Ukraine is delighted this morning - US military to lead parade in Paris on Bastille Day
Will we dance like on the Maidan?)) After all, "they dance here!"

Hermitage - a medal for the capture of the Bastille!

Original taken from

Well, Bastille Day has passed in vain ...
"Love and pigeons"

So that Bastille Day is not completely in vain, a couple of anecdotes for those who can afford ...

Ridiculous anecdote:

The history teacher asks Vovochka:
-Who took the Bastille?
-I did not take (Vovochka says)
- Didn't bring home (parents say)

Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade, should be mentioned among the most famous prisoners of the Bastille.
They say that the Marquis de Sade was to blame for the storming of the Bastille. They say he was just sitting there, in the month of July 1789, in the company of about a dozen prisoners. Here is sadism in the world and spread! The French didn't think...

Here is a joke from my childhood:

-Why did you get a deuce, son?
- For the Bastille, dad!
- What is it?
- Such a fortress!
- How many degrees?
- I don’t know, they took it by storm!
- So, strong, infection! ..

And in childhood we laughed ... I'd rather tell a historical anecdote:

A crowd of people ran past the Bastille. Approximately the same crowd as in the well-known historical joke about Robespierre. By the way, here's the joke.
Robespierre is sitting, drinking tea with his family. Suddenly outside the window noise, screaming and stomping: an angry crowd is rolling down the street. Robespierre immediately jumps up and runs to the door. "Where are you going?" the worried relatives ask. “How is it where? he answers. Lead the people! “But you don’t know who they are, where they’re running, what they want!” - "Not important! shouts Robespierre. - Then we'll figure it out! The main thing is to lead!
So, the crowd ran past the Bastille, and from there the Marquis de Sade leaned out and shouted: “Prisoners are being beaten here (another version: they are torturing revolutionaries)! Free us!"
And immediately, either the crowd rushed to the assault, or Desmoulins, having learned about this, delivered his famous speech-call for an uprising - but the Bastille was eventually taken, thereby starting the French Revolution.

And about the feat itself. The French took the house, which was guarded by 82 invalids. It was difficult to.

On July 14, the Bastille garrison, consisting of 32 Swiss Salis-Samad regiment and 82 invalids, had 15 cannons mounted on towers, 3 guns placed in the courtyard opposite the gate, 400 muskets, 14 boxes of cannonballs, 3 thousand rounds of ammunition; however, there was almost no provisions and water in the fortress.
The space in front of the first drawbridge was occupied by barracks and many shops. In order to prevent the attackers from reaching the fortress, all these buildings should have been demolished, but de Launay did not do this, since he received a significant income from renting out shops.

This is how business interferes with the defense of the Motherland. So there will be no Third Patriotic War in Russia.

Feel the familiar notes in the thoughts of a fifteen-year-old girl immediately after the Great Revolution:

« Well, okay, I thought. “I also need to achieve wealth; rich, I will be just as impudent and unpunished; I shall have the same rights and the same pleasures. Virtue must be shunned, this is certain death, because vice wins always and everywhere; poverty must be avoided at all costs, as it is an object of general contempt. But having nothing, how could I avoid misfortune? Of course, criminal cases. Crimes? Well, what's wrong with that? Success is the only sign of triumph! Let no obstacles, no doubts hinder me, for poverty is the lot of those who waver. If society consists of fools and swindlers, let us be swindlers: it is thirty times more pleasant to cheat others than to be fools. ("Juliette, or the successes of vice", 1801).

On Friday, Zimina and I rushed to her dacha. They rushed late (from the point of view of a stubborn lark), and therefore they were not going to perform any feats that day. So, have a quick bite to eat, swell a little in honor of Friday, and tomorrow - come off to the fullest, with barbecue and a bathhouse. And just then, along the way, I remembered that exactly on Saturday, that same Bastille day is. I checked it on the Internet - for sure, it is the most long-awaited one, it was announced right on July 14th.

Estimate, mother, - I say to Zimina, - we were lucky. Tomorrow we drink not just in honor of the next weekend, but with a sacred meaning. Because you and I, with our valiant alcoholic past, are even somehow indecent not to have a decent drink on such a significant occasion in our track record.

Yes, Zimina agrees, such a gap needs to be corrected.

But he says so sluggishly, without a twinkle. Not because she doesn’t respect the French and regrets that the Bastille was torn to hell, but (I’ll tell you a secret) Zimina generally prefers that all toasts be made exclusively for her, Zimina, health, beauty, success and well-being. Well, as a last resort, for the health and well-being of the women present (including Zimina, of course). All other toasts do not impress her very much. For she doesn’t really want to share attention with some kind of fortress destroyed a long time ago. But I'm not Zimina, I love variety, and I want to say at least once that Bastille Day was not wasted, finally. But, as you may have guessed from the title of the post, my hopes were not met with success.

They arrived at the dacha at a completely indecent time for every decent lark - at the twelfth hour. We were not expecting any festive tables with pickles, but we still served dinner quickly, we wanted to eat. And under the "eat" we decided that we would drink a bottle of wine, miraculously survived from Zimina's last visit. The bottle left somehow very quickly, and therefore we climbed into the bins of Zimina's mother with a habitual gesture, where, as usual, a delicious tincture in the amount of three bottles awaited us. Moonshine Zimina's parents produce themselves from their products, they also insist on their homemade berries from the garden. That is why we strongly respect this valuable environmentally friendly product.

When the first bottle of tincture was destroyed, we were banished to the second floor in disgrace, so that we would not disturb our parents' sleep. Well, it’s just that Zimina begins to speak very, very loudly under alcoholic vapors, and although I can’t boast of such loudness as Zimina’s, I quite confidently compensate for this with my talkativeness. Well, that is, one of us quietly, but verbosely, pushes some kind of inspired near-philosophical theory, and the second constantly and very loudly comments on this matter. Sleeping with such a soundtrack is really difficult, and therefore we were not offended, and moved upstairs, taking with us a second bottle of tincture and cheese and sausage found in the refrigerator. My theory, apparently, turned out to be interesting, however, I don’t really remember exactly which steppe I was carried to, because soon we made a raid for the third bottle, at the same time completely emptying the parent’s refrigerator, which, as it turned out in the morning, deprived everything breakfast family. But we didn't rest on that either. Pouring generally suspiciously quickly ended that night. Zimina immediately remembered that somewhere there must still be a bottle of dry, which we immediately found and destroyed, also in a very short time. Already without snacks, because everything that could just be taken out of the refrigerator and consumed immediately, we have already taken out and consumed. And we didn’t start cooking in the kitchen at night. Not because of laziness, but because they would definitely wake up the whole house and rake the lyuley, however, of course, deservedly so. At four o'clock in the morning it became obvious that there was no more alcohol in the house. Although no, I’m lying, there was alcohol in the house in the amount of three liters of apple cider, but firstly, it was bought for a different purpose, and secondly, Zimina and I try not to lower the degree (although something tells me that wine after liqueurs did not fit into this rule, but in the case of cider the difference would be completely indecent), and thirdly, even then we understood that cider after such a shock dose would not make any impression on us and the proper effect. True, it was possible to pull off stocks of moonshine, which had not yet become liquor, and through manipulation and straining, as well as mixing with berries, to make a semblance of a coveted tincture ourselves, but this process would hardly have made less noise than an attempt, for example, in the night fry meat. Yes, and we somehow doubted our ability to produce liquor, because we are not in this area, but to use it is yes, here we are unsurpassed masters. Well, and yet, I had a strong suspicion that even if Zimina and I did this operation quietly (which is a utopia in itself), and at the end we would get some kind of product that we could use (there were chances, we would hardly bother over the bouquet, taste and aftertaste), then the next morning we will not be rewarded for this business. For no one is rewarded for a dirty kitchen and spoiled stocks of moonshine and berries. And so we, by an effort of will, decided to postpone an important discussion for the next day, and went to bed.

Efforts to avoid lyuli, however, were in vain. We still haven't been rewarded. Because the parental breakfast was covered with a copper basin. And when they discovered that all three bottles of tincture were brazenly drunk in the night, they gave us a lecture on the dangers of drunkenness and put us in the store, which was certainly fair, instructing us to replenish our stocks of bread, sausage and cheese, and at the same time buy ourselves alcohol, because as if we destroy the fruit of their labors at such a speed, they will stop doing it altogether, because no one contracted to drink two alcoholics.

However, our mood was quite cheerful. The natural product could not be spoiled even by the fact that we periodically mixed it with wine, we did not experience any hangover, and while we replenished the food supplies we had eaten, we dreamed that now we would arrive, unfold the deck chairs and do what cider escaped the destruction of the night because Zimina discovered the recipe for the strange "Mojito", brought all the ingredients for this and proved to me that there is no more pleasure in life than drinking this refreshing drink in the heat, reclining under the scorching sun and slowly getting covered with a persistent tan near Moscow. Her dream was so beautiful that we were not even embarrassed by the fact that the weather, which in the morning gave very confident hopes for heat, while we wandered around the markets and shops, deteriorated, and on the way back we were completely covered by a decent downpour. But we were still obsessed with our dreams - Zimina - about a mojito, and I about an unforgettable Bastille Day, for which we, without hesitation, purchased wines with a large supply.

Now about "Mojito". Yes, I am aware that this drink is made with rum, mineral water, syrup, lime and mint. But Zimina quickly convinced me that rum with water and syrup can be perfectly replaced with apple cider, and if you chop lime and mint there, the taste is very refreshing and in general there is nothing to complain about. I didn't pick on. But bummers began to fall on us immediately upon our return, and therefore Zimina's dream remained a dream, although, God knows, we tried very hard to make it come true.

The item "heat" was covered first. No, I can’t say that it was cold, but the sun practically did not peek out from behind the clouds, and the clouds, in turn, sometimes repeated the trick with a downpour. The "tan" item, as it were, also let us down, although we cheerfully consoled ourselves with the fact that ultraviolet seeps through the clouds perfectly. But, the effect has already been blurred. Well, the item "mojito" is also not something that turned out to be five points. Because having built myself two glasses of this magical drink, adding a little lime, a lot of mint (I especially went out of my way, because I love her so much) and a handful of raspberries (exclusively because she was born and there were a lot of them, and Zimina said that "mojito "it will only benefit from this), filling this beauty with cider and admiring the exceptional beauty of the cocktails, we realized one sad thing - we forgot the cocktail tubes. Zimina's parents giggled at our suffering, and when we asked if they had such necessary things, they were completely offended and offered us a choice - to fit a thin hose from a moonshine still under this case or drink a drink through an onion arrow plucked in the garden . The first disgusted us for aesthetic reasons, and the second, in addition to being not very aesthetic, threatened to spoil the taste of the drink, and therefore we courageously drank “mojito” without straws, spitting either mint or raspberries, but honestly mastered all the cider stocks.

The barbecue was no exception in this series of mini-bummers. He got tough. But we courageously ate it as much as we could, and sent the rest to stew, which, of course, made it softer, but, alas, it lost the proud title of barbecue.

Next in our plans was football. I don't know about anyone, but Saturday's match for third place seemed impossibly dull to me. Such a feeling that both teams did not care who will be third and who will be fourth, because it was unbearably boring to look at them. And when football ended, then at the request of MCH Zimina, the five hundred and eighteenth series of "The Magnificent Century" and the suffering of Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska Sultan and her Sultan replaced it. Not only is the series being played for the third time, and therefore it’s just already boring, but here the action takes place towards the end - this is when the bright red-haired beauty Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska was replaced with an old grimza, in which I refuse to call on the former Alexandra Anastasia Lisowska at all, and even The writers are clearly out of order.

As a result, at ten o'clock in the evening, having uttered only one toast to the capture of the Bastille, having drunk only one bottle of wine for three at dinner (together with Zimina's mother) and overeating a hard barbecue, Zimina fell asleep right under the intrigues of the Ottoman harem, and I, not finding places to fill up nearby, went to her room to read, and passed out without mastering even a page of text.

No, the next day, of course, we made up for something, and the final match pleased us, unlike on Saturday, but it was already July 15 ...

So, alas, Bastille Day was once again wasted. He's kind of bewitched, by God. Or is it just that Zimina and I are getting older, and our bodies are strenuously resisting movement and alcohol excesses for two days in a row?

PS: For those who accidentally saw a post that fell out, which was almost immediately demolished, I hasten to inform you that the post came out by accident, due to the author's sclerosis, since it has not yet been completed. As soon as I finish it, it will certainly come out.

On the next biggest holiday in France - Bastille Day - an excerpt from the book "On the Conspiracy" by A. Fursov about the mechanisms of the French revolution.

One can disagree with many things, but this phrase of one of the French historians can be put as the slogan of almost any coup: "others (and they were in the majority) thought that it was only necessary to eliminate some abuses and put public finances in order ..." ...

One password and one deceit raise an uprising from one end of the country to the other
--------------
The French Revolution, of course, had systemic prerequisites - enough contradictions and social dynamite have accumulated in society.
However, someone must blow up the dynamite, and direct the explosion in the right direction in order to then dispose of the results.
Without careful preparation, financial support and organization, i.e. subjective factor (not to be confused with the subjective; I repeat what I said in the preface: both the subjective and the systemic factor are objective in nature; the subjective factor is a private and far from the most significant aspect of the subjective factor) contradictions can explode into rebellion, rebellion, uprising, as happened in France in the 14th, 16th or 17th centuries, when the systemic socio-economic situation, by the way, was much worse than at the end of the 18th century.
Nevertheless, the revolution happened precisely at the end of the 18th century.
Yes, the revolution was preceded by famine years. But, as I. Taine writes in the second volume (“Revolution”) of his “Origin of Modern France”, under Louis XIV and Louis XV they were even more hungry, but the riots were quickly pacified and were a special case of ordinary life.
“When the wall is too high, no one will think to climb it. But here cracks began to appear along the wall, and all its defenders - the clergy, the nobility, the third estate, scientists, politicians, right up to the government itself, are making a big gap in it. For the first time, the dispossessed see a way out; they rush towards him, first in small groups, and then in a mass; rebellion becomes universal, as humility once was.”

The key question here is related to the gap - who made it and how, because this process is not spontaneous. Let me emphasize: we are not talking about the denial of the objective systemic prerequisites and foundations of the French Revolution, but a lot has been written about this by the left, the right, and the centrists. I am interested in what is most often not written about: the objective subjective factor, i.e. preparation and organization of the revolution based on the use of its systemic prerequisites and patterns of development of society in a structural crisis, the transformation of this crisis through the purposeful activity of a certain subject or certain subjects into a systemic one through anarchy, and then more and more controlled chaos of the revolution.

Revolution, unlike rebellion, is an enterprise, mainly financial and organizational-political. This is precisely what many historians naively or deliberately try to hide, emphasizing the spontaneous nature of the revolutions in general and the French in particular.

In addition to professorial profanation, coming from scientific ignorance, there is also a conscious distortion of the truth, including the French Revolution, which P. Copen-Albancelli drew attention to: “Thanks to the precautions adopted by Freemasonry, before, during and after the revolution, that is thanks to the destruction or substitution of documents that could establish the true character and true origin of this revolution, we ... live in historical error, deceived in the last way ... Our whole history is distorted in its very sources, and only the backward and obviously prejudiced will to believe that the history of the French Revolution took place as Michelet and his followers described it.

On the eve of the Revolution, the Freemasons ordered a certain Adrian Duport, an expert, as we would say today, on the history of anti-systemic movements and uprisings in Europe, to prepare an analytical note in which he had to answer three questions:
1) how best to start a revolution so that it turns out to be a coordinated action of externally unrelated forces and groups?
2) won't the European monarchies immediately intervene in the situation in France to suppress the revolution?
3) how to manage the revolutionary process?
To the second question, Duport immediately answered in the negative, suggesting that it would take the monarchs two or three years to figure out the situation - and that is how it actually happened.
The best way to start a revolution without arousing suspicion of future plans - the answer to the first question - Duport considered the convening of a medieval, and therefore not capable of arousing suspicion, institution, namely the Estates General.
At the same time, however, the maximum number of deputies should bring identical or very similar mandates (les cahiers) in order to hit one point - and again, this is how it happened.
Some contemporaries even got the impression that the orders were written by one hand - the Masonic network was engaged in preparing similar orders throughout the country; Masonic motifs sound in the orders not only of the nobility, but also of the clergy.

Using the example of the election campaign (to the Estates General) of 1789 in Burgundy, and this campaign was typical for France, O. Cochin showed the mechanism for creating a uniform body of orders, a decisive role in the preparation of which was played by lawyers from among the "brothers" and sympathizers with them.
Standing on the positions of "objective" causes of the revolution caused by the crisis, F. Furet and D. Richet write about the "three revolutions of the summer of 1789".

At the same time, however, as if taking the baton from O. Cochin, they put the "revolution of lawyers" in the first place, and then the "Paris revolution" and the "revolution of the peasants" already come.
The "lawyer revolution" is a Masonic revolution.
The "Paris Revolution" was initiated by paid (including the British) agitators - just like the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia.
The "Peasants' Revolution" was the result of the conscious actions of planners in the grain and financial sectors.

F. Furet emphasized that in 1788 the old conflict between the royal administration and the parliamentary principle, which arose after the death of Louis XIV, reached its climax, and that it was the political crisis that led to the revolution.
But this crisis - and research shows this with glassy clarity - did not develop spontaneously, but was fueled and directed by several interested groups at once. But let's get back to the questions posed by the "brothers" to Duport and his answers to them.
The most important was the third question - about the mechanism for managing the revolution; it was asked by Mirabeau.
Duport replied: “... I thought a lot ... I know several sure methods, but they are all of such a nature that I shuddered at the mere thought of them and did not dare to initiate you. But since you approve of my plan (attention: the Masonic plan of the French Revolution is the plan of Duport. - A.F.) and are convinced that it is necessary to accept it, because there is another way to ensure the success of the revolution (Dupor speaks specifically about the revolution. - A.F. .) and there is no salvation of the fatherland ... I will say that only through terror can one stand at the head of the revolution and control it ... (under me. - A.F.). As disgusting as it may be for us, we will have to sacrifice some famous people. ”.
As a result of Duport's speech at a meeting at the Duke of La Rochefoucauld, a "committee of insurrection" was created.
All this frightened even such a hardened cynic as Mirabeau, who despised everyone - both the people and the nobles.

In general, Mirabeau played an interesting role in the intricacies of a multi-layered conspiracy - he was a member of several conspiracy structures (CS) at once, and various ones - Masonic, Illuminati ("operational pseudonym" - Archesilas) and even Jewish. Researchers fix two lines of influence of Jewish structures on Mirabeau - financial (due to debts to Jewish bankers, as the author of the multi-volume history of the Jews Grits writes about) and female-sexual (traditional scheme "Esther"). There is also information about Mirabeau's contacts with British intelligence; in short, he died on time, otherwise he would not have missed the meeting with Dr. Guillotin's "machine".

Returning to terror, I note that its expanding funnel during the French Revolution was not only a manifestation of the madness of the crowd and the bloodthirstiness of the Jacobins, as they often try to present to us - if it was madness, it was induced, controlled, then it was a pre-prepared strategy and technology.

Let us also pay attention to the use of the medieval institution for revolutionary purposes, which are very far from the declared ones.
“The secret but true purpose of the convocation of the States General,” Boutilly de Saint-André wrote in his memoirs, “was the overthrow of the existing order in France. Only the Adepts, the heads of Freemasonry, were initiated into this mystery; others (and they were the majority) thought that it was only necessary to eliminate some abuses and put the state finances in order ... In order to be able to hope for the help of the people, it was necessary to instill in them the consciousness of their strength, raise them, arm, organize and restore against the existing order ... finally, it was necessary to give him an impetus to speak ... To achieve all this, it was not enough to talk to the people about abstract teachings, to proclaim democracy, to call for “liberation from the shackles” and to throw themselves on their “tyrants”. It was much more effective to shake him up with an unexpected push, to put a weapon in his hands under some plausible pretext, for example, self-defense in view of the enormous imminent danger, in order to suddenly seize the general power over the minds and force everyone to act simultaneously.

The suddenness and simultaneity of the uprising, which so struck Y. Taine, the author of one of the best histories of the French Revolution to this day (“Everywhere on the day of the election meetings, the people rose as one person”), was well prepared.
In addition, some forms were used that vaguely resemble a movement without leaders a 1a "Arab Spring" or a flash mob.

I. Taine quotes an eyewitness, de Montjoie, who speaks of a multitude of villains, “who, having no visible leaders, nevertheless are in agreement with each other and everywhere equally indulge in the same rampages just at the time when the states general arise.

One password and one deceit stir up an uprising from one end of the country to the other,” from Normandy and Brittany in the north to Provence in the south.

The key words here are "password" and "deception".
"Password" indicates an organization, "deception" a disinformation campaign carried out in order to turn on the population.
The elements of this campaign were the dissemination of various rumors and fabrications designed to discredit the king and queen, to bring confusion and anxiety, to induce action, to violence.

[creating squads against titushki]
“In mid-July (1789 - A.F.), during the “Great Fear,” writes O. Cochin, “all of France was frightened by the robbers and took up arms; at the end of the month, all of France lost faith in this: there were no robbers. But on the other hand, in five days a national guard was formed: it obeyed the slogans of the clubs (masons with their lodges stood behind them. - A.F.), and the communities remained armed.

As the insightful P. Copen-Albancelli noted, from 1787 to 1795 “not a single so-called popular movement (except for the Vendee movement) was actually popular, and all of them were provided for, organized, developed to the smallest detail by the leaders, undoubtedly, a secret organization that acted everywhere in the same way at the same time and gave the same orders.

From the end of April 1789, according to eyewitnesses, the number of newcomers began to grow in Paris, not only the French, but also foreigners (Italians, Germans, Dutch), many of whom were engaged in incitement, and others, despite their unpresentable appearance and rags. , regularly handed out money (12 francs a day) and called on the people to arms, to violence, which erupted on July 14, 1789 with the storming of the Bastille, the brutal murder of disabled guards, and then the massacre in the Salpêtrière - the very induced terror that recommended " designer "Dupor.

It remains only to subscribe to the words of Montaigne de Poncins, author of The Secret Forces of the Revolution:
The revolution of 1789 was neither a spontaneous movement against the "tyranny" of the old order, nor a sincere impulse towards new ideas of freedom, equality and fraternity, as we are led to believe. Freemasonry was the secret inspirer and, to a certain extent, the leader of the movement. It worked out the principles of 1789, disseminated them among the masses and actively promoted their implementation.

69 military lodges essentially paralyzed the repressive possibilities of power at the very beginning of the uprising. Another thing is that over time the process got out of control of the lodges, that the lodges themselves were far from being united, but this is History, it cannot be otherwise.
Just as there are no unorganized revolutions.
As there are no revolutions without crisis situations.
At the same time, not every crisis situation breaks out into a revolution.
It is already after the revolution that post hoc historians deduce the revolution from certain prerequisites, as if they themselves give rise to it.
If this were so, then the whole history would be a series of revolutions, but in reality there are many crisis conditions, they are quite common, and revolutions are far from so many and relatively rare. This means that the point is not only in the prerequisites and not even in the crisis - the crisis of the system, but also in the subject - the constructor of the crisis and (more or less) "the lord of the revolutionary rings"; True, these rings are sometimes twisted into a noose around the ruler's neck, but this is already the cost of history, its deceit.

In the French Revolution we also see the activity of continental lodges oriented towards Great Britain. Not without reason, the dream of those who at the very top provoked the political crisis that caused a chain reaction was to establish a monarchy in the country on the model of the one that was constructed in England in 1688.

However, those who “brewed this mess” in France quite seriously had other plans. For some, this was the establishment of a republic according to Masonic patterns (“freedom, equality, fraternity”), for others, those from across the Strait, it was the maximum weakening of the political system and the economy of France. Therefore, the process should not have stopped at the constitutional monarchy, especially since it also began to develop according to its own logic - according to the logic of mass processes, getting out of control of the planners and giving rise to new subjects. It was necessary that chaos, or, as I. Ten wrote, anarchy, reached (reached) the limit and began (began) to devour itself and its creators, returning first to a state of controlled chaos, and then to revolutionary order.

Although at the height of the revolution the planners - the bankers of France and Switzerland, the British secret service, the strange alliance of Jesuits and the Illuminati - tried to steer the course of events, and in many ways, especially in the medium term, they succeeded, their impact was more effective in creating a crisis situation and "launching » Revolution.

So, in 1786, the Swiss bankers and the British government simultaneously dealt a financial and economic blow to France, with the aim of causing or at least hastening an explosion. Pitt pressured Louis XVI to abandon the protectionist measures that protected the French market from British goods. Louis resisted and, in a situation of lack of funds, turned to the bankers. However, the continental bankers, headed by the Swiss at that time (the City-Switzerland-Venice link, in which Switzerland was the link), refused France a loan, pushing it to make concessions. As a result, Louis was forced to sign an unfavorable treaty with Great Britain, which unleashed her hands in a trade war with France.

The king also had to appoint the Swiss banker Necker as finance minister, which further worsened the financial and economic situation. Necker was from Geneva, where his father, a native of Brandenburg, was a professor and from where his family moved for a short time to England. From England, Necker came to Paris penniless, but within a few years he had amassed a fortune equal to the possession of several provinces.

Living in Paris, he had close contacts with the encyclopedists (through his wife's salon). From 1776/77 to 1781 he headed the Royal Treasury. In 1781, the king drove him away, but in 1788 he returned as head of the financial department. It was Necker who insisted that twice as many representatives of the third estate as representatives of the other estates should be called to the States General. Soon the king again dismissed Necker, in response, a powerful information and psychological campaign was launched, in which Necker was presented as a financial genius who defended the interests of the poor and allegedly because of this he was expelled by the “evil king”. Actually, this propaganda campaign became the immediate cause for the uprising.

The British allocated 24 million pounds sterling for the very organization of the "popular uprising" in France - this figure was announced by Prime Minister William Pitt. Lord Mansfield, in the House of Commons, called "the money received for the fomentation of the revolution in France ... a good investment." Great Britain, with the help of its continental (in this case, French) lodges and French financiers, waged a real financial and economic war against France, the French monarchy. The blows that were supposed to aggravate the situation and push the revolution were delivered in two directions: 1) inflation was artificially created - 35 million unsecured banknotes were printed; 2) a shortage of grain was artificially created - the grain was bought up and exported from the country. All this created resentment. In addition, a real information-psychological war was waged, blows were struck both at the collective consciousness and at the collective unconscious. In particular, the mild rule of Louis XVI was portrayed by British-Masonic propaganda as cruel; the king and queen were discredited in every possible way (the story of the "queen's necklace").

Finally, in a very active way, already during the revolution itself in France, especially in Paris, British intelligence was active - both British agents and their local "assistants". Based on the documents, the historian O. Blanc wrote an interesting work on the role of the British intelligence services in the French Revolution in general and during the terror in particular. Title: People from London. The Secret History of Terror.
The second chapter of the book is called "People from the shadow" - a play on words: "Les hommes de l'hombre" ("People from the shadow"), "Les hommes de Londres" ("People from London"), In 1792, writes Blanc , British intelligence sent agents to France to destabilize the political situation by unwinding a spiral of violence.

Among the organizers and violent creators of terror were well-paid agents of London - direct and influence, and the British worked with both the "whites" (royalists) and the "reds" (hebertists).

All this once again testifies to the presence of a triple subject (or three subjects), which, having saddled the laws of the historical situation, launched the revolutionary process in France according to the “Dupor scheme” and tried to control it. First of all, they are bankers. As Rivarol wrote, 60 thousand capitalists (meaning financiers and money speculators) and "swarming agitators decided the fate of the revolution."

As it turned out, it turned out to be impossible to stand against this subject and Napoleon, against whom the British and European bankers, with the help of continental lodges, put together a coalition, the striking force of which was Russia. Before us is the same coalition model that the British first "to the fullest extent" tested in the Nine Years' War against Louis XIV's France. Union of France and Russia at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. was the same nightmare for the British, which was the possible union of Germany and Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The reality of the Russian-French alliance at the very beginning of the 19th century. greatly intimidated the British. On December 24, 1800, there was an assassination attempt on Napoleon on the Rue Saint-Nicaise, but his carriage was driving fast and the explosion occurred when Napoleon was out of danger. 12 people were killed and 28 wounded. Napoleon blamed the revolutionaries for everything, but he could not help but guess who paid, "where the money came from." Moreover, the chief of police Fouche directly pointed to the "foreign source", transparently alluding to the UK.

M. Bignon, the author of The History of France, published in 1829, writes about the role of the English government in organizing the assassination attempt on the first consul, that it supplied money to the enemies of the first consul (Jacobins, royalist aristocrats, Chouans) and was very interested in his elimination. After the assassination attempt, "public opinion blamed England for it, and it was not wrong"; the chief of police, Fouche, was of the same opinion.

On the night of March 11-12, 1801, a group of conspirators killed the Russian Tsar Paul I, who was planning a joint attack on India with the French; cut British trade in Russia. The fact that the English ambassador played a role in organizing the conspiracy was no secret to the Russian elite. By the way, Alexander I, who ascended the throne, first of all resumed trade with Great Britain and abandoned the Indian campaign.

The synchronicity of two attempts on the enemies of Great Britain - unsuccessful on Napoleon and successful on Paul I, which destroyed the Russian-French alliance, cannot be accidental.

But let us return to the events of the French Revolution, where the terror launched by the conspirators did not bypass the freemasons-coopers of the revolution.

In 1793, a situation arose that can be characterized both by the Russian proverb "Do not wake the dashing while it is quiet" and Shakespeare's line "Go, poisoned steel, to your destination." Researchers note the state of decline of French Freemasonry after 1793; as the saying goes, "for what they fought for, they ran into it." However, they didn't last long. Under the Empire, the rise of Freemasonry resumed (1802 - 114 lodges, 1804 - 300, 1810 - 878, 1814 - 905; of which 79 were military); after its collapse, when the French Masons, disillusioned with Napoleon, but simply speaking, who decided to surrender him, played along with the allies, he continued, but under the very strict control of the British.

But the British did not allow a revolution at home, and for this they took an unprecedented measure that slowed down the development of capitalism - they sharply limited the period of 1795-1834. formation of a competitive labor market in the UK. During the period of the industrial revolution, along with the "dangerous" and working classes, the number of discontented and explosive elements grew. Naturally, repressions were brought down on ordinary people - quite in the English class spirit. But a more cunning move was also found - the paternalistic "Spinhamland law", as if emerging from the era of the Tudors and Stuarts.

Let us pay attention to the following: for the sake of their long-term interests, the capitalist class of Great Britain goes on a forty-year deformation of capitalism, hinders its development - capitalism with a limited labor market is limited capitalism. In this situation, the British elite once again demonstrated both class maturity, and the skill of social engineering, and the ability to plan for the future. But the "French" failed, and therefore, after the Napoleonic wars, it was forced to fit into the tail of the British, formally maintaining the status of a European power, or rather, claiming it; but, as they say, you can ask for an increase in salary, but it is unlikely to get it.

In a certain sense, the French Revolution became an organizational weapon of the supranational financial-political CC and Great Britain in their struggle against France, the French monarchy. These forces became the main winners in the Napoleonic Wars, the main beneficiaries of the British cycle of accumulation and British hegemony. This was clearly revealed in a short but very important period of time - 1815-1848, when, in fact, Modernity took shape in the form in which we know it. The same period was a period of major changes:

– in the world of financial capital;

– in the world of CS;

- in European and world geopolitics, where the British-Russian became the main contradiction - Russia and the Russians became the main enemy of Great Britain. At the same time, they became the main enemy of Masonic CCs, both "revolutionary" and "reactionary" (the quotation marks reflect the relativity of this opposition), and finance capital.

Supranational financial capital, and above all the international house of the Rothschilds, as well as the banks of the Barings, Uvar, and others, became the main beneficiary of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars: financiers profited enormously from military supplies (to all parties to the conflicts); they sharply strengthened their positions in relation to the British crown, but they - together with Great Britain, its lodges and special services - simply put the French crown under control. And when, in 1830, Charles X decided to loosen the grip of Great Britain and its ally Austria "on the throat" of France and conclude an alliance with Russia, the British, represented by Palmerston and the continental lodges allied to them in France, organized a revolution, kicked the older branch of the Bourbons out of history and replaced it junior. In 1848, the junior branch was similarly punished, and the Freemasons formed their entire government, electing Napoleon's nephew, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, as president. They also contributed to the coup, as a result of which the president became emperor, and France became the Second Empire. Of course, in real history, everything was more complicated than just the desire of the British to punish the French king, and the Freemasons to establish an empire. This is just one aspect of a very complex cascading historical event, the causes of which are not at all the desire of the British. But the British used the situation to their advantage in such a way as to eliminate a figure they did not like. The same is the case with the motives and plans of the Freemasons, acting within certain circumstances.

Significantly, six weeks before the coup, on October 15, 1852, the Freemasons presented Louis Napoleon (then not Napoleon III, but a man who already felt like Napoleon’s heir and was not going to stop halfway) with the words: “The true light of Freemasonry illuminates you , the great prince [...] Ensure the happiness of all by placing the imperial crown on your noble head! Please accept our respectful greetings and allow us to convey to your ears our common cry from the bottom of our hearts: "Long live the Emperor!" A month and a half before the coup, the Constitutional Court expresses their readiness to accept the coup, the introduction of the empire. And it's not a conspiracy? In less than twenty years, all the same Masonic structures, by agreement with the British and German "brothers", will hand over Napoleon III and France to Bismarck. Of course, the continental lodges were strong not so much by themselves, but by the support of Great Britain and Finance Capital, primarily the Rothschilds.

Summing up the history of France from 1799 to 1871, Alfred Cobban writes:
“The achievements of the French during this period did not impress even themselves, and they (achievements) remain the same in retrospect. The exciting new changes of the nineteenth century bypassed France. In an age of change, the French nation seems to have chosen stagnation without stability. The more the kaleidoscope of her political life changed, the more she remained the same.” Apparently, the venerable historian is right in stating the results, but he says nothing about the reasons.
One can hardly agree with his thesis about a certain choice that the French nation made - this is either naivety or slyness. What kind of free choice can there be if the politics of a country is largely controlled by another power, both diplomatically and through closed/Masonic lines, and its finances are largely controlled by the international banking house of the Rothschilds?
A. Cobban's verdict - "stagnation and stability" - correctly captures the result of a certain development, but this result was largely determined not so much by France itself, and not so much in France itself...