I am going to have to re-post this posting because a lot has been added onto it since last week. I should have known that there would be more to add to it.
This is a long posting. Please make sure that you have enough time to read it fully. If you want to understand the modern world in general, and America in particular, what is here is essential.
9) THE KING FACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST BASED ON THE PATTERNS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
15) THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND ITALY
1) THE CITY OF PARIS
An understanding of the modern world begins in Paris. This is a city that understands how to be a great city. It's famous monuments, such as the Arc de Triomphe and the Eiffel Tower, are simple in form and easily rendered graphically.
The monuments also synchronize well with one another. The Eiffel tower, made of wrought iron to celebrate the centennial of the French Revolution in 1889, is not something alien that was put down in the middle of Paris but seems to be a complement to the artistic iron railings that are seen in balconies and stairways all over the city. The Arc de Triomphe resembles an inverted version of Cathedral Notre Dame, which it faces some distance away. It seems to be a reflection of the stone archways on the doors of the cathedral:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3879/3734/1600/dc_250925.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3879/3734/1600/DC_250923.jpg
The Eiffel Tower also complements Notre Dame. The cathedral was consecrated in 1189, and used the new architectural technique of flying buttresses to support the walls, and the weight of the roof, from outside. This meant that the walls did not need to be as massive, and so the spectacular stained glass windows could be made larger. The Eiffel Tower, built 700 years after Notre Dame was consecrated, also brought an architectural revolution in that it was the world's prototype skyscraper, built on a metal framework. It literally showed the world how to build a skyscraper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tour_Eiffel_Wikimedia_Commons.jpg
The Eiffel Tower itself was built to serve as an archway at the entrance to the Exposition Universelle, held in 1889. This synchronizes it with the Arc de Triomphe, and the arched doorways at Notre Dame. The Eiffel Tower was originally intended to be only temporary, standing until the exhibition was over:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_Universelle_(1889)#/media/File:Paris_1889_plakat.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_Universelle_(1889)#/media/File:Vue_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale_de_l%27Exposition_universelle_de_1889.jpg
This "city of arches" concept of Paris is completed by a smaller Arc de Triomphe, the Arc de Triomphe de Carrousel, aligned on an axis with the larger Arc de Triomphe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Garden#/media/File:Jielbeaumadier_arc_de_triomphe_du_carrousel_est_paris_2008.jpg
Finally, there is the modern Grande Arche, all aligned on the same axis, which was unveiled in 1989 on the two hundred year anniversary, just as the Eiffel Tower was constructed for it's one hundred year anniversary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Arche#/media/File:Grande_Arche_de_La_D%C3%A9fense_et_fontaine.jpg
This is part of what makes a great city, the linking of itself to history. Paris makes skillful use of street names. Streets are named for great people and events, both French and foreign. In this way, Paris manages to incorporate the history that it does not have in itself. Much of the early history of civilization too place in Mesopotamia, the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Paris has no direct link to this, but manages to incorporate it by naming a district of the city as Mesopotamia. There is a street in Paris, named for Babylon.
The city of Brussels, in Belgium, also uses the same technique of linking to history by use of names. The world most epic military battle was at Stalingrad. The name of the city has since been changed. The city was named for Soviet leader Josef Stalin. His political commissar at the battle was Nikita Khrushchev, who ended up succeeding Stalin as leader. Khrushchev surprised the world by denouncing his predecessor, and changing the name of the city to Volgograd, after the river which flows through it. But yet the name of Stalingrad lives on, as a district of Brussels.
This linking to history can readily be seen in cities like London and Las Vegas. Big Ben, in London, is the clock tower adjoined to the Houses of Parliament. It's link to history, even if few are consciously aware of it, is that it is not far from the Prime Meridian from where longitude, and thus time, is measured. Las Vegas has marketed itself as a gambling center, a place to suddenly get rich, because it links to the history of those seeking gold in the old American west.
Napoleon's military campaign in Egypt began the modern science of archeology, and also brought Egypt to Paris. Many artifacts from Egypt are now in the Louvre. There is the glass pyramid that was built in the courtyard of the Louvre, which links Paris to the pyramids of Egypt.
Notice how the glass pyramid at the Louvre synchronizes with the stone pyramids of Egypt in the same way that the stone Arc de Triomphe synchronizes with the modern Grande Arche, built along it's axis in the business district to the west. Most visibly there is the obelisk from Egypt, which was made by Ramesses II and was once at Luxor, mounted in the traffic circle of the largest square in central Paris, Place Concorde:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3879/3734/1600/dc_250926.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louvre_Museum_Wikimedia_Commons.jpg
All tall buildings in the world today are built on either the metal framework model, represented and pioneered by the Eiffel Tower, or the obelisk model, represented by the obelisk in Place Concorde, as seen in Toronto. With pre-stressed concrete, rather than carving from granite, the obelisk form can now be the taller of the two:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5492/3756/1600/4.jpg
The Eiffel Tower is the heir to the pyramids of Egypt, essentially an industrial era pyramid made of metal instead of stone. The Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe are a reflection back to the high and low monument sets, such as the pyramids near the Sphinx. This gives Paris a strong historical link to one of the great centers of early civilization.
Paris has several prominent buildings sporting classic-style pillars, which link it back to Rome and Greece. These are the Pantheon, La Madeleine and, Palais Bourbon, the meeting place of the French National Assembly. The Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel is modeled after Roman arches and has a copy of Venice's "Four Horses of St. Mark", mounted on top. I have also wondered if the design of the Sacre Coeur Cathedral, in Montmartre on the point of highest elevation in Paris, is made to link to another world-famous building, the Taj Mahal.
There is a link to old Constantinople, now called Istanbul, in Paris. The Hagia Sophia was in the Byzantine Empire, and was the largest Christian cathedral in the world. When the Ottomans conquered this empire, they built minarets around it and re-purposed it as a mosque. Then, to demonstrate that they could build such structures too, the Ottomans built the Blue Mosque nearby and aligned it on an axis with Hagia Sophia. In the same way, the new modern Grande Arche structure was built in the La Defense area of Paris, and was aligned on an axis with the original Arc de Triomphe, and smaller Arc de Triomphe Carrousel, along what is known as the Historical Axis of Paris (Axe Historique).
2) THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
The modern world is explained through the French Revolution, which began in Paris and opened the modern political era in the world. When the revolution began, in 1789, French society was divided into three estates. The First Estate was the church and the clergy. The Second Estate was the royalty and nobility. The Third Estate was basically everybody else. The French Revolution was the Third Estate rising up against the other two, in the name of the three French words that have been echoing across the world, in numerous revolutions ever since "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite". The three estates would be replaced with liberty and equality for all. The French Revolution stood for secularism, so that the church would no longer have supreme power.
This is Saint Jacques Tower in Paris, the part of a church left standing that was destroyed by the revolutionaries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Jacques_Tower#/media/File:Tour_Saint-Jacques_BLS.jpg
The French Revolution was certainly influenced by the assistance given by France to the American Revolution, not the overthrowing of the British crown but a breaking away from it, a short time before. Thomas Jefferson helped in drafting "The Rights of Man and of The Citizen", the primary document of the French Revolution.
But this military assistance also helped to bankrupt the Bourbons, the French royal line, and this was a major reason for the French Revolution because financial distress caused the common people to suffer, while the Second Estate could always afford extravagance like the Palace of Versailles. The French Revolution brought the execution of the Bourbon king and queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, as well as the pioneer of modern chemistry Antoine Lavoisier and later, some of the revolution's own leaders who had fallen out of favor, notably Robespierre.
Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the last French king and queen before the French Revolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_XVI_et_Marie-Antoinette.jpg
The French Revolution was not completely original, nothing really is. It was a restructuring of the pattern of the Reformation, with both the king and the church in place of the pope. The rising up of the Third Estate, the common people, is also a reflection of Jesus against both the Pharisees and Sadducees, of the religious establishment in the Bible. But this is similar to the way that Paris links itself to history, taking what came before and turning it into what comes after.
History certainly zig-zagged to get from monarch to democracy. The Bourbons would, much later, make a brief comeback.The great revolution would eliminate the king, and stand for the inauguration of democracy in the world, but would end up with the prototype of all modern dictators, named Napoleon. The nephew of Napoleon, Napoleon III, would be the first democratically elected French president, but when constitutionally barred from a second consecutive term, would restyle himself as the French "Emperor". Napoleon III would launch a very successful revolution of his own, the complete rebuilding of modern Paris after razing the poor and crowded medieval neighborhoods from which the French Revolution had arisen.
Napoleon, like another great general long before named Alexander the Great, was a prodigy in mathematics during his youth. An early step in his military career was as Captain of the Guard at the former Tuileries Palace, the site of which is now the garden by that name in central Paris. Napoleon arose out of the chaos of the French Revolution, and his conquests spread the revolution's principles across Europe. His invasion of Russia, while ultimately unsuccessful, did give the world what is supposedly it's longest book, "War and Peace".
If we look at a map, it is easy to see that Napoleon set the foundation for the modern European Union. The flag of the French Revolution was the red, white and blue tricolor, that is the flag of France today. In the Wikipedia article "Tricolor" is a list of countries that have adapted their own variations of the French Republic flag:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_France.svg
The fleur-de-lis was the symbol of the French monarchy before the revolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis#/media/File:Arms_of_the_Kingdom_of_France_(Moderne).svg
It is still seen on the flag of Quebec, which was founded before the French Revolution, today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis#/media/File:Flag_of_Quebec.svg
The European Union of today is not quite equal, some countries are more central to the union than others, who want to keep certain degrees of sovereignty such as their own currency. Have you ever noticed that European countries who have adopted the tricolor flag, with their own colors and possibly horizontal rather than vertical stripes, are more likely to be the more central members of the European Union than those with "different" flags, such as Britain, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries?
Napoleon was also a great builder, the Arc de Triomphe being a memorial of his victories and the temple, which is now Elglise Madeleine (Church of Madeleine), being intended as a temple of the glory of Napoleon's army:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_Paris.jpg
At the time of Napoleon, very early in the Nineteenth Century, France had no match in military power in continental Europe. Ironically, it was Napoleon's campaigns which prompted the German-speaking states across central Europe to unite. These duchies and principalities had long been precluded from unity because they were divided between Catholic and Protestant, as a result of the Reformation which had begun in one of them. But the secularism of the French Revolution, carried eastward by Napoleon's conquests, helped to remove that barrier and bring about modern Germany.
But it had been the Reformation which had really set the stage for the French Revolution, which was a kind of secular reworking of the Reformation against the king, as well as the pope. Belgium is the opposite of Germany, which was united by language but divided by religion. Flanders, the northern half of Belgium that speaks Dutch, split from the Netherlands after the Reformation because it wanted to remain Catholic, uniting into the nation of Belgium with French-speaking Wallonia. But, now that religion is less important, is being pulled apart by it's language differences. Traces of the Reformation in Germany can still be seen in the much warmer reception that Pope Benedict received, when visiting his home country, in traditionally-Catholic Freiburg, in comparison with that in Erfurt, where the Reformation had begun.
3) THE IMITATION OF PARIS
The essence of Paris is that, when one is proceeding along a main street, there should be some glorious building or monument visible up ahead. The streets link one such monument to another, there is not the grid pattern of North America yet the street pattern makes it easy to get from one place to another. This makes Paris the most imitated city in the world. A street should not be just to get somewhere, it should be to celebrate or remember something. The name of every street reflects a great person, place or, event. There is not the naming after trees that is seen in North America, where there is countless Maple Streets, Willow Avenues, Elm Crescents and, Pine Roads.
The city, composed of it's streets linking monuments, should be a work of art in itself. The Eiffel Tower is something that is prominent, visible and, easy to copy. This gives other cities a chance to link themselves to Paris, just as Paris so skillfully links itself to the centers of civilization which came before. The Tokyo and Blackpool Towers are two of many such copies across the world. Paris makes itself into an essential link in the chain of history, one cannot understand the world unless they have seen, or at least understood, Paris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TaroTokyo20110213-TokyoTower-01.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blackpool_Tower_general_view.jpg
An interesting thing about Paris, which does not get written about very often, is how some of the old Paris remains after the city underwent a massive renovation in the mid-Nineteenth Century. The crowded medieval city, that was there during the time of the French Revolution and Napoleon, was razed, and the street patterns linking monuments, and their buildings, that we have today were constructed. But the old Paris was not completely removed. There are alleys and walkways today, paved with very old cobblestones, which were once the streets of old Paris. Some storefronts from that time still remain. This is yet another way that Paris manages to link itself to history, in this case it's own history.
Paris has got to be the most imitated city in the world. Montreal began on an island in the St. Lawrence River in the same way that Paris began on an island in the Seine River, where Cathedrale Notre Dame is located. Montreal also tends to name streets after important people, as well as Catholic saints. Dakar, in Senegal, was certainly based on Paris. Beirut used to be called "The Paris of the Middle East". Hanoi is known as "The Paris of the East".
What about the Azadi (Freedom) Monument in Iran, constructed by the former Shah to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of the Peacock Throne in 1971? What is this but an imitation of the Arc de Triomphe, with the sloping sides reminiscent of the lower section of the Eiffel Tower?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadi_Tower#/media/File:Azadi_tower_9.jpg
Did the Shah inadvertently set himself up for the revolution, very similar in form to the French Revolution, which would bring all of that to an end eight years later? The Shah had earlier, in 1967, had himself crowned "King of Kings" in an elaborate ceremony reminiscent of Napoleon having himself crowned emperor in Notre Dame. But by such linking to Paris, the Shah took the risk of setting himself in the role of the last of the Bourbon kings, which had a line of a thousand years, dating back to Hugh Capet. This was the line that was terminated by the French Revolution, just as the Shah and the Peacock Throne were terminated in the Iranian revolution of 1979.The signature event of the French Revolution, the Storming of the Bastille, was, of course, reenacted as the storming of the U.S. Embassy compound.
The most famous street in Paris is the Champs Elysees. It runs from the Arc de Triomphe, in the west, to Place Concorde, in the east. But it is part of what is known as the Historical Axis of Paris, and continues into the Tuileries Gardens through the smaller Arc de Triomphe Caroussel to the east, and along the Avenue de la Grande Armee to the modern Grande Arche on the same axis as the Arc de Triomphe, to the west.
This is looking west along the Champs Elysees, past the Egyptian obelisk in Place Concorde toward the Arc de Triomphe and the taller buildings of the La Defense business district:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Champs-Elys%C3%A9es,_vue_de_la_Concorde_%C3%A0_l%27Etoile.jpg
This is looking east, from the top of the Arc de Triomphe, back toward Place Concorde:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Champs-%C3%89lys%C3%A9es_from_the_Arc_de_Triomphe.jpg
How about 9 de Julio Ave., in Buenos Aries, which is actually the widest boulevard in the world. It seems certain to have been inspired by the Champs Elysees, with the prominent obelisk in the middle of the street:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buenos_Aires_-_Monserrat_-_Avenida_9_de_Julio.jpg
The two halves of Toronto City Hall are not arches aligned on an axis. But, as two matching crescents, they synchronize in the same way:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5492/3756/1600/2.jpg
The design of Paris is so ingrained in the world's consciousness that we may imitate it without even realizing it. On the Canadian side of Niagara Falls there used to be the Clifton Memorial Arch, which was a kind of a miniature of the Arc de Triomphe, the observation tower nearby (at what is now the casino) had an open metal lattice structure, reminiscent of the Eiffel Tower, and the magnificent Oakes Gardens, between the two, was built on the site of the former Clifton Hotel, which had burned, just as the Tuileries Gardens are on the site of the former Tuileries Palace, which also had burned. Not far away, the Skylon Tower is built in the form of an obelisk, reminiscent of the one in Place Concorde.
http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/show.asp?id=380332&b=1
http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/show.asp?id=249303&b=1
http://www.nflibrary.ca/nfplindex/show.asp?id=89648&b=1
Buffalo, NY contains a strong element of Paris in how the streets radiate outward from Niagara Square, with the obelisk which looks like Place Concorde in Paris, and in looking along Court Street from Lafayette Square to Niagara Square, with City Hall seen beyond the obelisk, a lot like looking down the Champs Elysees to the Arc de Triomphe.
In New Delhi, the axis of Rajpath through the Gate of India to the government buildings, Rashtrapati Bhavan, looks like right out of Paris.
China's Xinhai Revolution, which overthrew the Qing Dynasty, the final imperial dynasty, in 1911 was like a replay of the French Revolution.
The influence of the French Revolution can be seen not only in the beginning of Communism in eastern Europe, but also in it's end. As countries abandoned Communism, beginning in 1989, frustrations were often taken out on statues of Lenin. In the same way, the statue of Louis XV in Place Concorde, where his grandson Louis XVI would be guillotined, had been torn down by the French revolutionaries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_de_la_Concorde#/media/File:Execution_of_Louis_XVI.jpg
How much of a coincidence could it be that the uprisings against Communism in eastern Europe in 1989 came in the year of the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the French Revolution? And how much of a coincidence could it be that the one of these national revolutions against Communism that most resembled the French Revolution, the overthrown and execution of Nicolae Ceausescu, took place in Romania which had the only flag in eastern Europe in the form of the French Tricolor, with vertical bars originating as the flag of the French Revolution? The Ceausescus had even attempted to escape by helicopter, in a nearly perfect reenactment of the French royals attempted escape by carriage. The palace that Ceausescu had built set all kinds of global building records, and even surpassed the palaces of the French royals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament#/media/File:Casa_Poporului.jpg
The example of "The Terror" is unmistakable in the reign of the Khmer Rouge, in Cambodia which had been a French colony. A student, named Saloth Sar, had gone to Paris to study. He returned home determined to reshape Cambodia into a primitive, communist rice-growing society, with nothing "modern". The student, now known as Pol Pot, led the revolution which abandoned the cities and relocated the entire population to rice-growing communes in the wilderness. About a quarter of the country's people died of execution, starvation or, disease. The Khmer Rouge executed anyone who was educated, or who could speak French, and even anyone who wore eyeglasses. Like the French revolutionaries, the Khmer Rouge started their own calendar, with measurement of time starting over at Year Zero from the beginning of the Revolution. And like the French and following Russian Revolutions, it ended up executing vast numbers from it's own ranks.
(Note-By the way, starting a revolution can be a perilous thing to do. Even if the attempt is successful, early revolutionaries often fall out of favor as the revolution grows and develops. Many are the revolutionaries that have become victims of their own revolution. Even if the initiator of a revolution or major reform does not end up in jail or dead, it can turn into something other than what was envisioned due to others taking it further. Martin Luther always considered himself as a Catholic, and only wanted to reform the church rather than break away from it. But his successful movement was followed by men who had no intention of reconciling with the Catholic Church, and the Protestant churches came into being. In a similar way, Mikhail Gorbachev considered himself a Communist and only wanted to enact the reforms that were necessary. But he was followed by Boris Yeltsin, who broke away altogether and made a show of publicly destroying his Communist Party membership card.
This also works on a national level. The Soviet Union was the first Communist nation. But as Communism spread across the globe, it fell out of favor in some quarters. By the 1970s ultra hard-line Communists, in places like Albania and the Khmer Rouge, broke relations altogether with the Soviet Union for "betraying" Communism by allowing some religion and some private enterprise).
Hitler was certainly along the lines of Napoleon, the dictator who ultimately arose from the French Revolution. He understood this himself, and made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb. When his soldiers paraded along the avenue named for Napoleon's army, Avenue de la Grande Armee, it wasn't to show the population who their new masters were, it was to show that Hitler was picking up where Napoleon had left off. With only a few exceptions, Hitler's field of conquest was identical to that of Napoleon.
Napoleon's tomb is in the Invalides, the structure around the domed building, seen here from the top of the Eiffel Tower:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3879/3734/1600/dc_250929.jpg
Hitler's empire was known as the Third Reich. The First of these successor Reichs was the Carolingian Empire, part of which was later the Holy Roman Empire, whose most famous leader was Charlemange. This "First Reich" spanned both France and Germany. The people were known as Franks, and the German word for France is still "Frankreich". The division into what is now France and Germany resulted from the eastern and western Franks eventually splitting apart.
More peacefully, the French Revolution is definitely reflected in the creation of modern Turkey by Ataturk after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, following the First World War. But, much unlike the French Revolution, the transition to secularism, along with the ending of the Islamic Caliphate and the line of the royal sultans, was done without much bloodshed.
Napoleon spent his final years in exile on the remote island of St. Helena. Earlier, he had managed to return to power from exile on Elba. This is reflected in France traditionally being a place of exile for deposed leaders. From "Baby Doc" Duvalier of Haiti to former Iranian president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Paris has been a safe place to go. Ayatollah Khomeini lived in a suburb of Paris just prior to the overthrow of the Shah, and his return to power in an Air France jet.
Another tradition that I see is that of France being led by leaders who are not actually French. This seems to have begun with Marie Antionette, who was actually Austrian-born. Napoleon himself was born on the island of Corsica which, at the time of his birth, had not been long under French control. Napoleon's surname, Bonaparte, was an Italian name. The student leader who radicalized French students in the demonstrations of 1968, Daniel Cohn-Bendit "Danny the Red", was born in France but had no actual French blood, and had chosen German nationality. Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France from 2007-12, was also born in France but with no actual French blood, his parents being Hungarian and Greek-Jewish. I see a reflection in the irrational allegations against the foreign-born Marie Antionette a century later in the "Dreyfus Affair", allegations of treason against a Jewish military officer.
This is reflected, like so much else of the French Revolution, in how the strongest leaders that the world has ever seen not actually being born in the countries in which they come to power. An amazing fact is that Hitler was not German, he was Austrian, and Stalin was not Russian, he was Georgian.
5) THE EFFECT OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION ON AMERICA
Now, let's move on to America. Although it may not realize it, America has probably been affected by the French Revolution more than any other country. Maybe more than even France itself.
In a way, this is where it really began for America. This building facing Place Concorde in Paris is now known as the Hotel Crillon, built in 1758. This is the building where Ben Franklin got France to give the newly-declared nation it's first diplomatic recognition abroad. It was the foundation of a vital trade agreement for America, and France would soon assist the American Revolution militarily. The present U.S. Embassy is just around the corner from here.
The Hotel Crillon is the one of the two identical buildings on the left, behind the fountain. The identical building on the right is the headquarters of the French Navy. The building in the distance between them, at the end of Rue Royal, is the temple that Napoleon built for the glory of his army. It is now the church known as La Madeleine, that we saw above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fontaine-place-de-la-concorde-paris.jpg
Just in front of this building, in Place Concorde, is where the French king and queen would be put under the guillotine, by the revolutionaries, 15 years after Ben Franklin's visit. This building was likely the last thing that they saw on earth, since they were guillotined facing this direction. But the thousand year history of a line of kings and queens cannot be changed overnight. Just look at America's fascination with Britain's royal family. America may have broken away, but that does not change the long history together, both before and after the split.
This is Place Concorde, as seen from the Eiffel Tower:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Place_de_la_Concorde_from_the_Eiffel_Tower,_Paris_April_2011.jpg
Here is the execution of the last French king, during the French revolution in what is now called Place Concorde. Notice the two identical buildings in the background, the one on the left being where Benjamin Franklin had gained America's first diplomatic recognition by the king fifteen years earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Execution_of_Louis_XVI.jpg
Have you ever noticed the political dynasties in the American presidency, in comparison with Britain and Canada? Britain, with it's own royal family, has not had a father and son prime minister since the Pitts. Canada, with official ties to the royal family, but not a direct reign (notice that Queen Elizabeth is pictured on Canadian money, but is not wearing a crown), and has just gotten it's first father and son prime minister with Justin Trudeau ( I was a child living in Canada when his father, Pierre, was first elected). But America, with no official ties to the British royal family, has had several presidential dynasties. There was John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt were distant cousins. There were the famous political dynasty of the Kennedys, although only John was a president. There were the father and son, George Bush. So, it seems, that if we do away with royal dynasties, we tend to just replace it with political dynasties. The Kennedy Administration was even referred to as "Camelot", which was the fictional court of King Arthur.
6) THE INFLUENCE OF PARIS ON AMERICAN CITIES
Let's have a look at how Paris has physically influenced America.
Philadelphia is the city most closely associated with the American Revolution. