Source: henrymakow.com
The French Revolution was part of the
long-term Illuminati banker plan to reshape mankind to serve them and their god
Lucifer.
" The Illuminati operating in the guise of the Jacobins forced the regime change historians call the French Revolution."
by Andrew Smith
(henrymakow.com)
The value of history lies primarily in appreciating what's happening today. We have a sense that events are driven by the past and that history repeats itself.
But why? Perhaps, the hidden planners of historical events have a limited repertoire of dirty tricks. They suppress the history of the deceptions practiced on our great grandparents, so they can mislead, maim and mutilate us and later generations.
Only when we see that the French Revolution of 1789 was planned and financed from abroad (just like the Russian Revolution of 1917) can we suspect that the current "unrest" and "revolutions" in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Thailand, Yemen, Syria and now Malaysia are not truly popular revolts but irregular warfare coups. Of course, in the case of Libya where Qadaffi came close to eradicating the rebels, the foreign coup has become a regular military operation supported by NATO air strikes. But they still call it a revolution.
The dictionary defines "revolution" as a "sudden and violent change in government or in the political constitution of a country, mainly brought about by internal causes; as the French Revolution of 1789." But subversive elements in London working with French and European revolutionaries--NOT INTERNAL CAUSES--engineered the Paris bloodbaths historians call a revolution.
Before 1919 when Nesta B. Webster published her history of the French tragedy, there was nothing in English except Thomas Carlyle's The French Revolution (1837). In her preface to The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy (1919) she expressed shock. "So far, in England, the truth is not known; we have not even been told what really happened.
Histories still
teach that before the French Revolution the French aristocracy kept the
peasantry hungry and desperate without any real hope or direction for the
future. In her work, Webster explodes these notions regarding peasant misery
before 1789 with the letters of Dr. Rigby who traveled through the French
countryside in 1789 and who described "its extraordinary fertility" and its
"state of the highest cultivation."
"The crops are beyond any conception I could have had of them ,,, tens of thousands of acres of wheat superior to any that can be produced in England..." He described the French people as happy, prosperous and contented. (pp. 4-5)
Yet in the midst of this abundance there was famine. It triggered the French Revolution just like the unrest today in the Middle East. And we are still taught that upon hearing of the starving French peasantry, Louis XVI's wife, Queen Marie Antoinette remarked,"Let them eat cake." This bogus quotation is used to color the French aristocrats as out of touch. In fact Marie Antoinette blamed England. She knew what was happening.
And Americans today like Webster, have blinders on when it came to their own government's dishonorable foreign policy. Webster refused to hold her English Government responsible notwithstanding the overwhelmingly damning evidence.
"What, then, is the explanation of the belief in English cooperation with the revolutionary movement? Of the English guineas found on the rioters? Of the Englishmen mingling in the mobs of Paris during popular agitations? Of the seditious pamphlets printed in London? Of the traffic in letters, messages, and money maintained between England and the revolutionary leaders? Many of these leaders were constantly in England both before and during the Revolution... These facts admit of no denial: to suppose, however, any complicity on the part of the English Government is illogical and absurd." pp.30-31
A Royalist historian and contemporary of the worst atrocities, Felix Louis Montjoie, copiously documented the role of French King Louis XVI's cousin, the Freemason Duc d'Orleans, who bought up large portions of the French grain in 1789. This role backfired on him as he was guillotined in Nov. 1793.
Later historians document the role of Pitt, the English Parliament and the King's Privy Counsel in hoarding French grain with the aid of the Illuminati British East India Company in warehouses on the English Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey. ("Why the French Did Not Have an American Revolution," by Pierre Beaudry, p. 5.)
England was a mere pawn in the Illuminati game of pseudo-revolutions that overturn governments and give credit to democratic/communist freedom fighting homeboys and eventually even train the conquered population to celebrate the destruction of their history and culture. So today the French ironically celebrate their disgrace with Bastille Day, July 14
In the words of John Robison in his Proofs of a Conspiracy (1797)
"The earlier revolutionary leaders were, as we have seen, the disciples of the German Illuminati, and it was they who initiated them into the art of forming political committees " to carry through the great plan of a general overturning of religion and government . . . .These committees arose from the Illuminati in Bavaria . . . and these committees produced the Jacobin Club."
The chief lesson," Robison goes on to observe, that the revolutionary leaders took from Germany, " was the method of doing business, of managing their own correspondence, and of procuring and training pupils." pp. 190-191
The Illuminati operating in the guise of the Jacobins forced the regime change historians call the French Revolution. During the Russian Revolution they masqueraded as the Bolsheviks. Today they brag they are behind the Middle East revolutions. So maybe we should believe them.
.---
(just like the Russian Revolution of 1917)
http://www.reformation.org/
just like the unrest today in the Middle East
http://adask.wordpress.com/
"Let them eat cake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
" The Illuminati operating in the guise of the Jacobins forced the regime change historians call the French Revolution."
by Andrew Smith
(henrymakow.com)
The value of history lies primarily in appreciating what's happening today. We have a sense that events are driven by the past and that history repeats itself.
