# Think Tank > History >  The Fantastic Fraud of the French Revolution

## Swordsmyth

The storming of the Bastille is likewise absurd.  They admit the Bastille contained only seven inmates
at the time, so why would rioters make the effort to storm it? 
And how's this for a coincidence?  The Marquis de Sade had been the eighth inmate ten days earlier,
but he had just been transferred out.  Sounds like someone knew what was going to happen before it
happened.  Plus, we are told 25,000 Royal troops were already in the vicinity of Paris at the time, so it
doesn't sound like a very good time to riot.  Where were these troops during the storming of the
Bastille?  Sounds like someone paid them to stand down.  Wikipedia admits,
The Royal troops did nothing to stop the spreading of social chaos in Paris during those days.
Curious, n'est-ce pas?  By July 14th, Paris was under the control of the Bourgeois Militia (later called
the National Guard).  Where did they come from?  And why had the Royal troops given them the city
without a fight?   Within hours this Militia was given arms by the Hôtel des Invalides, which just
happened to be storing 30,000 unguarded muskets.   And then we get this stunner concerning the
Bastille:
The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
Say what?  For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
head all the while.  According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
of the “storming” the Bastille was an open public space.  So the rioters actually stormed an open public
place.  We are told they stormed it to capture 250 barrels of gunpowder that the commandant at the
Invalides had taken the precaution of moving over there.   But wait, am I to understand that the
commandant moved 250 barrels of gunpowder to an open public space for safekeeping?    
To explain that, they change the story.  In the next paragraph, the Bastille is no longer an open public
space.  Instead, it is being guarded by 82 invalides and 32 grenadiers.  Really?  So the “seven old
men”—forgers and lunatics—incarcerated at the Bastille are being guarded by 114 soldiers?  Seems
like a high guard-to-inmate ratio, doesn't it?  I will be told, “No, they were guarding the powder”.  But I
don't understand why the powder was there, or why it wasn't already in the possession of the Royal
troops.   This whole story shouldn't fool a ten-year-old, but somehow it has fooled the entire world for 220 years.  
Plus, if the rioters didn't have the gunpowder yet, how did they storm anything?  It should have been
pretty difficult to storm a crenellated castle with empty muskets.  As it turns out, nothing was stormed.
Even according to the mainstream story, the troops inside simply opened the gates after a parley.  This
part of the story also makes no sense, since although no one was guaranteed safe escort, the Governor
de Launay allegedly opened the gates anyway and surrendered.  We are told he did this because he was
worried about food and water.  After four hours?  This giant fortress was stocked with 250 barrels of
gunpowder. . . and enough food to last four hours?  We are told that de Launay and mayor Flesselles
were killed that day, but I don't tend to believe it.  
Also unbelievable is the response from the King the next day, which was. . . nothing.  Troops were
ordered to disperse to the country and Paris was given to the mob.  Or, it was given to Lafayette, who
became commander of the National Guard.  That curious, wouldn't you say?  Lafayette, who had been
living at Versailles just few years earlier, was now commander of the Revolutionaries?  Can you say
“manufactured opposition”?   Within days, the King himself was wearing a tricolor cockade (hat).   
We see the same thing with the Jacobins, who are credited with overthrowing the monarchy.  But they
were also formed at Versailles and included Bourbons like the Duc d'Orleans.  So again, something
doesn't add up.   We have seen both the Freemasons (Lafayette) and the Jacobins forming out of
Versailles, the palace of the King.   It only adds up once you realize the Jacobins were another front for
the capitalists, and they had duped these top aristocrats like Orleans by promising him the crown once
Louis was gone.  They needed Orleans when it came time to order the Royal troops to stand down.
Orleans may have accomplished that on his own authority.   We will look more closely at Orleans later.
The Revolution was hatched out of Versailles, under the very nose of the King, and it could be done
that way because the bankers lived in Versailles with Louis.  By then, the bankers had infested every
building in France, including Versailles.  As now, you couldn't go to the toilet without paying some
banker a fee.  Versailles wasn't taken in the Revolution; it had been taken long before.

MUCH  More at: http://mileswmathis.com/frev.pdf
 @r3volution 3.0 try this paper on for size.

----------


## Swordsmyth

See also: http://mileswmathis.com/napoleon.pdf

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Now that's the most interesting conspiracy about it I've ever heard!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

First, allow me to shamelessly plug my own Bastille Day thread (great minds, it appears)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...50#post6497950




> The storming of the Bastille is likewise absurd.  They admit the Bastille contained only seven inmates
> at the time, so why would rioters make the effort to storm it? 
> 
> And how's this for a coincidence?  The Marquis de Sade had been the eighth inmate ten days earlier,
> but he had just been transferred out.  Sounds like someone knew what was going to happen before it
> happened.  Plus, we are told 25,000 Royal troops were already in the vicinity of Paris at the time, so it
> doesn't sound like a very good time to riot.  Where were these troops during the storming of the
> Bastille?  Sounds like someone paid them to stand down.  Wikipedia admits,
> 
> ...


The storming of the Bastille, like virtually every other "spontaneous" riot of the revolution, was no such thing. The revolution in general was a highly organized coup d'etat carried out by various factions: initially, the faction of the Duc d'Orleans, aiming to place him on the throne, was of especial important; later the revolutionary communists of Robespierre's clique became dominant. The mob which stormed the Bastille was whipped up by agents of the Duc d'Orleans.  




> And then we get this stunner concerning the Bastille:
> The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
> decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
> Say what?  For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
> head all the while.  According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
> of the “storming” the Bastille was an open public space.  So the rioters actually stormed an open public
> place.


No, the government was planning to demolish the Bastille and turn it into a park. It hadn't been done yet.




> We are told they stormed it to capture 250 barrels of gunpowder that the commandant at the
> Invalides had taken the precaution of moving over there.   But wait, am I to understand that the
> commandant moved 250 barrels of gunpowder to an open public space for safekeeping?    
> To explain that, they change the story.  In the next paragraph, the Bastille is no longer an open public
> space.  Instead, it is being guarded by 82 invalides and 32 grenadiers.  Really?  So the “seven old
> men”—forgers and lunatics—incarcerated at the Bastille are being guarded by 114 soldiers?  Seems
> like a high guard-to-inmate ratio, doesn't it?  I will be told, “No, they were guarding the powder”.  But I
> don't understand why the powder was there, or why it wasn't already in the possession of the Royal
> troops.   This whole story shouldn't fool a ten-year-old, but somehow it has fooled the entire world for 220 years.


Contrary to Jacobin propaganda, the Bastille wasn't much of a prison (as evident by the 7 prisoners it contained). It's primary purpose at that time was, as indicated, an arsenal and storehouse for gunpowder. And, indeed, that is why it was targeted by the conspirators - to obtain the arms. 




> Plus, if the rioters didn't have the gunpowder yet, how did they storm anything?  It should have been
> pretty difficult to storm a crenellated castle with empty muskets.  As it turns out, nothing was stormed.
> Even according to the mainstream story, the troops inside simply opened the gates after a parley.  This
> part of the story also makes no sense, since although no one was guaranteed safe escort, the Governor
> de Launay allegedly opened the gates anyway and surrendered.  We are told he did this because he was
> worried about food and water.  After four hours?  This giant fortress was stocked with 250 barrels of
> gunpowder. . . and enough food to last four hours?


The troops in and around Paris had been ordered, by they king, not to fire on the mob if at all possible.

This was a mistake Louis made repeatedly throughout the revolution, letting his heart overwhelm his head. 




> We are told that de Launay and mayor Flesselles
> were killed that day, but I don't tend to believe it.


They were brutally slaughtered by the mob on the street: one (I forget which) decapitated and his head paraded about. 




