The monarchy poll

[Cronos Impera]

Hello.
I don't know where you got the idea that Napoléon was a philo-semit. Because he wasn't. As you don't consider my posts worthy of a reply, I'm not going to consider yours worthy of much my time. Though I find it funny, in a somewhat disturbing way.
However, as I'm not *that* bad., here's a book that might be worthy of your consideration. It perfectly explains how Napoléon's policy toward the jewish community was only instrumental, and how he actually made it perfectly clear that neither Jews nor their religion were his cup of tea. He stated it during official meetings, it has been recorded on papers by his assistants and people working at the Conseil d'Etat. You're free to claim he was actually only pretending to not like them though. I'd disagree with it, but heh.

I plead guilty to the gunbortionist claim. And I think you meant French Jacobine education, as I don't really have any attachement to the Stuart dynasty.


Edit: Wow, just saw your post in the watchtower. Well, despite what you may think about what I think, this is not based on my personal opinions. I actually like (or respect) Napoléon quite a lot, thank you. Fact is, emancipation of the Jews started way before he came into power. Fact is, Napoléon didn't like Jews and Judaism, never harmed them much - though he did at time, most notably in Alsace - and actually further enforced their emancipation. If you can't wrap that around your head, well I don't know what else to say.


My great grandfather used to think life was better in the 20's, even though he had to find a job at 15 and his only way to leave his hometown was to join the army. My grandfather thought life was better in the 50's. And my father thinks life was better in the 80's.
Nothing extraordinary here.

I'm not saying the Romanian monarchy was bad or anything, as I clearly have no clue about that. It just that the whole "life was so much better when I was young" argument is used by all old people.

Surely Napoleons' plan for the Jews was based upon political considerations rather than emotional ones, like all political decisions. But the Mesia for Jewry was Napoleon, not Marat. Why would a they make a prayer for the Emperour to be recited in the Synagogue if the Emperour wasn't their No.1 ally. That prayer praises not the glorious Revolution or the Fall of Bastille, but Emperour Napoleon.

What historical document proves your claims that monarchies tend to support national movements?
I think its the other way around:Monarchies abhor national movements because they are left out of the picture and their dynasty is obselete. Just look at Jugoslavia and the Ustasha.Or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


Sure people get suspicious at Napoleon's policy towards religious groups but please don't extrapolate the condition of Catholics to the other religious groups and say "If he was anti-Catholic and made an excursion to Rome than he was definately an anti-semite because he made a simmilar excursion in the Holy Land where he waged war against the Ottoman Empire and murdered the Garrison at Jaffa.
Maybe you can call him an anti-semite because maybe, at Jaffa there ware also Jews. Surely Napoleon was dishonest in his plans but deeds worth more than words.

[HoreTore]

Surely Napoleons' plan for the Jews was based upon political considerations rather than emotional ones, like all political decisions. But the Mesia for Jewry was Napoleon, not Marat. Why would a they make a prayer for the Emperour to be recited in the Synagogue if the Emperour wasn't their No.1 ally. That prayer praises not the glorious Revolution or the Fall of Bastille, but Emperour Napoleon.

What historical document proves your claims that monarchies tend to support national movements?
I think its the other way around:Monarchies abhor national movements because they are left out of the picture and their dynasty is obselete. Just look at Jugoslavia and the Ustasha.Or the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


Sure people get suspicious at Napoleon's policy towards religious groups but please don't extrapolate the condition of Catholics to the other religious groups and say "If he was anti-Catholic and made an excursion to Rome than he was definately an anti-semite because he made a simmilar excursion in the Holy Land where he waged war against the Ottoman Empire and murdered the Garrison at Jaffa.
Maybe you can call him an anti-semite because maybe, at Jaffa there ware also Jews. Surely Napoleon was dishonest in his plans but deeds worth more than words.

Wow. I see no real rebuttal of Menendil's points, nor do I see any facts or sources at all, just your own opinion which you don't explain very much.

Given your post in the watchtower, I am now well and truly confused.

[Cronos Impera]

That is the document. Or was, because you hotlinked it.

[HoreTore]

That is the document.

Thanks a lot, I'm fluent in Hebrew, so that's no problem.

Anyway, I don't see how that document, whatever it may say, has got anything to do with Meneldil's points.

[Cronos Impera]

Here is the point.
Mendill makes ambiguous claims to undermine Napoleon's actions by claming "He never had a choice. The Jacobines did all. Napoelon was always dishonest in his actions." Just to undermine Monarchist eforts.
He first starts with a post associating Monarchy with Nationalism which is totally wrong. If he's interested I will start a discussion in the Monastery teaching the merits of different monarchy types.

Than he introduces certain words just to kill the opposing side or make them feel the wrath of writepol. He simply brings words which induce a Pavlovian reaction into the equation like "anti-semitism, right-wing nutjobs" which then applied to the opposing side make them feel uncomfortable and angry. Than I lose my temper, NoTruth myself to a nice joycamptour or a joycampsitting and he wins. Nasty tactics.

In the EB thread we usually feed such posts to the writepol or make it an item for the memory hole. We get such posts on a whole range of subjects from Gallic underwear to Roman toothpaste and we remove those thread-killer replies that kill the whole topic or create an unfriendly academia.

I'm not discrediting the merits of the French Revolution or its accomplishments. But I just can't stand dishonest representations induced in a thread for the submerssion of the greater picture. It kills usefull opinions, discourages debates and induces guilt into anyone.

[HoreTore]

Here is the point.
Mendill makes ambiguous claims to undermine Napoleon's actions by claming "He never had a choice. The Jacobines did all. Napoelon was always dishonest in his actions." Just to undermine Monarchist eforts.
He first starts with a post associating Monarchy with Nationalism which is totally wrong. If he's interested I will start a discussion in the Monastery teaching the merits of different monarchy types.

Than he introduces certain words just to kill the opposing side or make them feel the wrath of writepol. He simply brings words which induce a Pavlovian reaction into the equation like "anti-semitism, right-wing nutjobs" which then applied to the opposing side make them feel uncomfortable and angry. Than I lose my temper, NoTruth myself to a nice joycamptour or a joycampsitting and he wins. Nasty tactics.

In the EB thread we usually feed such posts to the writepol or make it an item for the memory hole. We get such posts on a whole range of subjects from Gallic underwear to Roman toothpaste and we remove those thread-killer replies that kill the whole topic or create an unfriendly academia.

I'm not discrediting the merits of the French Revolution or its accomplishments. But I just can't stand dishonest representations induced in a thread for the submerssion of the greater picture. It kills usefull opinions, discourages debates and induces guilt into anyone.

I have to say; I think all of this is entirely inside your own head.

Sorry.

And I have to say, your replies in this thread have been the thread-killing ones, Meneldil's posts fit nicely in with every other good post on this forum. And we do manage to get some good debates here....

So, stop worrying about Meneldil and start thinking about your own behaviour, and we'll all have a jolly good time

oh, and 1984-references are so 2004.

[Cronos Impera]

His first 2 posts disturbed me a little (I'm 1/4 Polish and 2/4 Romanian so I get a little emotional about the Napoleonic Age). I failed to see that most Napoleono-philles didn't respond to his first 2 posts in any way and just posted their replies.It must be the Dayve crisis we experienced at the EB fora.

I just tried to prevent a joycamptouring crisis by pointing at a poststyle that I dislike in half-history posts. The determination to get an ideea through no matter what leads to writecrime, writecrime leads to joycampsitting, repeated joycampsitting leads to No-Forumer and emptiness. And all begins with a negatively charged post related to "discrimination against <<insert favorite ethnicity here>>" ; "TediUs nothingain <<insert theme>>".

I got a nice initial response from Comrade Mendill, all I tried was point at the nature of his first response. I respect the Comrade Mendill but I found a negative lash in his first two posts which I tried to nullify.

Just look at the forum statistics for those threads and count the joycamptours and joycampsittings for each one. You'll be surprised.

The Backroom is a nice forum and keeping civil rights issues and blackwhite out of it helps create a nice working atmosphere.

That's not 1894-speak. That's OrgSpeak.

[HoreTore]

That's not 1894-speak. That's OrgSpeak.

In the words of Fergie; You're so 2000 and late.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well I don't need to speak for Meneldil, but I don't get quite qhat got your back up so much. Meneldil gave a pretty good summation of just what, and who, monarchism is associated with in France. He evens grants that other countries may have different traditions, and that he doesn't care much whether or not they have their monarchies. Whatever makes 'em happy and all that.