But why? Perhaps, the hidden planners of historical events have a limited repertoire of dirty tricks. They suppress the history of the deceptions practiced on our great grandparents, so they can mislead, maim and mutilate us and later generations.
Only when we see that the French Revolution of 1789 was planned and financed from abroad (just like the Russian Revolution of 1917) can we suspect that the current "unrest" and "revolutions" in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Thailand, Yemen, Syria and now Malaysia are not truly popular revolts but irregular warfare coups. Of course, in the case of Libya where Qadaffi came close to eradicating the rebels, the foreign coup has become a regular military operation supported by NATO air strikes. But they still call it a revolution.
The dictionary defines "revolution" as a "sudden and violent change in government or in the political constitution of a country, mainly brought about by internal causes; as the French Revolution of 1789." But subversive elements in London working with French and European revolutionaries--NOT INTERNAL CAUSES--engineered the Paris bloodbaths historians call a revolution.
Before 1919 when Nesta B. Webster published her history of the French tragedy, there was nothing in English except Thomas Carlyle's The French Revolution (1837). In her preface to The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy (1919) she expressed shock. "So far, in England, the truth is not known; we have not even been told what really happened.
Histories still
teach that before the French Revolution the French aristocracy kept the
peasantry hungry and desperate without any real hope or direction for the
future. In her work, Webster explodes these notions regarding peasant misery
before 1789 with the letters of Dr. Rigby who traveled through the French
countryside in 1789 and who described "its extraordinary fertility" and its
"state of the highest cultivation." "The crops are beyond any conception I could have had of them ,,, tens of thousands of acres of wheat superior to any that can be produced in England..." He described the French people as happy, prosperous and contented. (pp. 4-5)
Yet in the midst of this abundance there was famine. It triggered the French Revolution just like the unrest today in the Middle East. And we are still taught that upon hearing of the starving French peasantry, Louis XVI's wife, Queen Marie Antoinette remarked,"Let them eat cake." This bogus quotation is used to color the French aristocrats as out of touch. In fact Marie Antoinette blamed England. She knew what was happening.
And Americans today like Webster, have blinders on when it came to their own government's dishonorable foreign policy. Webster refused to hold her English Government responsible notwithstanding the overwhelmingly damning evidence.
"What, then, is the explanation of the belief in English cooperation with the revolutionary movement? Of the English guineas found on the rioters? Of the Englishmen mingling in the mobs of Paris during popular agitations? Of the seditious pamphlets printed in London? Of the traffic in letters, messages, and money maintained between England and the revolutionary leaders? Many of these leaders were constantly in England both before and during the Revolution... These facts admit of no denial: to suppose, however, any complicity on the part of the English Government is illogical and absurd." pp.30-31
A Royalist historian and contemporary of the worst atrocities, Felix Louis Montjoie, copiously documented the role of French King Louis XVI's cousin, the Freemason Duc d'Orleans, who bought up large portions of the French grain in 1789. This role backfired on him as he was guillotined in Nov. 1793.
Later historians document the role of Pitt, the English Parliament and the King's Privy Counsel in hoarding French grain with the aid of the Illuminati British East India Company in warehouses on the English Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey. ("Why the French Did Not Have an American Revolution," by Pierre Beaudry, p. 5.)
England was a mere pawn in the Illuminati game of pseudo-revolutions that overturn governments and give credit to democratic/communist freedom fighting homeboys and eventually even train the conquered population to celebrate the destruction of their history and culture. So today the French ironically celebrate their disgrace with Bastille Day, July 14
In the words of John Robison in his Proofs of a Conspiracy (1797)
"The earlier revolutionary leaders were, as we have seen, the disciples of the German Illuminati, and it was they who initiated them into the art of forming political committees " to carry through the great plan of a general overturning of religion and government . . . .These committees arose from the Illuminati in Bavaria . . . and these committees produced the Jacobin Club."
The chief lesson," Robison goes on to observe, that the revolutionary leaders took from Germany, " was the method of doing business, of managing their own correspondence, and of procuring and training pupils." pp. 190-191
The Illuminati operating in the guise of the Jacobins forced the regime change historians call the French Revolution. During the Russian Revolution they masqueraded as the Bolsheviks. Today they brag they are behind the Middle East revolutions. So maybe we should believe them.
.---
(just like the Russian Revolution of 1917)
http://www.reformation.org/
just like the unrest today in the Middle East
http://adask.wordpress.com/
"Let them eat cake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Source link:
http://www.henrymakow.com/french_revolution_wasnt_a_revo.html
Referencias
Carlyle T. 1893. The French Revolution. A History. Frederick A. Stokes Company Publishers, NY. 391 p.
Robison J. 1798. Proofs of a conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati and Reading Societies Collected from Good Authorities. George Forman, NY. 305 p.
Webster N.H. 1920. The French Revolution. A Study in Democracy. Constable and Company Ltd, London. 519 p.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario