com/2018/12/07/les-gilets-jaunes-lancien-regime-et-la-revolution/

And now the translation by deepl/translate


The Yellow Vests, the Ancien Régime and the Revolution

It was tempting, for the French kneaded with republican culture that we
are, to draw a parallel between the current yellow vest uprising and the
French Revolution.

There has been no shortage of this, and we regularly hear Macron
compared with Louis XVI, the political class with the nobility, and this
system in decomposition with the Ancien Régime.

I would like to set the record straight.

Yes, the French people were hungry on the eve of the French Revolution.

But the reason is not that the "nobility and the clergy" would have put
their pockets full of it to the detriment of the people, as we often hear.

And the desperate crowds who were punching with completely outdated
police forces were not calling for the end of the Old Regime, but for
its rescue.

And the prohibition of the new.

Always the kings of France had assured that the bread of the people
would be accessible to all at the best price, and this was the raison
d'être of royalty.

The king was the foster father, and his authority sent a police force to
the markets to protect the people from the appetites of the merchants.

The grain police, which was punctual, respected and endowed with real
powers, provided a kind of public food service and only let merchants do
their shopping once the local population, the whole local population,
had used it.

In the event of a shortage, when for political (war) or climatic
reasons, grain was missing, its price was set by negotiation between
local authorities and merchants.

This negotiation was called taxation (or rate setting).

The people trusted the king to protect him from the greed of the
profiteers, and Henry IV had made the export of wheat, in the event of a
disaster, a crime of lese majesty, therefore punishable by death: the
bread of the people was sacred in the name of the common good.

One day the Enlightenment arrived, which claimed to replace the common
good with the pursuit of profit.

Unscrupulous people pushed the king into debt until he could no longer
afford it, and then convinced him that, in order for him to repay the
debt, he had to liberalize the subsistence trade.

Let the wheat flow without the hassles of the grain police, let the law
of supply and demand set the price, let it happen, let it happen.

Louis XV decided to try the experiment in 1763, but in the face of
violence and the cries of the indignant population in the face of rising
prices, he chose to go back and return to the old system.

When he came to the throne in 1774, the young Louis XVI was convinced by
the arguments of the brilliant Jacques Turgot, who presented him with
all the advantages he would have to liberalize the subsistence trade.

Intimidated, eager to do the right thing and totally lacking in
experience, Louis XVI let Turgot empty the attics and let the merchants
take the grains instead of the consumers, under the applause of Voltaire
who finally saw his dreams come true.

It was an uprising: as one man (and women in the lead) and with the
screams of "taxation! taxation! taxation! "the population left to
collect their grain and distributed it at the "right price", the one
that does not hurt anyone and allows everyone to live.

If the gigantic demonstrations of yellow vests demanding affordable fuel
look like anything, it is the crowds of the Flour War.

In both cases, the people demand to be heard and refuse to pay for a
debt that is not their own.

As late as 1776, the king heard his people and returned to the old
system, the grain police system: he sent Turgot away.

However, the debt continued to increase, over and over again.

When it was such that the State could no longer be able to pay its
officials, when all the usual expedients were exhausted, the king,
cornered, agreed, one last time, to liberalize trade in subsistence goods.

Then he was forced to convene the General States, an assembly
responsible for distributing the tax and bringing the king the
grievances of the peoples.

The Liberals were on a roll, and had obtained, at the same time as the
free movement of food, a free trade contract between France and England
that flooded the French market with cheap products made by children and
workers reduced to poverty.

The rise in the price of bread was accompanied by abominable
unemployment, and the six months before the Bastille was taken were made
up of riots by the unemployed and families demanding the return of the
protective system that had been in place until then and not its abolition.

The people did not contest the old regime, but the new one, that of
capitalism applied to its substance.Heated by the Masonic lodges
determined to overthrow all the protections of the people and the
obstacles to profit, the deputies of the States-General proclaimed
themselves a constituent assembly and set in stone the market economy
that the people rejected with all their might.

This is the Revolution.The king could do nothing more since he was
overthrown: he was no longer going to hinder the profiteers who were
finally in power.

Those who took his place and killed him were those who imposed on the
French people the economic barbarity that still prevails today.

It was the bourgeoisie that wanted, made and won the French Revolution
to impose a regime that the French people did not want.



It was imposed on him by terror and massacres. It has suffered poverty,
proletarianization, economic barbarism and the loss of its entire tradition.

If Macron looks like someone, it is certainly not the king whom the
people cherished and considered as their father.

Macron is only the latest of the successors of those who murdered him to
impose the reign of royal money against the common good.


How I'm understanding the 'bourgeoisie' as described above, is in the classic marxist definition of the capitalist class- the bankers for sure. It appears once they knocked out the competition they morphed into their natural state, the predator class.
  • (in Marxist contexts) the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production.
Origin
Related: 

 From earlier today:

Exclusive: U.S.-backed SDF vows to fight any Turkish attack in north Syria

5 comments:

  1. Copied the article and will pass it along to some of the dumbed down worker class that I run into at gun shows... where I now wear a yellow vest, along with my USS Liberty cap, selling my Remember the USS Liberty targets... my uniform of war with my jew controlled, jew dumbed down fellow vendors.

    What a clarity this article offers! Substitute jew for merchant... and jewish for masonic.

    Thanks for the article.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah yes, the bankster class hiding behind the cries of "revolution". Once they got the "Estates General" then the bankster revolution could begin in earnest, targeting the peasants, the Church and the dumb aristocrats who thought the banksters were are their side.

    I have a question, though, along with a suspicion...

    "As late as 1776, the king heard his people and returned to the old system, the grain police system: he sent Turgot away.

    However, the debt continued to increase, over and over again.

    When it was such that the State could no longer be able to pay its officials, when all the usual expedients were exhausted, the king, cornered, agreed, one last time, to liberalize trade in subsistence goods."

    How did the State get into so much debt in the first place? Why did the debt keep increasing? Why do I suspect that the answer might have "private banksters" somewhere in it? I do know that so-called Cardinal Brienne, who was called in to "help" the situation, was also a financier who eventually embraced zee bankster revolution. Coincidence? Meanwhile his congregation and fellow clerics were massacred.

    Thanks again Penny for the profound insights.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you Penny and Gallier the Elder for educating me too! My best wishes to all the peasants every time...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome, dear Wallflower, I learned a lot myself by reading this blog and the relevant comments that follow the articles.

      I wish all the friends of pennyforyourthoughts a merry Christmas und a happy new year.

      Gallier the Elder

      Delete
  4. Hey Rick B, Anonymous and wallflower:
    glad you enjoyed the collaborative effort- and are willing to share it- this is crucial for us all.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS