"Why NOT Waterloo?" Topic

Interesting post Cap'n Cornelius Butt.

You might find these interesting:

link

link

Having been taught to be cautious, I would hesitate to affirm Nap's membership or not. I wonder who would have initiated him?

CollinJallen,

There is very little, if anything, of occult significance in the French Revolution.

This could be the most ignorant sentence made during this entire thread. Occult simply means hidden. The Freemasons and other secret societies are based on hidden information given out slowly by degrees of initiation. Most people still posting would accept that the Freemasons and other groups did have an impact on the period. If you cannot make the obvious link between the Festival of the Supreme being and the Supreme architect or Great architect of the occult secret societies then I don't know what else to say to you.

I am rather amsused that someone who seems to see an occult influence in so much that is easily explicable should ask for "an informed opinion" and appeal to the "smartest".

Clearly not every one still hanging around this thread can be described as the smartest, seems I was wrong about that.

A very good friend of mine is a serious occultist; because of his interest, I have studied the occult and found it to be a fantasy.

Are you sure you know how to study it properly? It's not an easy thing to study by any means. Maybe your friend can only use the right-hand side of his brain and doesn't explain it very well? Or maybe he's very clever but has only learned how to use the left side of his brain. I have many friends like that, bless them.
Some historical men of intellect either interested or involved in the Occult; Plato, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Kubrick, Rooseveldt. Are these men who have greatly shaped western thought, or 'fantasists'?

As to the use of the eagle, in most cases this was an adoption of an ancient symbol used by the Romans, not an adoption of an occult symbol. Many of the symbols of the revolution were again drawn from ancient history; the fasces were Roman, as was the Phyrgian Cap (the Liberty Cap).

If you have studied the Occult with any skill then I'm sure you know that when we (the profane) are presented with important symbols we are only given the exoteric explanation of a deeper esoteric reality. I would suggest that you have rather gullibly bought the exoteric explanations, as I once did. But don't feel bad, that is what most people do. The important thing is to correct the error. The societies have a saying 'In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is King', meaning that the public is blind and they control us because they have the Knowledge. This is one of the myriad reasons why the occultists also use the single eye in the pyramid as their most important symbol.
It might interest you to know that the double-headed eagle is not Roman, it is one of the earliest religo-political symbols archaelogists have unearthed, going back to the very oldest mystery schools. Just because the public doesn't understand why these symbols are being used doesn't necessarily mean the elite are equally ignorant.

Turning to the prediction of the "Bavarian Illuninati", all that I can answer is "prove it".

Lol, not an easy thing to 'prove' within the confines of a wargaming forum! But I would hope that someone with a genuine interest in the occult would be able to research this matter on their own. Surely you admit the Bavarian Illuminati were a (brief) historical reality which sought to have a profound effect on European politics?

TW,

Arrogance and rudeness are not good traits, yet yo seem to display them. Sadly, you seem to be unable to accept any view that contradicts your own, yet you seem happy to condemn others for doing the same thing. You also make way too many assumptions.

As to the Bavarian Illuminati, you made a claim as to their "prediction" concerning the French revolution; the onus is on you to prove that claim, as it is on you to prove all of your other claims about occult influences on, and symbolism of, the revolution.

Just try to do it without rudeness.

Have fun with your pseudo conspiracy theories.

Colin

I think you started the rudeness with your earlier thread. Re-read it if necessary. I apologise if I went over-the-top in my reply.

By the way Collin, just because you think it is a 'fantasy' subject, does not of course mean that some important people in history have thought the same. I happen to agree with you that many occult ideas are in fact crack-pot, but experience clearly shows us that the same crack-pot ideas have had a disproportionate effect on history.
For example, surely you understand the Nazi party would never have arose without a strong occult foundation, and the Aryan race is of course an occult concept. Why is it so anathema to suggest the French Jacobins came from similar ideological background? I can't think of many things the Jacobins promoted that didn't have a smell of 'Illuminism' about them.
Just thought a senior academic would be a bit more open to well supported and articulated ideas, rather than throwing them into the psuedo-conspiracy bin straight off the bat.

