War in the Vendée 

Henri de la Rochejaquelein- "Mes amis, si j'avance, suivez-moi! Si je recule, tuez-moi! Si je meurs, vengez-moi!" (ltranslation: "Friends, if I advance, follow me! If I retreat, kill me! If I die, avenge me!").

My mantra has always been faith, family, fatherland

instaBlaster...

Ориентиры здорового человека

I can confirm that.

S W E E T H O M E A L A B A M A

Metternich himself ended his career humiliated and hated. God punishment

Kyrie eleison!

King

(￣^￣)ゞ

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T6zOT3IZ90U.html Manowar 🤘

@theinevitable storm82 Thanks. I was wondering the same. In all likelihood he just did not want to continue with his content, considering all the nonsense on RU-vid. Many such cases.

@theinevitable storm82 Yes, it would be nice if he comes back. But so far it doesn't seem likely. People like American Krogan that keep going on alternative platforms are a rarity after all.

Yeah I have noticed that even with the American Revolution it was a bunch of Rich White men who hated paying taxes. The only reason they tolerated Catholics is because the Catholics are the ones who helped the Revolutionaries. Most of these revolutions are lies. King Louis XV (a terrible King) asked King George III to treat the Indians and the Québécoise as his own Subjects which resulted in the Quebec Act, ( en.wikisource.org/wiki/Quebec_Act ) which permitted the Native French their language, Religion and Laws which meant a huge Cultural disconnect with the English surroundings (they did not revolt when the Americans did as a result) and autonomy, as well as The Royal Proclamation of 1763 ( www.ushistory.org/us/9a.asp ), which pissed off the American settlers because of something to do with land and wanting to steal it. Strange how the King decided to protect them.

​@@johnnotrealname8168 Very true. These revolutions where about removing the "limitations" on money and power, ie. the laws and mediations regarding morals and economics that the church and the crown granted to society. The goal was to establish a oligarchy veiled by lies of "freedom" and "enlightenment". Sad to think how many still fall for the myth that any of this was about their "rights" & "liberties". It was always about the power and material interests of a select few.

"Shortly after the proclamation of a republic on September 15, 1792, Philip of Orleans presented himself to the new communal government of Paris with a request to be renamed Egalite, and to have the garden of the Palais called the "garden of equality." He paid tribute to his experience as a Freemason for providing him with a "sort of image of equality," but gave thanks that he had now "left behind the phantom for the reality" ...The linkage was deeply appropriate. For the original revolution of 1789 that had been led by Lafayette can in a sense be said to have begun in the Parisian pleasure dome of Louis Philippe's father, Philip of Orleans : the Palais-Royal. There in the shadow of the Tuileries Palace, Philip had decided to accept the revolution and rename himself Egalite rather than remain loyal to his cousin, King Louis XVI"-James H Billington 13th Librarian of Congress

Basically yes.The middle class seized power from the decaying aristocracy and clergy.It was never about freedom and equality,just conflicting interests.

@@johnnotrealname8168 That wasn't exactly true of the American Revolution. The American Revolution was very much something done by middle-class farmers and artisans. Initially, there was a rise of rich, mercantile Federalists, but they were soon displaced in 1800 by Jeffersonians, who had their base among rural yeoman farmers and small artisans. The 'rich' who supported both the American Revolution and the Jeffersonians actually weren't the bourgeoisie, but rather the planters, who functioned similarly to the local nobles who supported the Vendee revolt. The Jeffersonians, despite their support of the French Revolution overseas, practically had a near-opposite platform from the Jacobins in a lot of ways. They were against centralization, promoted free speech, fought against Federalist censorship and brutality against yeoman farmer revolts like Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. America essentially had politics that was the inverse of Europe, where the democratic Republicans were agrarian decentralizers while the more autocratic Federalists were urbane merchants. This can be traced back to the influence of the Country Party's ideology on the American Enlightenment, the Country Party having influence ironically from dissident Tories. It also helped that America was way less urbanized and didn't have a real nobility. There also was a longer tradition of democratic self-government that arose more from the grassroots local level instead of a centralized Jacobin parliament dominating the rest of the country. Jeffersonian toleration, and often full on embracement, of Catholics came from their secularism. In America, Catholicism was not the religion that threatened religious freedom, but rather it was the Protestant state religions of the New English states. Nativism against the Catholics was the big threat to religious freedom in the eyes of Jeffersonians and later Jacksonians. American secularism was also more based on religious freedom since most colonies did not have state religions. The notion that a republic must follow the French Revolutionary model isn't exactly accurate either. The United Belgian States rose up in their own revolution AGAINST absolute monarchy, not because of the Enlightenment but against it. They wanted to preserve local rule against Enlightened Despot monarchs who sought to overturn their local traditions. Sadly, the decentralized republican model was crushed by both monarchical absolutism and Jacobin centralism. There were ironically less republics AFTER the French Revolution than before it, as the French destroyed a lot of the remaining small republics throughout Europe.

and which French are you referring to? crazy republicans or the rest who fought against it (from all factions)

God save France! Vive le Roi!

We won't be an audience nor will we be passive.

That's a brilliant book. You can get it for free (though I recommend buying it): mises.org/library/leftism-de-sade-and-marx-hitler-and-marcuse

@Based Eagle what’s worse is they cut pregnant women open to kill unborn children ,women are routinely raped and killed infants are bayoneted

Where did you learn this? Not that I doubt it but… That’s all kinds of messed up. So much for Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Pour Die et le Roi, meu camarada. Gott mit uns, irmão Brasileiro.

@@Aquilaris Gott Mit Uns, Deus, Pátria e Rei, e Deus te abençoe amigo

@@danielbruceagra9022 Igualmente, Deus te Abençoe!