> Also unbelievable is the response from the King the next day, which was. . . nothing.  Troops were
> ordered to disperse to the country and Paris was given to the mob.  Or, it was given to Lafayette, who
> became commander of the National Guard.  That curious, wouldn't you say?  Lafayette, who had been
> living at Versailles just few years earlier, was now commander of the Revolutionaries?  Can you say
> “manufactured opposition”?   Within days, the King himself was wearing a tricolor cockade (hat).   
> We see the same thing with the Jacobins, who are credited with overthrowing the monarchy.  But they
> were also formed at Versailles and included Bourbons like the Duc d'Orleans.  So again, something
> doesn't add up.   We have seen both the Freemasons (Lafayette) and the Jacobins forming out of
> Versailles, the palace of the King.   It only adds up once you realize the Jacobins were another front for
> ...


I'm not aware that any bankers played an important role, but the Duc d'Orleans and others within the ruling class, behind the back of the king, in alliance with the communists, most certainly.

----------


## Swordsmyth

@susano


Here is another source of information about the French revolution you might find interesting.

----------


## susano

> @susano
> 
> 
> Here is another source of information about the French revolution you might find interesting.



Thank you and will read in a few minutes.

----------


## susano

> The storming of the Bastille is likewise absurd.  They admit the Bastille contained only seven inmates
> at the time, so why would rioters make the effort to storm it? 
> And how's this for a coincidence?  The Marquis de Sade had been the eighth inmate ten days earlier,
> but he had just been transferred out.  Sounds like someone knew what was going to happen before it
> happened.  Plus, we are told 25,000 Royal troops were already in the vicinity of Paris at the time, so it
> doesn't sound like a very good time to riot.  Where were these troops during the storming of the
> Bastille?  Sounds like someone paid them to stand down.  Wikipedia admits,
> The Royal troops did nothing to stop the spreading of social chaos in Paris during those days.
> Curious, n'est-ce pas?  By July 14th, Paris was under the control of the Bourgeois Militia (later called
> ...


Started reading and had to stop right here since the rest is predicated upon a misreading, imo:

_The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
Say what? For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
head all the while. According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
of the “storming” the Bastille was an open public space._

The way I read that is that the decision had been made, prior to the storming, but the Bastille had not yet become a "public space". Not sure if "open" meant they planned to use the castle as a public space or if they planned to tear it down.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Started reading and had to stop right here since the rest is predicated upon a misreading, imo:
> 
> _The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
> decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
> Say what? For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
> head all the while. According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
> of the “storming” the Bastille was an open public space._
> 
> The way I read that is that the decision had been made, prior to the storming, but the Bastille had not yet become a "public space". Not sure if "open" meant they planned to use the castle as a public space or if they planned to tear it down.


You could be right about the misreading but if you go to the link and read the whole thing you will find lots of interesting information that isn't debatable.

Just the next part is damning:

To explain that, they change the story.  In the next paragraph, the Bastille is no longer an open public
space.  Instead, it is being guarded by 82 invalides and 32 grenadiers.  Really?  So the “seven old
men”—forgers and lunatics—incarcerated at the Bastille are being guarded by 114 soldiers?  Seems
like a high guard-to-inmate ratio, doesn't it?  I will be told, “No, they were guarding the powder”.  But I
don't understand why the powder was there, or why it wasn't already in the possession of the Royal
troops.   This whole story shouldn't fool a ten-year-old, but somehow it has fooled the entire world for 220 years.  
Plus, if the rioters didn't have the gunpowder yet, how did they storm anything?  It should have been
pretty difficult to storm a crenellated castle with empty muskets.  As it turns out, nothing was stormed.
Even according to the mainstream story, the troops inside simply opened the gates after a parley.  This
part of the story also makes no sense, since although no one was guaranteed safe escort, the Governor
de Launay allegedly opened the gates anyway and surrendered.  We are told he did this because he was
worried about food and water.  After four hours?  This giant fortress was stocked with 250 barrels of
gunpowder. . . and enough food to last four hours?  We are told that de Launay and mayor Flesselles
were killed that day, but I don't tend to believe it.  
Also unbelievable is the response from the King the next day, which was. . . nothing.  Troops were
ordered to disperse to the country and Paris was given to the mob. 


Another paper contains more info:  http://mileswmathis.com/napoleon.pdf

----------


## susano

> The storming of the Bastille is likewise absurd.  They admit the Bastille contained only seven inmates
> at the time, so why would rioters make the effort to storm it? 
> And how's this for a coincidence?  The Marquis de Sade had been the eighth inmate ten days earlier,
> but he had just been transferred out.  Sounds like someone knew what was going to happen before it
> happened.  Plus, we are told 25,000 Royal troops were already in the vicinity of Paris at the time, so it
> doesn't sound like a very good time to riot.  Where were these troops during the storming of the
> Bastille?  Sounds like someone paid them to stand down.  Wikipedia admits,
> The Royal troops did nothing to stop the spreading of social chaos in Paris during those days.
> Curious, n'est-ce pas?  By July 14th, Paris was under the control of the Bourgeois Militia (later called
> ...


Well, aside from whatever the situation was with the Bastille and the public space deal, that is fascinating! I don't know the history so I hope @r3volution 3.0 weighs in since he does.

FWIW, it makes complete sense, to me. The useful idiots don't get motivated on their own, ever, and they sure didn't have the means to stock some invalid hotel with 30K muskets!

This is reminiscent of the information the interrogation of a Trotskyite, by one of Stalin's men, where it's revealed that international Jewry & banksters funded the Bolsheviks and even Hitler (he didn't know the source of the money) until he was no longer useful:

https://www.henrymakow.com/000275.html

----------


## susano

> You could be right about the misreading but if you go to the link and read the whole thing you will find lots of interesting information that isn't debatable.
> 
> Just the next part is damning:
> 
> To explain that, they change the story.  In the next paragraph, the Bastille is no longer an open public
> space.  Instead, it is being guarded by 82 invalides and 32 grenadiers.  Really?  So the “seven old
> men”—forgers and lunatics—incarcerated at the Bastille are being guarded by 114 soldiers?  Seems
> like a high guard-to-inmate ratio, doesn't it?  I will be told, “No, they were guarding the powder”.  But I
> don't understand why the powder was there, or why it wasn't already in the possession of the Royal
> ...


My take is that it never made it to the point of an open public space because TSHTF and those plans went out the window. If the rest of what you've posted is correct (I haven't read the link, yet), it sure appeared to that other, secret, treasonous plans had been laid for which the building was being used.

----------


## susano

BTW, this also reminds me of something I was told and then found a little conformation on, regarding the massacre in Rwanda. It was that  World Wildlife Fund (British) controlled land (a reserve), in Rwanda, was used as a staging ground for one side and tons of machetes were flown in for the occasion. Why, I don't know, because I also don't know that history. Point being, hidden hands.

----------


## susano

Isn't there some way to give threads stars that show on the index? If so, how to?

----------


## susano

Forums>ThinkTank>History


Huh. Never even knew this category was here. Too many categories!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Isn't there some way to give threads stars that show on the index? If so, how to?


That was removed but I heard that it was still there for some smartphones.

One or more people was running around giving 1 star to threads just to strike at the person who posted them.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> BTW, this also reminds me of something I was told and then found a little conformation on, regarding the massacre in Rwanda. It was that  World Wildlife Fund (British) controlled land (a reserve), in Rwanda, was used as a staging ground for one side and tons of machetes were flown in for the occasion. Why, I don't know, because I also don't know that history. Point being, hidden hands.


That has the ring of truth to it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Forums>ThinkTank>History
> 
> 
> Huh. Never even knew this category was here. Too many categories!


There are some I would combine to reduce them.

----------


## susano

I just notice that r3volution 3.0 had already posted in this thread but I didn't see it before. 

The French, like anyone else, must have borrowed money and had money lenders slinking about.

----------


## acptulsa

> The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
> decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
> Say what? For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
> head all the while. According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
> of the storming the Bastille was an open public space. So the rioters actually stormed an open public
> place.


To think the Bastille should go is to see it fall instantly like the Walls of Jericho?

This person is a $#@!ing idiot.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> To think the Bastille should go is to see it fall instantly like the Walls of Jericho?
> 
> This person is a $#@!ing idiot.


If its door were unlocked and thrown open to the public it wouldn't have taken much "storming", the only question is whether that was supposed to have happened already or whether it had just been planned and not implemented yet.

He isn't the idiot.

----------


## acptulsa

> If its door were unlocked and thrown open to the public it wouldn't have taken much "storming", the only question is whether that was supposed to have happened already or whether it had just been planned and not implemented yet.
> 
> He isn't the idiot.


He said the decision was made "shortly before" the riot.

If either one of you thinks a brick building of that size can be converted into "open space" "shortly" with eighteenth century technoligy, that person is the idiot.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> He said the decision was made "shortly before" the riot.
> 
> If either one of you thinks a brick building of that size can be converted into "open space" "shortly" with eighteenth century technoligy, that person is the idiot.


"Open space" means Open to the public.

It doesn't mean a vacant lot.

It doesn't take long to unlock the doors and open them to the public.

His only error may be in assuming that it had already been done.

----------


## susano

> If its door were unlocked and thrown open to the public it wouldn't have taken much "storming", the only question is whether that was supposed to have happened already or whether it had just been planned and not implemented yet.
> 
> *He isn't the idiot*.


lol

----------


## susano

> To think the Bastille should go is to see it fall instantly like the Walls of Jericho?
> 
> This person is a $#@!ing idiot.


Do have a gander at what the idiot is writing about.

http://milesmathis.com/

----------


## Firestarter

> I couldn’t find anything better on the secret backers of Napoleon than “_The bestial British intelligence of Shelburne and Bentham_ of the Lyndon LaRouche network...
> 
> In the second half of the 18th century, the Lord Shelburne faction (William Petty, who had become a Knight of the Garter in 1782) became more and more dominant in Britain. Shelburne was on good terms with Benjamin Franklin and David Hume.
> In June 1780, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, funded a Jacobin mob to violently protest against Irish reforms. By the time the burning had stopped, prime minister Lord George North was forced to resign, so Shelburne could becom foreign secretary for the Northern District (including the North American colonies).
> Shelburne had previously preferred to control British imperialism from behind the scenes as chairman of the three-man "Secret Committee " of the opium trafficking East India Company.
> 
> In October 1776, the 28-year-old English barrister Jeremy Bentham wrote contemptuopsly of the American Declaration of Independence, and in 1780 Bentham continued in this vain. This brought him to the attention of the new British Foreign Office and British Foreign Intelligence Service, controlled by Lord Shelburne. Lord Shelburne even installed Bentham in an apartment at his Bowood estate.
> Later Bentham works were more widely circulated throughout Latin America with the help of the American Aaron Burr; Gen. Francisco de Miranda (born in Venezuela, a paid agent of the East India Company in the Jacobin Terror in France); and Simon Bolivar.
> 
> ...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6822001


More information, which puts the “French revolution” in the bigger context in Anton Chaitkin – _Treason in America from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman_, 27.7 MB (1985): http://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Li...1998_670pp.pdf
(http://web.archive.org/web/20190702143553/http://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/_Textual/AntonChaitkin_TreasonInAmerica-FromAaronBurrToAverellHarriman_1985-1998_670pp/AntonChaitkin_TreasonInAmerica-FromAaronBurrToAverellHarriman_1985-1998_670pp.pdf)

----------


## Firestarter

> I couldnt find anything better on the secret backers of Napoleon than _The bestial British intelligence of Shelburne and Bentham_ of the Lyndon LaRouche network...
> 
> In the second half of the 18th century, the Lord Shelburne faction (William Petty, who had become a Knight of the Garter in 1782) became more and more dominant in Britain. Shelburne was on good terms with Benjamin Franklin and David Hume.
> In June 1780, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, funded a Jacobin mob to violently protest against Irish reforms. By the time the burning had stopped, prime minister Lord George North was forced to resign, so Shelburne could becom foreign secretary for the Northern District (including the North American colonies).
> Shelburne had previously preferred to control British imperialism from behind the scenes as chairman of the three-man "Secret Committee " of the opium trafficking East India Company.
> 
> In October 1776, the 28-year-old English barrister Jeremy Bentham wrote contemptuopsly of the American Declaration of Independence, and in 1780 Bentham continued in this vain. This brought him to the attention of the new British Foreign Office and British Foreign Intelligence Service, controlled by Lord Shelburne. Lord Shelburne even installed Bentham in an apartment at his Bowood estate.
> Later Bentham works were more widely circulated throughout Latin America with the help of the American Aaron Burr; Gen. Francisco de Miranda (born in Venezuela, a paid agent of the East India Company in the Jacobin Terror in France); and Simon Bolivar.
> 
> ...


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6822001


More information, which puts the French revolution in the bigger context in Anton Chaitkin  _Treason in America from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman_, 27.7 MB (1985): http://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Li...1998_670pp.pdf
(http://web.archive.org/web/20190702143553/http://lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/_Textual/AntonChaitkin_TreasonInAmerica-FromAaronBurrToAverellHarriman_1985-1998_670pp/AntonChaitkin_TreasonInAmerica-FromAaronBurrToAverellHarriman_1985-1998_670pp.pdf)

----------


## acptulsa

> "Open space" means Open to the public.
> 
> It doesn't mean a vacant lot.


Oh?  Is that the way it works in France?  Because I've never seen, say, a public restroom called an "open space" in English--at least not without some desperate spinning involved.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well, aside from whatever the situation was with  the Bastille and the public space deal, that is fascinating! I don't  know the history so I hope @r3volution 3.0 weighs in since he does.
> 
> FWIW, it makes complete sense, to me. The useful idiots don't get  motivated on their own, ever, and they sure didn't have the means to  stock some invalid hotel with 30K muskets!


At the time of  the storming of the Bastille, the revolution was essentially the work  of the Duc d'Orleans, mentioned briefly above. Off the top of my head, I  forget whether there's any evidence of his direct involvement in the  Bastille incident, but at the very least he created the general disorder  in the capital which made something like this possible.

From the article quoted by SS:

"The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
Say what?  For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
head all the while.  According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
of the “storming” the Bastille was an open public space.  So the rioters actually stormed an open public
place. 
 
This is incorrect. The Bastille existed as a prison at the time. Its  demolition was being considered, but hadn't yet occurred. The falsehood surrounding the Bastille is that it was a notoriously brutal prison for heroic political dissidents;  that was revolutionary myth. The reality is that it was a tiny, unimportant prison  inhabited by a handful of ordinary criminals (plus one lunatic, de  Sade). In other words, the mob didn't storm a CIA blacksite and liberate  a bunch of people wrongly detained without trial; they stormed the town  jail in Mayberry and liberated three pickpockets and a drunk (and then demolished the little jail to build a monument to their own awesomeness). 

Also unbelievable is the response from the King the next day, which was. . . nothing. 

Louis was highly reluctant to kill his own subjects, even when they were rioting. He failed to act at a number of crucial moments, which ultimately cost him his throne. This well-intended by imprudent generosity was his greatest failure.  

We see the same thing with the Jacobins, who are credited with overthrowing the monarchy.  But they were also formed at Versailles and included Bourbons like the Duc d'Orleans.

 Jacobin was the name of a social club in Paris; I'm not aware of their ever having any kind of presence at Versailles. The  Duc d'Orleans associated with all kinds of people, always pandering,  but he was not part of the Jacobins in any meaningful sense. There  were two distinct phases in the revolution, IMO; the first, an attempted palace coup by the Orleanists: the second, a communist revolution after Orleans  lost control.

By then, the bankers had infested every
building in France, including Versailles.  As now, you couldn't go to the toilet without paying some
banker a fee.  Versailles wasn't taken in the Revolution; it had been taken long before. 
I'm not aware of any banker playing any important role in the revolution. 




> This is reminiscent of the information the interrogation of a  Trotskyite, by one of Stalin's men, where it's revealed that  international Jewry & banksters funded the Bolsheviks and even  Hitler (he didn't know the source of the money) until he was no longer  useful:


That's a common view in certain circles, but the evidence is lacking. The  most important foreign sponsor of the bolsheviks by far was Germany,  which did this not for ideological reasons (they hated and feared  bolshevism), but for military reasons; i.e. they needed Russia to exit  the war so that they could transfer divisions to the western front for  the final offensive against the Anglo-French. Beyond Germany, it's true  that there's evidence of support from various bankers, most notably the  Morgan people in New York (as detailed in Sutton's "Wall Street and the  Bolshevik Revolution"), but these by and large weren't Jewish. Further,  it's often said that Jews made up a disproportionate fraction of early  bolsheviks, especially the Cheka (the early secret police). On  the one hand, I've seen no solid evidence of this; on the other, it  wouldn't be very surprising to find a disproportionate number of Jews  among the bolsheviks, or other socialist parties, for the simple reason  that Jews had been poorly treated under the old regime, and the Whites  were in many cases vehemently anti-Semitic (not to mention that the leadership of these parties consisted mostly of intellectuals and professionals, among which Jews are everywhere over-represented, for non-conspiratorial reasons). None of this amounts to a  conspiracy of international Jewry. I know less about the situation with  Hitler, but I've not seen any evidence to support that theory either. These theories tend to be promoted by anti-Semites (obviously), but also by socialists, who like the idea of shifting blame for the horrors of the Russian and German revolutions away from themselves. 

P.S.




> I just notice that r3volution 3.0 had already posted in this thread but I didn't see it before.


Ha, neither did I.

----------


## susano

> At the time of  the storming of the Bastille, the revolution was essentially the work  of the Duc d'Orleans, mentioned briefly above. Off the top of my head, I  forget whether there's any evidence of his direct involvement in the  Bastille incident, but at the very least he created the general disorder  in the capital which made something like this possible.
> 
> From the article quoted by SS:
> 
> "The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a
> decision being taken to replace it with an open public space,[5] shortly before the disturbances began.
> Say what?  For the full effect, you may wish to read that several hundred times, hitting yourself on the
> head all the while.  According to my understanding of the English language, that means that at the time
> of the “storming” the Bastille was an open public space.  So the rioters actually stormed an open public
> ...


Gosh, I could talk to you for hours. Though I'm not very knowledgeable, I love history - especially anything to do with with communists which, I gathered, is what the Jacobins were, thougt I don't think the term was used then.

Check out that Henry Makow link I gave and read that "Red Symphony" (if you're inclined and have time - it's about 70 printed pages). It's the interrogation of Christian Rakovsky and very compelling (seems legit) though it's one of those deals where it's not "confirmed", claiming to be a key player's/observer's notes. I think, with the breadth of your own knowledge, you can discern, for yourself, if it has credibility. 

IIRC, it was Jabob Schiff who supported and provided an apartment, for Trotsky, while he was in New York. I am kind of vaguely aware that Germany was up to no good, as well, and assisted Lenin in returning to Russia.

I agree that the Jews were mistreated - worse under some Tsars than others. How much of that was due to their own insular character, leading to conflict with a Christian host society, I don't know. Ultimately, I think as the "wondering Jews", their nature, as a group, was always internationalist, urban, intellectual and they really did conspire to model their environment (host country) after their own beliefs and desires, one of which was anti Christian which, I believe, goes all the way back to Christ. Big picture.  

I had a Rense link with a list of Bolshevik leadership which was a little over 70& Jews. Dunno the accuracy and can't find the bookmark or link because Google and the current censorship. I'll look further but while searching, I ran across this:

The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime

https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__the-jew...soviet-regime/


Then there was Solzhenitsyn and his "200 Years Together" where he said he did not exclusively blame Jews for communism but was clear that they played an over-represented and prominent role. For that, he was practically labeled a Nazi and _was_ called a fascist because to acknowledge it still taboo. 

As for the French, where did the Duc d'Orleans get his money? Didn't the royals borrow from money lenders? 30K muskets sounds like a big stash and someone financed that. Also, that were were stashed in a hotel sounds as though they weren't official stockpiles.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> As for the French, where did the Duc d'Orleans get his money? Didn't the royals borrow from money lenders? 30K muskets sounds like a big stash and someone financed that. Also, that were were stashed in a hotel sounds as though they weren't official stockpiles.


He was immensely rich on his own account. No doubt he borrowed money from time to time, as everyone did, but I know of no evidence that any of his creditors, or any others, played any noteworthy role in the revolution. As for muskets, there's nothing unusual about a large arsenal in the capital, and the Hotel des Invalides was a state owned building designed for military purposes; it served primarily as a military hospital (hotel in French just means house, ala House of Commons, not hotel in the English sense). A general point to keep in mind when thinking about early revolutions is that states in this period had very little in the way of internal security. What might appear by modern standards as shocking negligence on the part of the authorities in terms securing important places, supplies, and people was typical of that era.  

For the Russian issues, I'll take a look at that and get back to you.

P.S. On "hotel," you'll also frequently come across action at the Hotel de Ville during the revolution.

This was the town hall ("house of the village," or something along those lines).



Hotel des Invalides^^^



Hotel de Ville^^^

----------


## susano

> He was immensely rich on his own account. No doubt he borrowed money from time to time, as everyone did, but I know of no evidence that any of his creditors, or any others, played any noteworthy role in the revolution. As for muskets, there's nothing unusual about a large arsenal in the capital, and the Hotel des Invalides was a state owned building designed for military purposes; it served primarily as a military hospital (hotel in French just means house, ala House of Commons, not hotel in the English sense). A general point to keep in mind when thinking about early revolutions is that states in this period had very little in the way of internal security. What might appear by modern standards as shocking negligence on the part of the authorities in terms securing important places, supplies, and people was typical of that era.  
> 
> For the Russian issues, I'll take a look at that and get back to you.
> 
> P.S. On "hotel," you'll also frequently come across action at the Hotel de Ville during the revolution.
> 
> This was the town hall ("house of the village," or something along those lines).
> 
> 
> ...


OMG, the Hotel de Ville. Beautiful That could get me going on another subject about how such fabulous architecture, with exquisite materials, was possible then but not now. 

Thanks for the info. 

BTW, are you French?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> OMG, the Hotel de Ville. Beautiful That could get me going on another subject about how such fabulous architecture, with exquisite materials, was possible then but not now. 
> 
> Thanks for the info.


My pleasure




> BTW, are you French?


Nope, and my French is terrible to non-existent, but you pick a few things up along the way reading the history.

----------


## Snowball

Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism is a book by Abbé Augustin Barruel, a French Jesuit priest. It was written and published in French in 1797-98, and translated into English in 1799. In the book, Barruel claims that the French Revolution was the result of a deliberate conspiracy or plot to overthrow the throne, altar and aristocratic society in Europe.

----------


## Swordsmyth

@susano

----------


## susano

> @susano


How the heck did you find this? I tried both regular and advanced search for "French revolution" and got no returns.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> How the heck did you find this? I tried both regular and advanced search for "French revolution" and got no returns.


I got lots of returns for an ordinary search, maybe the search engine is glitching sometimes?

----------

