It's time for leftists to wake up before they destroy Europe

[Conserative Morality]

Mass conscription is hardly 'rightist'. The concept of a people's war was unthinkable and in many ways still is to the traditional non-populist right. Universal suffrage was originally implemented in the Revolution until '95.

No. Universal suffrage was actually voted in 1793 when the République thought that she was about to fail to conceide herself the favor of the poor but didn't applicated the said law 'till the end of the Directoire.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was 1789 and the National Convention in 1792 had suffrage for all male citizens 25 and over. The Directorate was 1795-1799. Jesus, do you not know the history of your own country?

[Baltenstein]

And where do you see me hating on Marxism?

Ha! Well okay then Comrade, enjoy the far left.

I think one can not be a Marxist, or Leftist in general, without "hating Marxism".
If anything, I'm Centrist.
In the context of the French revolution, I would have been an enthusiastic Bonapartist.

[Conserative Morality]

The funny thing is that France had to get an emperor of its own first before it managed to rekt the Austrian emperor.

Nah, rekt before that.

[Aelex]

Bullshit.

Elles porteront sur leur poitrine ces mots gravés : LE PEUPLE FRANÇAIS, & au-dessous : LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ. Les mêmes mots seront inscrits sur leurs drapeaux, qui porteront les trois couleurs de la nation.

Nope.

« Sans doute a-t-on pu retracer l'histoire pré-révolutionnaire de la formule, et faire remarquer que les trois mots magiques de nos frontons étaient déjà parmi ceux qu'affectionnaient, au xviiie siècle, les sociétés de pensée. Mais ils figuraient au milieu de beaucoup d'autres, Amitié, Charité, Sincérité, Union. Les francs-maçons usaient surtout d'Égalité, un peu moins volontiers de Fraternité, montraient plus de tiédeur encore à Liberté, et une franche indifférence à l'arrangement : Liberté-Égalité-Fraternité, alors même que les enchantaient par ailleurs les cadences ternaires (Salut, Force, Union, par exemple). Les longues collectes entreprises dans le lexique des Lumières se sont révélées également décevantes. On voit sans doute souvent briller les trois mots dans le tamis des orpailleurs du lexique, mais ce sont des paillettes isolées, qui ne s'agrègent que fort rarement en triade organisée (...)2. »

It was just a motto among a lot of other. It's not until the Seconde République that it was adopted officialy.

[Baltenstein]

That's a pretty biased definition then.

I think it's a more traditional definition: conservatism to the right, reformism to the left.
As times changed and ideologies succeeded in transforming their ideals into the status quo, the spectrum shifted, but the general direction remained the same. As such, the great political reforms that led to the modern West as we know it all fell within the left side of the political spectrum.

My point is that many of the decisions of the French Left at the time went waaaay overboard and they had to actively be counterbalanced by the centre and the centre-right.
I'd argue that the modern West is a product from an ongoing dialogue between the centre-left, the centre, and the centre-right, and that both the Far Left (Jacobins, Communists, Anarchists) and the Far Right (Reactionaries, Clericalists, Ultranationalists) are disruptive elements. I would credit neither the Left nor the Right as having created the "modern West" exclusively.

Nah, rekt before that.

But the real body slam/pile driver that destroyed the HRR and saw Vienna occupied only came after France had become an empire as well.

[Conserative Morality]

I think one can not be a Marxist, or Leftist in general, without "hating Marxism".
If anything, I'm Centrist.
In the context of the French revolution, I would have been an enthusiastic Bonapartist.

I would've been pretty solidly with Bonaparte until he declared himself King of the French. I can accept a strong leader in times of trouble; I can't accept the revival of the very permanent institution of hereditary rule contrary to all the best values of the French Revolution.

[The Kievan People]

They created quite a bit:
Constitutional government
Individual liberty
Representative democracy
Freedom of expression
Secularism
Freedom of religion
Welfare state
Gender equality
LGBT rights

These are as much or more a product of nationalism as they are of the "Left".

[Sanctissima]

I think one can not be a Marxist, or Leftist in general, without "hating Marxism".
If anything, I'm Centrist.
In the context of the French revolution, I would have been an enthusiastic Bonapartist.

I would've been pretty solidly with Bonaparte until he declared himself King of the French. I can accept a strong leader in times of trouble; I can't accept the revival of the very permanent institution of hereditary rule contrary to all the best values of the French Revolution.

Would be interesting to see how differently the French Revolution might have turned out if Bonaparte just stuck with the whole 'First Consul' thing.

[Genivaria]

They created quite a bit:
Constitutional government
Individual liberty
Representative democracy
Freedom of expression
Secularism
Freedom of religion
Welfare state
Gender equality
LGBT rights

These are as much or more a product of nationalism as they are of the "Left".

Liberal Nationalism yes.

[Conserative Morality]

Bullshit.

Nope.

« Sans doute a-t-on pu retracer l'histoire pré-révolutionnaire de la formule, et faire remarquer que les trois mots magiques de nos frontons étaient déjà parmi ceux qu'affectionnaient, au xviiie siècle, les sociétés de pensée. Mais ils figuraient au milieu de beaucoup d'autres, Amitié, Charité, Sincérité, Union. Les francs-maçons usaient surtout d'Égalité, un peu moins volontiers de Fraternité, montraient plus de tiédeur encore à Liberté, et une franche indifférence à l'arrangement : Liberté-Égalité-Fraternité, alors même que les enchantaient par ailleurs les cadences ternaires (Salut, Force, Union, par exemple). Les longues collectes entreprises dans le lexique des Lumières se sont révélées également décevantes. On voit sans doute souvent briller les trois mots dans le tamis des orpailleurs du lexique, mais ce sont des paillettes isolées, qui ne s'agrègent que fort rarement en triade organisée (...)2. »

It was just a motto among a lot of other. It's not until the Seconde République that it was adopted officialy.

Seeing as you said

2)Wasn't used anywhere 'till 1848 and the establishment of the Seconde République.

And the context was the use of the motto as proof against the conservative nature of the revolution, the motto stands whether or not it was officially adopted. Is la Marseillaise also now irrelevant before 1795 in gauging the political feelings of the time? Your backtracking is rather pathetic.

I'm done with you. It's shameful that a French citizen has such a terrible understanding of their country's own history.

[Baltenstein]

I think one can not be a Marxist, or Leftist in general, without "hating Marxism".
If anything, I'm Centrist.
In the context of the French revolution, I would have been an enthusiastic Bonapartist.

I would've been pretty solidly with Bonaparte until he declared himself King of the French. I can accept a strong leader in times of trouble; I can't accept the revival of the very permanent institution of hereditary rule contrary to all the best values of the French Revolution.

King? Please. Emperor.
But yeah, putting his siblings on European thrones everyhwere was a pretty bad move.

[Aelex]

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was 1789 and the National Convention in 1792 had suffrage for all male citizens 25 and over. The Directorate was 1795-1799. Jesus, do you not know the history of your own country?

My bad, I indeed mingled the Convention Nationale with the Directoire. And you're indeed wrong.

"Malgré un mécontentement grandissant à l'égard de la Convention nationale en tant qu'organe dirigeant du pays, celle-ci rédige la Constitution de l'an I (1793), elle-même ratifiée par un vote populaire au début du mois d'août. Ce texte, qui proclame pour la première fois au monde le suffrage universel, est très important, car il constitue un recul pour la bourgeoisie, qui avait jusqu'alors réussi à maintenir le suffrage censitaire."

Despite a growing discontent of the National Convention as a governement, it directed the redaction of the Constitution in 1793, itself ratified by a popular vote in the start of August. This text, which proclaimed for the first time the Universal Suffrage, is very important as it's a move against the bourgeoise which had managed to maintain the landed voting 'till then.


However, said constitution wasn't applicated 'till the end of the CONVENTION NATIONALE and the rise of the directoire.

[Genivaria]

I would've been pretty solidly with Bonaparte until he declared himself King of the French. I can accept a strong leader in times of trouble; I can't accept the revival of the very permanent institution of hereditary rule contrary to all the best values of the French Revolution.

Would be interesting to see how differently the French Revolution might have turned out if Bonaparte just stuck with the whole 'First Consul' thing.

Honestly given the warlike climate of the time I'd settle for some kind of Stratocratic Republic instead of another fucking monarchy.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's a pretty biased definition then.

I think it's a more traditional definition: conservatism to the right, reformism to the left.
As times changed and ideologies succeeded in transforming their ideals into the status quo, the spectrum shifted, but the general direction remained the same. As such, the great political reforms that led to the modern West as we know it all fell within the left side of the political spectrum.

Long story short, the left always wins.

[Geilinor]

I think it's a more traditional definition: conservatism to the right, reformism to the left.
As times changed and ideologies succeeded in transforming their ideals into the status quo, the spectrum shifted, but the general direction remained the same. As such, the great political reforms that led to the modern West as we know it all fell within the left side of the political spectrum.

Long story short, the left always wins.

Except in the 1980's.

[Aelex]

And the context was the use of the motto as proof against the conservative nature of the revolution, the motto stands whether or not it was officially adopted. Is la Marseillaise also now irrelevant before 1795 in gauging the political feelings of the time? Your backtracking is rather pathetic.

I never stated the Révolution was conservative. Just that it was indeed to some point rightist and not as leftist as some of you are saying.
What was conservative was rather the Coup du 18 Brumaire.
Anyway, I'm not so much bactracking that you're trying to twist history and my words so it fit your narrative. Liberté Egalité Fraternité was just one motto among a shit load of others and only earned it's international fame thanks to Leroux and Blanc.

[Baltenstein]

Would be interesting to see how differently the French Revolution might have turned out if Bonaparte just stuck with the whole 'First Consul' thing.

Honestly given the warlike climate of the time I'd settle for some kind of Stratocratic Republic instead of another fucking monarchy.

In all fairness, Napoleon didn't come up with the idea of an imperial crown by himself. It was suggested to him by the French Senate, who thought that the establishment of a new royal dynasty would make it harder for the Bourbons to come back and easier for the rest of Europe to accept the new order in France.

But still, from an intellectual point of view, keeping the Republic would have been the more morally right thing to do.

[The Conez Imperium]

I think it's a more traditional definition: conservatism to the right, reformism to the left.
As times changed and ideologies succeeded in transforming their ideals into the status quo, the spectrum shifted, but the general direction remained the same. As such, the great political reforms that led to the modern West as we know it all fell within the left side of the political spectrum.

Long story short, the left always wins.

Well the Sparticists lost in Weimar Republic Germany. But the 20's - 40's in Europe were radical times.

[Aelex]

I'm done with you. It's shameful that a French citizen has such a terrible understanding of their country's own history.

Yeah, yeah. Keep telling you that.
When the only time you "disproved me" historically speaking was when I mingled two terms, and since you yourself keep proclaiming that the République's voting was Universal since it's beginning (a thing two minute of research would have been enough for you to know to be false); you trying to call on my "lack of knowledge of my own country's history" is simply laughable.
I know it's supposed to be a jape of some sort but I simply can't help but laugh at your pitiful try of reducing the Révolution to it's leftists influence while forgetting the quite strong rightists ones.
Anyway, quit the argument if you want. You're not quitting it with panache, as you seem to think you are, however.

[Vassenor]

I'm done with you. It's shameful that a French citizen has such a terrible understanding of their country's own history.