Gloria a patria et filius et spiritui sanctam!

@@Lord_Machiavelli Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc et semper et in sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.

Let us also pray for the canonization of Jacques Cathelineau

Gamer time

Thanks you for tell this about Henri de la rochejaquelin

Weren’t there attempts in the 19th century to restore the Monarchy? In all honesty, any true attempts for Monarchism died in the 20th with Liberal America and Soviet Union ascension as Superpowers.

@@duncanharrell5009 I don't know much about French history, personally, but I believe the (pseudo)monarchies they've had, post-1789, were all liberal and followed the revolutionary ethos, some monarchic regimes to a greater degree than others. For example, Napoleon was an absolutist, while the Orléans that ruled France, after him, were not. But both of these monarchs had in common that their regimes were ones that followed the liberal-masonic revolution's principles, as I've said, some to a greater degree than others. And yeah, I agree with you, I find it very difficult that an iliberal monarchic regime can come about in today's distopic (pseudo)West - That being either an Organic Monarchy, or an Absolutist Monarchy. I side with the Organic one, personally, as I believe, as Saint Thomas Aquinas, also, did so, that it is the best form of government ever.

What’s the difference between an Organic Monarchy and an Absolutist one?

@@duncanharrell5009 While the absolutist monarchy concentrates all the power of the kingdom in the figure of the king, the organic monarchy, while it has a political centralization in the crown, and the king has the power to, effectively, rule, it has, also, an administrative descentralization - Think of it this way - The monarchies that took place during Europe's Feudal Middle Ages were organic, while monarchies such as that of the Roman Empire, that of Napoleon, that of Louis XIV of France, were absolutist. You can clearly see, using these historical periods, and figures, as examples, that the absolutist monarchy has an emphasis on the king as the greatest authority of the State, centralizing, basically, all political-administrative powers on him, and the organic monarchy, on the other hand, despite still recognizing the king's validity as the nation's statesman, descentralizes administrative power.

Well, let me say that we can say it didn't end up so bad. Directory purged Jacobins and ended anti-Catholicism, Bonaparte pushed that even further. After Bourbon restoration, Catholic France was fully restored. Napoleon III also put heavy emphasis on religion. All in all, while French politics are now secular, it's free to cultivate your Catholic faith there. So it's not so bad, could have been worse. Truth is that prior to Revolution, France wasn't a holy state, quite the contrary. It's not that it was great and then it became bad. A mission given to us by Christ - to spread the Gospel - was never completed. We have to continue preaching the word of the Lord, convincing, giving a good example. And I'm sure that one day, Christianity will triumph (not triumph again, because that never really happened)!

Indeed

a while ago, a friend told me that common people are far more tyrannical than their government can ever be like

"La Vandeana" is also great

It kinda did for a little while under Napoleon. He restored the Catholic Church and was himself a Catholic. People say that he was a freemason but the thing is the Freemasons did everything in their power to dethrone him, Napoleon was against the bankers and they were the ones who backed The Coalitions. At the end of his life he recognize that Jesus-Christ was King.

@@basedkaiser5352 yeah I've read about that, not only he had a very repressive policy towards "foreign high finance" (idk how's it in English) He also did everything in his power to nullify the Rothschilds' Geopolitical Power, it's also true that he became a convinced Catholic in the end, on st. Helena A similar case is found with Italian unification and the House of Savoy: Even during 1860, the Savoyards were very opposed to Republicanism and other forms of Jacobinism, they also protected the "Dark Aristocracy" (Aristocrazia Nera) from Garibaldi and Mazzini's madness at some point, it was the part of aristocrats who never betrayed the legacy of Papal Rule. Even King Humbert I himself had alot of enemies since he waged war against Socialism, Anarchism and Liberal hypocrisy.

@@basedkaiser5352 Napoleon is the action ancestor of Stalin, Hitler, Castro and other horrible tyrants in 20th century

@@basedkaiser5352 Napoleon was Jewish, he regarded Judaism highly and was descended from Jewish converts from Corsica.

I recommend to read about the White Terror in 1815-1816. Most revolutionary leaders and bonapartists that survived to that day were killed or repressed. I think it's fair to say that Vendee and other royalists had their revenge. Not to mention that the kingdom got restored in 1814... Also, please remember that before the French Revolution situation in France was awful, it was already then not-so-very Christian country

La Révolution Française (1989) and Les Vendéens (1993)

@@catosspeech134 Thank you!!

La Révolution Française (1989) and Les Vendéens (1993)

@@catosspeech134 Thanks!

Oh non!

The intro is from a film called "La Revolution Française," while the rest of the clips are from a documentary-movie called "Les Vendéens."

La Révolution Française (1989) and Les Vendéens (1993)

@@catosspeech134 Thank you!

Jacobins represented rather the poor city inhabitants, not peasants

Just like in Russia, the revolution was supposedly for the "benefit" of the peasants, yet when said peasants overwhelmingly supported the monarchy and God the revolutionaries made it clear how much they *hated* the peasantry, and then murdered them in huge numbers, by the millions, in terms of Russia!

Venant d'un canard bolchevik c'est étrange comme affirmation ;)

Lesser evils

they acted more like modern military dictators rather than actual monarchs.

A medall for you

JAI SHREE RAM 🙏🕉🚩

Made a version with effects. But it seemed a bit to much, so i dropped them.

Very fair to think like this. French Revolution was a super complicated period

secularism! hah! well, can't you tell him that freedom includes freedom of belief as well? and just leave these people with different belief and religion, alone and in peace?

@@altinaykor364 you are the reason why France is doom

@@kinsou3865 Didn't know by simply by telling the truth I'll be the doom of some country I'm not even part of🤣but thank you, not even I gave myself that much credit🤣🤣🤣