The American vs French Revolutions

[@OhioCoastie94]

Such a brilliant distillation of two conflicting worldviews, and done in less than ten minutes. Well done, gentlemen.

[@robinsss]

to try to separate the two revolutions is not logical they wee both inspired by the enlightenment thinkers and the philosophies were nearly identical the separation of powers, democratic vote , a list off rights

[@EmergingEvents]

Brilliant discussion!! I consider myself fairly well read but this was a whole new level. Must watch!!

[@jonathanpersson1205]

The American Revolution is an unusual revolution because it actually created a better society than what it replaced and thats despite the fact that the Americans had the least reason to revolt of all the revolutions I can think of. The key to the success of the American Revolution was that wise men set up a new system of government that controls and limits the harm that someone can do when they have power. It recognises the tendency we have to harm ourselves and harm each other

[@UnbeltedSundew]

The key to the success of the American Revolution is that it was expelling a foreign government and installing a local one. As well as all the foundational ideas behind the constitution and limits of government, which lasted an enormously long time but are now largely being ignored.

[@jw-vx8im]

The wise men would be turning in their grave at what has now become of the American government

[@swingbelly]

Excellent synopsis of the brilliance and foresight of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

[@kalburgy2114]

The American colonies were accustomed to taking care of and governing themselves. The Revolution merely got the British nose out of their business. They had to invent very little.

[@michaelferri6790]

Wow I learned a whole bunch of stuff I didn’t understand I realized before from this one video it was amazing

[@adamdean5881]

Excellent analysis! Thank you for sharing this on Facebook

[@mdevres]

A heartfelt thank you from a secular Anglophile from Istanbul.

[@S.J.L]

The fascists were also inspired by the French Revolution. This is the key issue, "the conflict of visions" as Thomas Sowell puts it.

[@robinsss]

that's doesn't mean that the French revolution was authoritarian in nature

[@S.J.L]

@@robinsss It was.

[@robinsss]

@@S.J.L the system they created gave people the power to vote among things they tried to empower citizens not suppress them

[@S.J.L]

@@robinsss Some elements were inspired by Montesquieu and the earlier American War of Independence. Lafayette was a true liberal reformer. By the time the Jacobins and Robespierre took over it devolved into a utopian totalitarian movement. Where the idea of Natural rights or negative rights, the right to liberty, not to be interfered with, freedom from censorship or coercion, freedom of religion, self defense, etc. were the aims of the Americans and some of the French, Girondins, etc. The French Revolution ultimately added entitlements or "positive rights", these "rights" to "free" goods and services necessitate an authoritarian state. They went from one version tyranny to another but now without the prior traditions of religion and so on. They became the template for Marx, the Fascists, the Kmer Rouge and every non monarchy dictatorship to follow. I'm of some French stock and it gives me no pleasure to point this out. It was ultimately a reversion to an even more absolute tyranny like the Ancient Babylonians and so on. It took France centuries to work through the repressions and the modern state still is in it's wake. America too has become marred by these "woke" entitlement and victimhood ideologies. Any expansive state is authoritarian in nature.

[@robinsss]

@@S.J.L when they presented their goals in the declaration of the rights of man that declaration was not an authoritarian document '''''The concepts in the Declaration come from the philosophical and political duties of the Enlightenment, such as individualism, the social contract as theorized by the Genevan philosopher Rousseau, and the separation of powers espoused by the Baron de Montesquieu. As can be seen in the texts, the French declaration was heavily influenced by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment and principles of human rights, as was the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which preceded it (4 July 1776). The Declaration defined a single set of individual and collective rights for all men. Influenced by the doctrine of natural rights, these rights are held to be universal and valid in all times and places. For example, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good."[21] They have certain natural rights to property, to liberty, and to life. According to this theory, the role of government is to recognize and secure these rights. Furthermore, the government should be carried on by elected representatives'''''' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

[@MrD_2112]

Amazingly good unpacking and explanation of such a confusing and complex topic.

[@mariojaramillo6588]

Great explanation on the differences of the two revolutions ! Very insightful!

[@robinsss]

to try to separate the two revolutions is not logical they wee both inspired by the enlightenment thinkers and the philosophies were nearly identical the separation of powers, democratic vote , a list off rights the American revolution was not religious the declaration says ''''''' it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,''''' in that statement the founders acknowledge the religious and the non religious citizens

[@conservativemovement]

Thank you once again for your many superlative contributions to the world.

[@kaylenehousego8929]

Guess it is time for me to listen to the full conversation again . Right now is too late in this day to do justice to this conversation.......so tomorrow it will be.

[@calkrahn9961]

Really interesting discussion

[@michaeltuffour6714]

Revolution is a French word is not an English word, what America want through it is independent.

[@smal750]

independance

[@markgrissom]

Excellent. A keeper.

[@peterbellini6102]

Begin at the beginning; what is a revolution? Ours was a War of Independence NOT a "revolution". A civil war as it were. The French Revolution deposed the Monarchial system in the person of the King.

[@robinsss]

we broke away from a monarchy

[@peterbellini6102]

@@robinsss you seem to be struggling with my point; how can I help?

[@robinsss]

@@peterbellini6102 breaking away from a monarchy and creating a constitutional democracy is a revolution

[@rogermetzger7335]

A question about a statement toward the end of the video: “...the oppressions of the left never end.” “Most people who think they have rejected God have really only rejected a caricature of him.” - Rich Hannon The people who instigated the French Revolution and who directed its early stages rejected a caricature of God and thought they had rejected God. But, unless I misunderstand history, the oppressions of the early stages of the French Revolution have completely (or almost completely) ceased. Is the history of France an exception to the rule that the oppressions of the left never end? Or are you predicating that statement on the theory that the French have only experienced a lul in oppression and that, if or when France again becomes authoritarian, it will be simply a revival of the authoritarianism of the early stages of the French Revolution? Also, while it is true that the earthly monarchs in Israel were the chief executives of the state, neither the priests nor the prophets held the legislative or judicial powers of the state. Please explain whether there is some other way the priests or the prophets were analogous to the legislative or judicial branches of modern civil governments.

[@MA-go7ee]

Interesting conversation but as much as i loathe a lot of what came from the french revolution, i have to defend it a bit. The major difference between the French and American revolutions is that only the former faced an existential war for survival after the revolution. I think that is by far the most significant explanation for why it turned tyrannical.

[@rogeralsop3479]

The World turned upside down.

[@pennypothoneypot634mimmahappun]

It is in the knowing or not knowing ,of temper temperature and sensitivity of , victim Vs villain , that supports real revolution ; in every society that is my opinion and religious belief. Goal to enable ENDURANCE.

[@miisu111]

I prefer French revolution anybtine

[@raminsafizadeh]

Old Testament goes back to Gilgamesh and forward from there to Cyrus the Great!

[@johnl5316]

min 2: "unpack" means explain?

[@FOURTEEFIVE]

Yes it means to explain. To take it apart and examine what makes it whole

[@Reasonable6]

It's hegelianism and not anything but that.

[@hosea5353]

One is “ awakening “, while the other is “ woke “.

[@robinsss]

explain

[@keltonfoster]

The idea that people "create" chaos is a flawed concept. How is that even possible unless it's directed by a spirit?

[@FOURTEEFIVE]

The human spirit?

[@robinsss]

yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre

[@KrunoslavStifter]

America didn't have a revolution, they had a war for independence. It would be as if Alaska said I don't want to be part of the union and fought a war to leave. We would not call that a revolution. When the British colonies in America fought a war for their independence from the British crown, the British did not stop being what they were, they simply lost colonies. Therefore American war for independence does not qualify the criteria of what a revolution is. For something to be a revolution, it must be classified as the violent overthrow of a government and replacement with a totally new system of government. That is what happened in France. In America it did not. There was an overthrow of British rule in the colonies and establishment of the new kind of government, but it was not a revolution because the British did not change their government, they lost colonies. For Americans it might have seemed like something they call revolution, but it really was not. Americans more or less lived the same before and after and the British did as well. The big changes happened in the intellectual and political class consciousnesses. But that still does not qualify as a revolution. Americans like to lie about themselves a lot because like any nation the need a myth of their origin. And being so young, we can actually verify the lies. I won't go into details here but almost everything though it schools about fighting for taxation reasons and fighting against tyranny and all that is propaganda. Everything American founders accused the British they were quick to do to others. It was not done for the reasons usually stated . Quite simply rich landlords in America , some of the home were ideologues, saw an opportunity to start the new country and be in charge of it. Some might have believed in what they were saying, but their actions, except maybe Washington show they were just words. They quickly became colonizers themselves, and were expanding and colonizing ever since. They had whisky rebellion very quickly. So much for the taxes. And all men are created equal and all that nonsense clearly did not apply to many Americans. There are endless hypocrisies and propaganda surrounding any nation and America is not an exception, despite the American exceptionalism being yet another doctrine pushed . George Orwell once said that the “English intelligentsia…can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism…So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Having experienced the reality of totalitarianism first-hand, Orwell knew all too well the ways in which people far removed from it employ “soothing phrases” to disguise more sinister ends. Of course, he would later coin the term “Newspeak” in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). This was the totalitarian language created to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism under Big Brother. “The heirs of the French, English, and American "revolutions" had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years - imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations - not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.” Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day be day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except the endless present in which the party is always right." ...................... Reaction Video: 60 Minutes Australia "Chinese Billionaire Reveals Beijing Elite Secret" kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIDXh4B8hc-Bi6M It's no scoop to tell you the Chinese regime is thin-skinned. Anyone criticising Beijing does so at their own peril and can expect immediate - and often, heavy-handed - payback. And it's not just foreigners who face the consequences. Desmond Shum is a Chinese tycoon who used to be feted at the highest levels of the Communist Party. The businessman could do no wrong until four years ago when he and his equally prominent ex-wife, inexplicably tumbled out of favour. Now Desmond is a pariah of the state, so he's decided to fight back by revealing the many secrets of China's elite leaders. .......................... ....ironically its Australia that is no far off from this and neither is UK or USA. People can be held with no trial and tortured.

[@robertholland7558]

Can? They are, but we would never know!

[@robinsss]

'''''''America didn't have a revolution, they had a war for independence. It would be as if Alaska said I don't want to be part of the union and fought a war to leave. We would not call that a revolution.'''' if Alaska maintains a democracy once separate then it's not a revolution because it's not a major change but if they created a fascist country then it would be a revolution because that's a major change so was the states going from being ruled by a king to a constitutional democracy that's why it was a revolution

[@KrunoslavStifter]

@@robinsssNo, if Alaska created a fascist state, it would be a separate from the other states that did not change. Unless there is a change in federal goverment in form of goverment it is by violent revolution, it is not a revolution. This nonsense myth seems to persist in America because of boomer truth regime who likes to see themselves as standing up to big empire. Complete nonsense. But much of American mythology is just that. A myth. Back to your point. If Alaska separated from United States of America and did so by violence, than it would gain its sovereignty for what is worth. But it would not be a revolution because a) US would not change its form of goverment, it would only lose a state. And new country of Alaska cannot be a revolution if its funded as a new state, can't it? The only way revolution works if the exist form of goverment is replaced by a new form via violent revolution. Also, Alaska was part of Imperial Russia sold to Americans after US was already funded. On 30 March 1867. Did that meant that United States gain another state and territory or that it became something other than United States. The answer should be obvious. Empires lose and gain territories and so did United States of America which started as 13 colonies uniting and becoming 50 of them eventually plus various territories. So did it Roman and British Empires. This does not equal revolution. Can't you understand that. Jeez.

[@Reasonable6]

The French gave up and the Russians helped us fight the British when the French gave up. I can get the Russians to help fight the Chinese I need help and capital to accomplish such ends.

[@FOURTEEFIVE]

The Chinese population collapse will sort that out

[@smal750]

the french gave up? you serious mf your country wouldnt exist if france didnt go bankrupt for you to be free