Yeah, yeah. Keep telling you that.
When the only time you "disproved me" historically speaking was when I mingled two terms, and since you yourself keep proclaiming that the République's voting was Universal since it's beginning (a thing two minute of research would have been enough for you to know to be false); you trying to call on my "lack of knowledge of my own country's history" is simply laughable.
I know it's supposed to be a jape of some sort but I simply can't help but laugh at your pitiful try of reducing the Révolution to it's leftists influence while forgetting the quite strong rightists ones.
Anyway, quit the argument if you want. You're not quitting it with panache, as you seem to think you are, however.

Whereas you seen to be doing the reverse, reducing the Révolution to its rightist influences while ignoring the left to suit your own personal political biases.

[Aelex]

Whereas you seen to be doing the reverse, reducing the Révolution to its rightist influences while ignoring the left to suit your own personal political biases.

Not really. I'm not much of a rightist even if I found myself to be more and more agreeing with some of their point lately. Call me a centrist if anything.

I don't, however, like when people strip such an important event as the Révolution of influences which played an important part, both as a cause and a consequence, of it; said influence being Nationalism which, at least at that time, was indeed in the right of the political spectrum.
If people were forgetting the part Liberalism played in it and just concentrated on the role of Nationalism, I would have been doing the very contrary of what I'm doing now.

[Novus America]

I think it's a more traditional definition: conservatism to the right, reformism to the left.
As times changed and ideologies succeeded in transforming their ideals into the status quo, the spectrum shifted, but the general direction remained the same. As such, the great political reforms that led to the modern West as we know it all fell within the left side of the political spectrum.

Long story short, the left always wins.

Except in Russia. And China. And Vietnam. And France. When the left wins it becomes the right. Once in power leftists usually become conservative reactionaries. So the right, or at least the conservative reactionary element usually wins in the end.

Classical liberals are considered "right" or "libertarian" in America yet left in Russia and Hungary. So you first have to define what is right and what is left.

[Mumbumbu]

The Roman Empire was brought down because it was too nice to refugees.

You heard it here first, folks.

It was brought down because it incorporated conquered people's into its armed forces. Giving shelter to those fleeing from war isn't even close to the same thing

[Wallenburg]

The Roman Empire was brought down because it was too nice to refugees.

You heard it here first, folks.

It was brought down because it incorporated conquered people's into its armed forces. Giving shelter to those fleeing from war isn't even close to the same thing

You should have your sarcasmometer checked.

[Brandenbourg-Anhalt]

if the betrayers of Europe are allowed to continue their work of destruction with your support, history will repeat itself, and we will be brought down

And if people with the same approach as you are allowed to come to power, history will also repeat itself and we will be brought down by Adolf Hitler 2. And what was the result the first time we tried the far-right nazi experiment in the 30's and 40's: It was 50 million+ dead and a completely shattered Europe in a matter of just 6 years by the hands of nazis. Never again!

or we will save ourselves in the last moment, but that will have a terrible price, and the first to pay it will be the traitors, who either intentionally or out of sheer naivity and foolishness assisted the downfall of our culture, civilisation, heritage, and morales.

I actually understand where you're coming from and I somewhat sympathize and agree with your cause - the protection of national culture and way of life and limitations on the number of immigrants allowed into our countries in order to secure the distinct cultures of European countries. I agree with that. Obviously, we're faced with huge fundamental culture problems when we see over and over again how males of non-Western immigrant background top the criminal statistics, both in terms of sexual assaults against women and other types of violent crime. If people want to be in Europe, they need to want to become an integrated part of society and respect and adhere to the basic values of democracy, freedom and gender equality that our societies are build on. If they are not willing to do that, they shouldn't be here.

However, I don't respond well to death threats because I'm not an outright religious far-right bigot like you. If you want more people to have sympathy for your cause and opinions, threatening them with barbaric execution if they don't agree with you is not the way to convince people. On the contrary, it pushes people away from you and turns them into your most fierce opponents. And then we have a new World War and the nazis will be defeated as they were the last time.