Starting this again because the moderators need to learn their place. This is a perfectly valid historical subject.
Was the French Revolution the beginning of the end for noble European culture?
It seems that almost every destructive trend in recent Western history had its roots in the French Revolution.
Consider this passage by Nietzsche:
>Which of them has been provisionally victorious. Rome or Judaea? but there is not a shadow of doubt; just consider to whom in Rome itself nowadays you bow down, as though before the quintessence of all the highest values —and not only in Rome, but almost over half the world, everywhere where man has been tamed or is about to be tamed—to three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess (to Jesus of Nazareth, to Peter the fisher, to Paul the tent-maker, and to the mother of the aforesaid Jesus, named Mary). This is very remarkable: Rome is undoubtedly defeated. At any rate there took place in the Renaissance a brilliantly sinister revival of the classical ideal, of the aristocratic valuation of all things: Rome herself, like a man waking up from a trance, stirred beneath the burden of the new Judaised Rome that had been built over her, which presented the appearance of an oecumenical synagogue and was called the "Church": but immediately Judaea triumphed again, thanks to that fundamentally popular (German and English) movement of revenge, which is called the Reformation, and taking also into account its inevitable corollary, the restoration of the Church—the restoration also of the ancient graveyard peace of classical Rome.
cont.
Cont.
>Judaea proved yet once more victorious over the classical ideal in the French Revolution, and in a sense which was even more crucial and even more profound: the last political aristocracy that existed in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, broke into pieces beneath the instincts of a resentful populace—never had the world heard a greater jubilation, a more uproarious enthusiasm: indeed, there took place in the midst of it the most monstrous and unexpected phenomenon; the ancient ideal itself swept before the eyes and conscience of humanity with all its life and with unheard-of splendour, and in opposition to resentment's lying war-cry of the perogative of the most, in opposition to the will to lowliness, abasement, and equalisation, the will to a retrogression and twilight of humanity, there rang out once again, stronger, simpler, more penetrating than ever, the terrible and enchanting counter-war-cry of the prerogative of the few! Like a final sign-post to other ways, there appeared Napoleon, the most unique and violent anachronism that ever existed, and in him the incarnate problem of the aristocratic ideal in itself—consider well what a problem it is:—Napoleon, that synthesis of Monster and Superman.
Noble European culture ended with excessive centralization of the monarchy, along with "The Great Transformation"
The Renaissance was the beginning of modernism, the French Revolution was a natural product of the snowball.
>Was the French Revolution the beginning of the end for noble European culture?
No, it was the begining of a new and better era.
>It seems that almost every destructive trend in recent Western history had its roots in the French Revolution.
There is no such thing as a destructive trend in history. Stop being a faggot and romanticizing the feudal past. There has never been a better time to be alive.
If by noble you mean forthright and righteous than it seems you are putting to much faith in what was considered a rather savage time.
If by noble you mean 'nobility', then no
>>24419
As stated here, kings slowly but surely did away with many of the power of the nobility over time
>>24449
Technological progress masks social decay.
>>24449
>There has never been a better time to be alive.
Define 'better'
>>24530
Social decay is subjective.
>>24686
So is "better".
>>24449
>There has never been a better time to be alive.
Do you think Europeans living circa 1941 would have felt the same?
Do you think native Europeans feel that way today? Consider the suicide rate in France, for instance.
>>24514
By "noble" I mean the honor system nobility was built upon, that is valor and loyalty. I also mean an economic and value system that was largely independent of the market and extended down to the peasants.
>>24530
That depends entirely on what technology is focused on. Certainly things like space exploration doesn't make society decay.
>>24794
>Do you think native Europeans feel that way today?
Of course we fucking do you moron
The real world is not /pol/, you know?
>>24372
The Marxist revolutions was the beginning of the end for European High Culture. The French revolution simply made the ideals from The Enlightenment official. Equality before the law. Basic human rights. These are the best things to happen to humanity in a long time. If we had stopped there it would have been for the best.
True degeneration started with the end of world war II and accelerated after the fall of the Berlin wall. The communists lost hope in the class warfare theory and instead infiltrated academia to brainwash the masses through identity and cultural relativism politics.
>>24908
But he sought to create another hereditary monarchy.
>>24794
>native Europeans
this is a fucking /pol/ thread, isn't it. get out.
>>24881
How many generations does your family go back in Europe?
Be honest m8
>>24933
Identity politics are considered to hamper class consciousness by most orthodox Marxists today, because they create an identity you are loyal to above your class...as in, you're more likely to side with a wealthy transsexual than a working class cis scum.
>>24881
not that poor 7 year old german girl :-(
Not to be a 90's kid but I genuinely think the 90's were the best point in history given that there was no imminent demographic crisis AND the peak of technology/post-scarcity.
>>24943
>everything I disagree with is /pol/
They're missing you on /insert board or website here/
the problem with hereditary leadership is that they tend to only be interested in advancing their own interests rather than those of the people, additionally the autocratic nature of their rule effectively insulates them from having to answer to the people they supposedly represent.
Considering the sorry state ancien regime france found itself in after the 7 years war and american revolution its no surprise that the people were tired of indulgent and wasteful monarchies.
Whatever your feelings are on the reign of terror the second estate had no one to blame but themselves.
>>24963
I think we agree that 19th century America was culturally and politically superior to 20th century America.
Things really didn't start going wrong until the 1930s when suffrage was passed.
>>24737
I always found it amusing to read essays written during "the second great awakening" here in america in the 1830's where people called for a return to a simpler time. Its nothing but a fantasy, that purer era never existed.
>>25002
>the people were tired of indulgent and wasteful monarchies
Right, and we have indulgent thieving wasteful bureaucracies today, which are much better
>>25028
It went wrong with the baby boomers, m80
>>25028
Even if the West had a better culture at that time though, which I'd generally agree to, we still have/had a better QOL. I guess in some ways you can say it sucks to be alive right now, but the internet is rather amazing and so is the fact that I can play enjoyable mobile games on my phone. :-)
Not to mention the freedom of expression enjoyed in the 90's. Things are starting to swing too far left and censorship of ideas is rampant, but in the 90's there was a pretty perfect balance on right and left and how society acted.
>>25057
read the sticky please
>>25103
Quality of life is debatable. Medicine has come a long way, but I would argue that's because we've been so much in need of it lately. We have never known more about nutrition, physiology and disease than we do today, and somehow we're sicker than ever.
>>25104
If you don't have an argument, you can always stop posting
>>24372
>Was the French Revolution the beginning of the end for noble European culture?
No, it was pretty much the end of it. There is no place for aristocracy in urbanized and industrialized society.
>It seems that almost every destructive trend in recent Western history had its roots in the French Revolution.
French revolution is based upon three things: Liberte (liberalism), Egalite (socialism), fraternite (nationalism). Do you consider them inherently destructive?
>>25261
Quite.
Tell me, what has hitherto been the typical result of socialism and nationalism?
War, poverty, class strife, cultural debasement, overturning of moral touchstones, and so on.
The real question is not whether these things are destructive. The real question is what has this destruction led to? Is society and the world better off?
>>25335
>typical result of socialism and nationalism?
Typical result of socialism is increased welfare of masses, typical result of nationalism is a free nation-state. There are of course many cases, where these two were pushed ad absurdum.
>War
Was always there, will always be there
>poverty
Are you telling me that aristocrats would be solution to that?
>class strife
If there were aristocrats it would be way worse
>cultural debasement
Quite the opposite, talking about nationalism. It gave culture to the common man.
>overturning of moral touchstones
Just a phrase
>>24530
Social decay, in some way the past nobility could be today considered as very degenerate. Ironic desu.
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html
Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn also shares this view, OP. He often writes about it in his work, notably in his history of leftism. I've linked a short article of his on this topic, it's a good read. Here is a particularly interesting part:
>Only the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794 hindered further leveling plans, which Babeuf in all probability would have realized. So Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buidlings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing. (In Strassburg, preparations were already underway for the barbaric mutilation of the cathedral there.) Another problem that needed to be solved was the language of the Alsatians, qui ne parlent pas la Iangue républicaine, otherwise known as French. Someone suggested taking the children away from those in Alsace-Lorraine or resettling the entire German-speaking population throughout out all of France. Those were costly plans and as a result a more practical solution was worked out, namely, the complete extermination of the germanophone population. As one can see, the French Revolution was not only interested in the good Doctor Guillotin's deployment of mechanical mass murder, it was also interested in genocide and not only in Alsace but also in other regions of the République Une et Indivisible.
No it was not.
Conservatism was born out of the French Revolution. Before that you only really had traditionalism or orthodoxy or whatever you want to call it.
I recommend the first 30 pages of Jerry Muller's "Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present".
>>25261
Liberal National Socialism?
>>24881
Congradulations!
You're the first person to bring up /pol/ in this thread! And it was over fucking nothing too.
>>24943
>the idea that there are people native to Europe is /pol/
I already hate this board
>>25002
>its no surprise that the people were tired of indulgent and wasteful monarchies.
The most significant reason for the revolution was poor harvest producing a lack of food. All the other stuff just added to it but if it wasn't for the food shortage, nothing would have happened.
>>24372
>Mods haven't deleted this time
That's right Janny, Learn your place you kek