I don't support monarchism in general, as the very basis of this political system seem totally undemocratic to me.
I absolutely loath it in my own country, as it is strongely tied to nationalism, antisemitism, racism, fascism and generally all kind of right-wing nutjobness.

But if people who live under monarchies are okay with it, then I guess that's their own problem. I'm not for the abolishment of monarchy on a world-wide scale.

As to Napoleon - it is a matter of much debate just what opinion he personally held of Jews. And what effect his policies had on Jewry.

His personal thoughts: neither pro-Semitism not anti-Semitism seems to fit the bill. There was a whole mixture of opportunism, mixed feelings, and traces of both revolutionary equality and old-fashioned 'let's suck dry the Jews' involved. Napoleon is such a splendidly ambiguous figure.

The effects of his policies are a matter of debate too. Napoleon's enemies wanted to keep the Jews in their ghetto's forever, stripped of civil rights. Napoleon offered them full rights, but assimilation. The latter can be explained positively, or negatively.
This is in general a matter of much Jewish debate over the past two centuries - to assimilate, and thus to lose identity, or not. A matter of personal political and cultural preference.


(Me, I'm with Napoleon. And I'm also of the firm conviction that had Napoleon won, all the Jews of Europe would've fled to France, and none of the pogroms and Holocaust would've happened. Alas! The forces that were outraged at the mere thought of Jewish Civil Rights won - that is, the whole of Europe minus France and her allies/territories under her control.)

[Cronos Impera]

Finally a thread rejuvenator.
Thank you Louis for this healing post. Now the river bed is once again open for navigation.

+ rep

Oops, forgot I was at the Org.

[Meneldil]

Thanks Louis for clearing that up.

And as I said earlier, I'm quite found of Napoléon myself. He was a genius, militarily and politicaly, despite the many mistakes he made.
One of such mistakes was precisely his constant hesitancy regarding the jews. He started by discriminating them (he cancelled all debts owed to Jews in Alsace), then openly ghetto-ized them by forbidding them to leave their towns and cities (thus cancelling all earlier laws).

Then, he made a complete U turn, and gave them full citizenship (again), and tried to enforce assimilation on them (as some jews refused the idea of assimilation at first). While doing so, he openly stated several times that he despised judaism, and thought this religion was opposed to modernity and civilization. He stated it during official councils, wrote it on letters and what not. He also openly stated that he wanted to liberate jews from judaism, because he disliked this religion, and also wanted to bring more wealth to France, as he thought that "the j00s r wealthy".

In any case, Jews were granted full citizenship in France in 1791. They kept this full citizenship despite Marat (dunno why you're mentionning him, he never cared much about jews and never had any legal power, and he's not remembered as a great revolutionnary), despite the Terror, despite the civil war. Of course, their right to practice their religion was severly limited at the height of the Terror, but the same was true for any religion (catholics probably had the hardest time). The first man who trully infringed on their citizenship was...guess who, Napoléon himself.

So, you can keep worshipping Napoléon because he saved the j00s, but he didn't. The Revolutionnary Army already emancipated them in Belgium and in Italy before he had any political power. When Napoléon supposedly liberated the Jews of Malta, he was actually only doing what he was told to do: give equal rights to anyone.
The Assemblée Nationale gave them full citizenship and equal rights while Napoléon was still a no-name. The situation of the Jews was one of the first issue raised by Robespierre, in late 1789.
That does not mean I hate Napoléon and consider him a monarch (he certainly wasn't liked by traditional monarchs) or a tyran. I just think calling him a philo-semit is quite erroneous. Most of the work was done between 1791 and 1793, not after 1799. I think Louis pretty much summed up what Napoléons thought about jews (ie. he didn't even know it himself).
You seem to think that my only aim was to bash monarchists through bashing Napoléon, while it wasn't really my attention.


As for monarchy as a whole, once again, Louis nicely explained my feelings. Royalists are usually right-wing antisemit nutjobs in my country nowadays. If it's different in yours, then well, I'm honestly glad for you *shrugs*

[Cronos Impera]

Paix to you, Mendill. If you posted that post instead of the first 2 replies, I would have never called you a Gunbortionist.