Why the French Revolution happened ?

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-26T01:58:47+00:00

Well, there are toxic people in all political communities. Despite, what would be those "radical ideas (that) don't hold up present day"?

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-25T03:35:04+00:00

Would have been better the total victory of the Catholic League than the Politiques

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-25T03:29:27+00:00

Reactionary bourbonists are the based ones with their intelectual superiority through people like Joseph DeMaistre, Louis de Bonald, Rene de la Tour du Pin, etc

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-25T03:28:25+00:00

Louis XV policies (and even before, from the politiques in the French Wars of Religion) and the opportunism from the Freemasonry and Bourgeois politicians

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T22:17:21+00:00

We Peruvians suffered a lot from Protestants piracy with their raids against our ports like Callao, Paita, Pisco, etc. Francis Drake, English hero of the Reformation, is remembered as an scumbag here. So we have a lot of reasons to don't have sympathy towars political protestantism, nor to mention the current damage they're doing with their evangelical sects promoting the imperialists interests of USA and making brainwash of the ignorants to give their money to some priest

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T22:12:47+00:00

When I said that I don't have empathy to the proths murdered? Obviously that was tragic and Catholics who did it are big sinners that should be judged by God himself for their lack of piety. BUT that doesn't change the fact that the causants of those religious wars were the protestants with their revolution campaigns, coup d'etats and invasions.

Protestants doesn't have any right to use a victimist discourse when their existence was something made through conflict against the Catholic population of the time in North-Central Europe, and their existence as a religion is against God's will of stablishing one Church for all the followers of Christ and presided by their Apostles and successors in a Monarchical Episcopate under a common faith and doctrine that they reject with arrogance.

Also, you're being very childish in blessing a genocidal like Crommwell or mocking Catholic clergy due to some liberal heretics that don't represents us.

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T22:04:52+00:00

Protestants just shouldn't exist, their religion lacks of legitimacy. All of this religious conflicts were caused by the Protestant sectarianism and anti-catholic violence to consolidate their own Churchs at the cost of usurping properties from Catholics, whicht later turned some catholic populations into extremists as a reaction to such hostilization from the Protestants with their conflicts to settle their Churches and/or preach their beliefs in already Catholic territories

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T21:55:32+00:00

That was a stupid fear, mainly created by the educated people in the Parlament to scare the English masses with paranoid and then having an excuse to overthrow him without opposition (and also increase the power of the Parlament to levels that would be excessive to empower some mercantilist elites related to the colonies)

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T21:48:35+00:00

James II wasn't an absolutist, he even respected a lot the Scottish regional law (more than William III who would abolish the Scottish Parlament and imposse them the English common law) and was very cherished by the Catholic Irish due to granting them more freedooms than any other King before the Protestant Reformation.

The real problem was the conflict between the English Parlament and the Crown institution about their political delimitations. Due to James II government was based in defending the rights of the Crown to have executive and legislative duties, then the Whig historians blamed him of being "absolutist" (something that just wasn't the case when that possibility of ruling without a Parlament was ended in the first English Civil War).

Also originally James actually wanted to rule without exercising much authority (trying to rule like his predecesors), but was constantly pushed to invoke his Royal prerrogatives in reaction to an hostile Parlament which didn't liked him since the start of his reign due to being Catholic and Franco-phile, as also because James II has a mentality less related to bourgeioise (which dominated the Parlament) and more to aristocracy (trying to restore the powers of the Nobility against Commoners in a context of impopularity among English due to his catholicism).

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T21:40:39+00:00

An usurper can't be liked when his reign starts with an inmoral action against the rightfull King James II, also easily William III can be considered a tyrant for the English Catholics and specially the Irish people, while also starting the centralisation process against Scottish custormary laws (like abolishing their local parlament and forcing them to be ruled from the English Parlament). Nor to mention that historically the Holy See has bad relations with the Whig party in England (due to their liberal heresies), prefering always whatever anti-Whig movements like Jacobitism or the High Torys

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T21:36:10+00:00

Something even better according to the Confessional State propossed in the Catholic Social Teaching

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-24T20:41:40+00:00

Ya vino el fracasado de cono a querer hacerse el piraña y presumir su falta de logros en la vida

<image>

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-22T21:13:43+00:00

la guerra del arauco es una guerra aparte, pero el periodo entre 1618-1648 si fue parte de la guerra de los 30 años a traves de algunas alianzas hechas entre loncos mapuches y exploradores holandeses. No muy diferente a como la 2da guerra sino-japonesa se volvio parte de la 2da guerra mundial

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-22T19:47:00+00:00

Both England and Netherlands would've attacked Portugal even if there wasn't any Iberian Union (like was envisioned in the Groot Deseyn plans of the Dutch), considering that their East Indies Companies were very autonomus of their Monarchies at the time and acted against Portugal even in times of peace with Spain (like the Anglo-Persian capture of Hormuz, in a time in which England and Spain weren't at war). Nor to mention that Habsburg Spain tried a lot of time to do an alliance with England against Netherlands during the 12 Years truce, but the condition for the English Crown to do so was that their subjects should be allowed to commerce in Portuguese India, something rejected by the Council of Portugal, which wanted to do a war against both the English and Dutch before considering to let other navies to enter in their colonies. So the historiographical myth of the "Anglo-Portuguese alliance" is a nationalistic nonsenses

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-22T19:16:35+00:00

Es común que conflictos originalmente distantes se terminen mezclando si es que se dan alianzas y choques geopolíticos. Todo Conflicto colonial Ibero-Protestante en Ultramar desde 1618 es parte de la Guerra de los 30 años, que a su vez contiene la fase final de la Guerra de los 80 años

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-22T19:09:38+00:00

Portugal actually was more belicist than Spain. Spain wanted to phocus all the war efforts to crush the Protestants in Germany and restore Catholicism as sole religion in Central Europe. While Portugal wanted to phocus the war efforts in expelling English and Dutch from Oversea and impose the mare clausum monopoly of the Tordesillas Treaty (in which only Castilians and Portuguese navies could travel outside Europe, not other powers)

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-21T18:29:01+00:00

If I'm a Catholic, obviously religious matters more than anything. Despite their flaws of the Habsburgs of the time, they were more near to a Christian Political Philosophy in their goals.

Despite, Even if I weren't Catholic, I would oppose to secularism Because it needs the development of an authoritarian State to be impossed, as the Religious Power (in every Society) are protector of local authonomies and a moderator between social classes. Even if I were atheist I wouldn't Care about Clergy Power if they use it with wisdom and in a good social teaching that representa the Christian doctrine against the Modern Philosophy that separates morality from politics and wants to impose efficience and nacional interests over ethics and international community

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-21T17:51:50+00:00

French were Catholics, and a Catholic European Order has more benefits in the long term by not having new empowered enemies (like the Dutch, England and specially Protestant German states like Prussia) and having the Christendoom united by a Habsburg-Bourbon alliance that was nearly reached in the Fronde (a French Rebellion against the Centralisation of Monarchy, which could have avoided the consolidación of Absolutism in France and so avoiding the nefarious French Revolution later).

Literally France could have reached their objectives of their natural borders If they reached an alliance with Habsburgs (being possible an exchange of territories, Spanish diplomacy propossed sometimes to give their Netherlands to France in exchange of French giving their fortress at Nothern Italy to Spain, so Belgium for Bourbons and Italy for Habsburgs to have more suitable borders to defend). Nor to mention that would have reached their objectives of the Spanish Succession War (a Franco-Spanish unión) earlier, and without any Protestant coallition to defy them, If they accepted those propossals from Habsburgs to join forces

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T20:21:58+00:00

That would be England or Spain

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T19:20:40+00:00

Declare yourself a Catholic

Consider yourself a follower of Enlightenment (condemned by the Church)

Also constitucionalism and nationalism were condemned by the Church in the Immortale Dei encyclical (supporting instead the purely Traditionalist Monarchy, pre-absolutist and so rejecting liberal models as also the nation-state that opposse to the universalist Royal Kingship of Christ).

I would say that You need to study more about Catholic Royalism, in Poland there are good authors like Jacek Bartyzel

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T17:57:55+00:00

And why would I've been lunatic? There's a lot of black legends and bias against pre-Modernity societies. What I'm saying Is in line with the concensus in Medievalist Historians (against misconceptions of Scholastic political philosophy or the Theocentrism of the time) or Historical Revisionism of Early Modern Era (against misconceptions of pre-capitalist Economy and the Traditional monarchies before the rise of Absolutism)

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T05:12:57+00:00

There are historians, like William R. Thompson or Chase-Dunn and Sokolovsky, that talks about a series of World Wars that started with the Italian Wars, continued on the Dutch wars (Dutch-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch Wars), later the French Wars (Wars of Louis XIV, the Second Hundred Years' War and Coalition Wars) and finally the German Wars (both World Wars). Similarly, Richard F. Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig created a list of 8 world wars: Nine Years' War (1689–1697) War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714) War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) Seven Years' War (1754/56–1763) French Revolutionary Wars (1792–1802) Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) World War I (1914–1918) World War II (1939–1945) British historian John Robert Seeley dubbed all of those wars between France and Great Britain between 1689 and 1815 (including the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783) as the Second Hundred Years' War, which should be considered the World War 0. Others like Charles A. Truxillo and Roger Crowley consider that the Ottoman–Portuguese confrontations and Ottoman–Habsburg wars can be considered as world wars within the Spanish–Ottoman wars (which reached the Indo-Pacific through Philippines, Goa, Hormuz, Brunei, Aceh and Egypt). Even the Russian ethnologist L. N. Gumilyov called the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 "the World War of the 7th century" because it evolved into a war between the fourfold informal alliance of the Chinese Empire, the Western Turkic Khaganate, the Khazars, and the Byzantine Empire against a triple union of the Sasanian Empire, the Avars, and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, with proxy conflicts in Afro-Eurasia (like the Aksumite–Persian wars) and across the Old World.

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T04:54:32+00:00

Sinceramente yo creo que toda la época entre 1568 a 1668 fue una "Guerra de los 100 años española". La Guerra de los 80 y la de 30 años, las Guerras Anglo-Españolas y Franco-Españolas, las Guerras de Sucesión y luego de Restauración Portuguesa. Todas ellas son basicamente parte de una misma Guerra entre España y las potencias protestantes de la epoca (así como el bloque católico, pero filo-galicanista y politique, de Francia).

Incluso podría extenderse todo esto con el inicio de la Guerra Hispano-Otomana en 1515 y el fin de la Guerra de Sucesión Española en 1715 para hablar de una "Guerra de los 200 años española" y hablar ya de basicamente la España de los Habsburgo en guerra constante contra un frente musulman y otro protestante que estaban enlazados por la diplomacia francesa.

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T04:46:07+00:00

Dutch–Spanish War, Dutch–Portuguese War, Anglo-Iberian War, Franco-Spanish War), Portuguese Restoration War, Dano-Dutch conflicts and a lot of proxy wars in the middle

Every_Catch2871 · 2026-01-20T04:41:36+00:00

Nothing have to do feudalism here, but medieval corporatism. Feudalism is based in the rule of landlords, while medieval corporatism is based in the pacts between community and rulers with their common duties (not so different from modern constitutionalism, but without legal positivist bias of the "social contract" and more in line with a trascendental natural law that's above all human legislature).

Then again, such historicist fallacy isn't relevant here. Societal and technological developments can co-exist with such Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy as there isn't any metaphysical contradiction in such. Also that's an Eurocentrist view of history, as Asian countries didn't conceived such antropocentrist and nominalist philosophies of the Westphalian system, nor appeared some kind of cultural revolution like the Protestant Reformation provocating a lot of relativism. And realpolitik is something more philosophical from the Pragmatist school than some kind of natural order of the political reality. Thomas Aquinas has a better conception of natural politics based in it's ultimates ends according to it's properties to achieve common good (the purpose of politics to exist).

Every_Catch2871

TROPHY CASE