Have fun too, speak to you when I get out of the Dawghouse (for that is where I am sure now to go) if you haven't already stifled me.

TelesticWarrior

Getting near to that waste of time moment, isn't it? I've been there a few times myself. You will soon get accused by the encircling vultures that you are not listening to what you are being told and in denial of the truth. That means you are disagreeing with their views – not allowed!

As for rudness, well, it seems if the rudness is in line with the debate, it will be allowed. But you wonder who is interpreting what is acceptable rudeness? I imagine that what you and myself see as standing up for yourself, will, for some reason, be considered as rude, usually by those whose views you might be rightly challenging. You do get used to it.

As for the dawghouse – I've seen nothing posted for you to get sent there for. My advice is to stop posting on this thread and look for another one or start one yourself. The vultures don't like it when you ignore them.
(will probably join you in the dawghouse now)

Well this thread has gone into the bizarre. I'm done.

See you guys later if the weird goes away.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Telestic,

You are nowhere near rude or obnoxious enough to be worthy of stifling. Only one person has achieved that.

As an academic, I deal with facts and ideas. Well supported and articulated ideas are always worthy of consideration; your current posts and ideas are neither of those.

Do you seriously believe that the Nazis and the Jacobins came from a similar ideological background.

As to my friend, who for the sake of continuing discussion we can call Jimmy, he is very deeply immersed in the occult and is very good at explaining it; another person that I know (I hesitate to call him a friend) is deeply involved in, and rather senior in, a branch of the masonic movement. To pretend that either has any "hidden knowledge" is amusing at best.

I still await your proof of the accuracy of the prediction made by the Bavarian Illuminati.

Is this some sort of conspiracy site?

Collinjallen,
Glad to see you are not a stifler. Far too many intellectual cowards around as it is. I actually applaud you for being good enough to respond to my original questions.

This is what I meant by comparing the Nazi's and the Jacobin's;
the former were very obviously into the occult (This is accepted in academic circles, although most academics don't really want to go into the implications of this, which is in itself strange). Note that the Nazi's also used the Eagle as their National symbol (along with the swastika which I am sure you are aware is an occult corruption of a religious emblem.) The Nazi party was a political arm of the semi-occult Thule society, Thule was itself the outer ring of the occult Germanen society.
The Jacobin's also seem to have been very much into the occult. In my opinion many of their symbols, festivals and idea's seem to have been influenced by an 'illuminized' type of Freemasonry. Maybe you can show Jimmy a collection of Jacobin ideas/symbols and see if he recognises any of them as being important to occultists. If you have studied the occult yourself then perhaps you can recognise them yourself.
I was not trying to claim the Jacobins and the Nazi's were the same in any way, only that both their origins stem from roots that are not well understood by the 'profane', as the secret societies so charmingly call us.
I would hope that as an academic you would intuitively realise that if the Occult managed to manifest itself so prominently in the 1930's, then it is possible it may have done so in the 1780's also. This is what we are trying to flesh out in this discussion, hopefully with no more nastiness (you were right earlier, I am prone to arrogance from time to time, my girlfriend certainly lets me know this!). Bit too early to claim either your or my ideas are 'worthy' of consideration or well supported, don't you think?

To pretend that either has any "hidden knowledge" is amusing at best.

This is probably not relevant to the discussion, although I am glad it amused you. Your friend may or not be 'illuminated', it would be difficult for me to tell from here. I also have known a few high-ish up Freemasons in my time, I also would have been amused if they pretended to have any real knowledge of the God-head. They seemed just as confused as the rest of us.

I still await your proof of the accuracy of the prediction made by the Bavarian Illuminati.

Like I said, a very difficult thing to 'prove' outright, and I have my doubts that anything in this world can be 'proved' anyway. Facts are a constantly changing edifice that are subject to oblivion once new evidence comes to light or new vistas of awareness are reached. How's that for articulation?
I will try to find you some evidence worthy of your time.

Conversely, I still await your explanation for 'the festival of the Supreme diety'. Quite a strange mass ritual for a supposedly athiestic government to perform don't you think? I doubt if they just plucked this idea out of thin air, but rather went to the secret societies for inspiration. Ask Jimmy about the Supreme architect or Grand architect of the Mystery religion.

NapoleonicGamer,
This is not a conspiracy site, we would all be dawghoused if we talked about conspiracy's.
But we are allowed to talk about Jacobinism and the French Revolution, these things are relevant and perhaps even educational.

A nice (short) video introduction to this subject;

YouTube link

TW,
I am going to withdraw from this conversation, and am doing so for two reasons:

1. It has gone way too far off topic.

2. I fear that we are heading into territory which will worsen your already impressive post/stifle ratio and my stifle count.

I do not intend to "do a Gazzola" and only leave having had the last word on the subject so I am happy to leave your post as the last word. Let others make of this what they will.

Fair enough.

Take care.

My only view on conspiracies etc is that of Occam's razor.

Most organisations/governments over 10 people are too incompetent to be able to run anything *that* secret.
If they were so competent and organised then why aren't we all being governed by the illumanti now ?

Perhaps just perhaps Eagles are cool to have as a logo *smile*

hang on perhaps we are ? What is that strange black car drawing up outside my office ….

This is not a conspiracy site, we would all be dawghoused if we talked about conspiracy's.
But we are allowed to talk about Jacobinism and the French Revolution, these things are relevant and perhaps even educational

I think your name shows very clearly the purpose of your appearing on this site.

Oh look who's come creeping back out of the shadows, good to have you back Max.
So you understand Telestics now? It's true that this thread has taken an unusual turn, but your accusations are a bit rich coming from someone who de-railed my 'WHY ALWAYS WATERLOO' thread.
In my defence 4 or 5 TMPers started talking about freemasonry before I ever did, I just racheted it up a notch. Obviously I have a massive interest in Napoleonic Wargaming, thats why I am here and this should be clear from the threads I have started or contributed to.

Do you want to discuss Jacobinism and the French Revolution? If not go back to your lurking.

Gustav,

I use Occam's razor too. The most simple explanation is usually the best.
I also believe, however, that the most simple explanation will change as new, better, evidence comes to light.
It is up to the individual to decide if he wants to assess the new evidence or fall back on confortable pre-concieved ideas. No real claim to the 'truth' can be made by someone following the latter course of action.

Colinjallen

'do a Gazzola'

LOL

TelesticWarrior

Is Maxshadow implying you have a hidden agenda, when he refers to your posting name?

I thought it meant you were seeking out information, furthering your knowledge, usually done by sharing, discussion and debating, which is what you have done? But it just shows how things can be interpreted differently.

I liked Colinjallen's exit from the thread. Very polite and to the point and without 'feeling' the need to stifle you. Well, I don't think he has, anyway. Sadly, he might have had the 'feeling' to stifle me, but that's life. But if only others could leave a thread in the same way, with no hard feelings all round. The silly stifle would be redundant then.

Gazzola,

I agree it was a good exit from Colin. It was a slight shame because he sounded like he had some interesting idea's to share, but it was probably for the best. He didn't stifle me and I hope he accepted my apology for the rudeness. Strangely enough my stifle count has decreased since the wierdness began.

You are right, a Telestic is someone who tries to further his knowledge and learn from others. They attempt to dispel ignorance where they find it, whether that be in themselves or others. But it is not a commonly used word and other people can be forgiven for not being familiar with it.

The thread has gone a bit weird, as Bandit said before. I think a lot of us are slightly out of our comfort zone.
Do you think this would be a good time to sign off from the thread for good?

TelesticWarrior

Well, it has reached page 6 and we both haven't been sent to the dawghouse, so I would say yes, you could consider ending the thread now.

And I'm sure there will be more 1812 (and other campaigns) debates to come and there will certainly be plenty to come in the not too distant future, especially with the anniversary year of 1813 looming ever closer.

Happy wargaming to you.

Happy wargaming to you too, my friend. Over-and-out.

…and peace settled over TMP-Land once more….

« Le général Kellermann a également rédigé une réfutation dans laquelle on peut dire : « C'était a dicté par Napoléon ; c'est sa manière ; lui seul a pu construire cet échafaudage C'est son apologie, c'est la critique ou la satire de ses lieutenant. Ainsi quand il est vainqueur, tout ce qui s'fait bien sans lui et même malgré lui, c'est à lui qu'il faut le rapporter ; la gloire n'en appartient qu'à lui seul. Et quand il et vaincu, c'est toujours la faute de ses lieutenants. (…) » Coppens, S. 352
On n'a pas besoin que l'auteur nous expliqué comment une seul bataille a suffi pour soumettre la nation française ; cela est facile à comprendre, quand on n'a qu'un armée et qu'on le perd, quand on a épuisé une nation jusque à son dernier homme, il n'y a plus résistance à opposer, il faut se soumettre.
Mais pourquoi la France n'avait-elle qu'une armée ? C'est ce que l'auteur se garde bien de nous dire. Le voici, ce pourquoi : 400 mille hommes engloutie en Russie, 300 milles fondus en Espagne, 400 milles gaspillés dans la courte campagne de 1813 et 1814, voilà de ces pertes dont un Empire ne se relevé qu'avec le temps ; ce temps nous a manqué. Quelle nation pourrait reproduire et former des armées aussi rapidement que Napoléon les consommait ? » (Fußnote 18 – Kellermann (Lieutenant – général, duc de Valmy) Observations sur la bataille de Waterloo, en réponse à une ouvrage intitulé Campagne de 1815 et publié sous le nom du général Gourgaud, Manuscrit, MR 717, Service historique de la Défense, Vincennes) Coppens S. 353

« Plus loin, Kellermann porte un jugement plus sévère encore : « Aujourd'hui que l'auteur de cette affreuse catastrophe peut mesurer l'abîme où il nous a plongés, il n'en pas même touché ; il ne s'occupe ni des maux, ni de l'humiliation de la France, il ne pense qu' à lui , il n'a qu'une idée dans son insolent égoïsme, c'est de persuader qu'il aurait dû vaincre et ce n'est point à lui qu'il faut attribuer le désastre. « – Coppens S. 353

Just to save anyone else the trouble, here is what Google translate makes of von Winterfeldt's post:

General Kellermann also wrote a rebuttal in which we can say: "It was dictated by Napoleon is his way, and he alone was able to build this scaffolding This is his apology is criticism or satire his lieutenant. So when he won, everything's Up well without him and in spite of himself, it is to him that it must report, in the glory belongs to him alone. And when he defeated and it is always the fault of his lieutenants"

We do not need the author explained how a single battle sufficed to bring the French nation, it is easy to understand when you only have one army and one loses when one has exhausted a nation even to his last man, there is more resistance to oppose, he must submit.
But why France had she an army? This is what the author is careful to tell us. Here, this is why: 400,000 men engulfed Russia, 300000 melted in Spain, 400,000 wasted in the short campaign of 1813 and 1814, that these losses which raised an empire not only time, this time we missed. What nation could replicate and form armies as quickly as Napoleon consumed?

Later, Kellerman has a more severe judgment: "Now that the author of this terrible disaster can measure the abyss into which he has plunged us, it does not even touched it handles or sore nor the humiliation of France, he did that to him, he has an idea in his insolent selfishness, is to persuade that he had to overcome and it is not him to be attributed the disaster

"hang on perhaps we are ? What is that strange black car drawing up outside my office …."

Time to put that tinfoil on your head again Gustav! :o)