Posted on 12/10/2013 5:45:36 PM PST by annalex
Thanks for the link.
I took my quote from a book (that I loaned to friend & did not return) written by a French author. I have never seen it anywhere else.
If I remember correctly, I took the image from an illustration in the book.
!
40 million Blacks against a couple of million Afrikaners? Not even close.
The image is an illustration of the Bastille, the storm of which is seen as the culmination of the French Revolution, a massive triumph of evil over good. However, Diderot was speaking of the American Revolution, quite a different historical context.
I took the quote of Diderot from a book about JFK by a French author. I copied it exactly as written in that book. It was the only book I have ever seen the quote in.
As far as the illustration, after thinking about it a while, I came to the conclusion I copied the photo from a book on gutenberg.org.
Now, I had no idea the quote was aimed at the American Revolution when I put the 2 together. And that was long ago.
Thank you for making the connection. As you said, the Storming of the Bastille was a number of years later.
As far as accuracy of the quote, it may be due to translation. I am pretty sure it was originally written in French, which I do not speak.
Alright, I heard you the first time. How much money do you want to put on it?
But I am puzzled about your statement: “a massive triumph of evil over good”.
I agree there was great evil at the end of the French Revolution. But I see nothing “good” about French Aristocracy.
The last legitimate government of France was that of Louis XVI. Legitimate governments are good, illegitimate bad — and the tragicomical history of France past their revolution proves it.
Totalitarianism in all it’s forms is EVIL.
That includes even a benign French ruler.
It is beyond me how it is that today some still can rationalize that Monarchy is an acceptable form of government. I know some that still do that, but to even think of it is an instant head shake for me.
And I am puzzled at applying the term “insurgent” to those who fought for the colonies in the American Revolution. Insurgent to me, implies a force coming from the outside. Unless that meant outside the established government.
“Totalitarianism” is the term applied to an ideological government divorced from national goals, such as the USSR. Monarchy has nothing to do with dictatorships nor totalitarianism. It has everything to do with legitimacy.
Monarchy is a national government with one man given the charge of his country inmolested by political concerns. I am a monarchist and every right-thinking American should be, too. This is the most natural, most able to do long term strategic thinking form of government. Individual monarchs can fail; Louis XVI surely failed. But what replaces monarchies is typically worse, because what replaces a monarchy is invariably a demagogue state run by unelected and often foreign elite.
America is a special case, as it was a colony mismanaged by George III. America is still to find its road to functional monarchy; it will probably be a long one. In fact, we haven’t build true feudalism yet: we still don’t have a free domestic market for contractual civic service, and in fact our system of local government is crumbling.
Blame Diderot and his translator; however, Wikipedia defines it as "armed rebellion against a constituted authority", which is applicable to the colonist rebels.
You said: “I am a monarchist”
??
I am not surprised, but will never understand that perspective. My very nature is against it. It is against every element of my being.
Nothing connected with my faith or education allows me to accept that position as being rational or fair.
As a young man I flirted with libertarianism until I saw where that lead. For a few years I read a magazine named “Chronicles” until I finally saw what they really advocated. I admired the grasp of history that some of the Paleo Conservatives (their own term) had. Until I saw where it lead. Since then I have been totally repulsed by that group.
You referenced Wiki? I am not fond of it because of it’s own bias. But here is what Wiki says about Totalitarianism:
“Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism (my insert- Dictator/Monarchy). Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control.”
I struggled with that exercise attempting to understand the Jewish perspective of the National Socialist disaster. I did not fully succeed in that attempt.
I still consider myself a paleo-libertarian, but I also realize that true and consistent respect for property right leaves no alternative but monarchy as a just form of social organization (*). Of course, monarchy cannot grow out of nothing: a robust feudal society, where local power is contractual rather than appointed or elected is necessary before a monarch can emerge. A dominant Christian religion is likewise necessary.
Needless to say, neither feudalism or monarchy has anything to do with ideological authoritarianism, let alone totalitarianism. Whatever the king does not own, — and outside of his personal property he owns the national infrastructure, — is owned by a private individual. The royal power is authoritarian only in the sense that it is not elected, and thank God for that.
I haven’t read Arendt, and am not likely to read it in the future.
No thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.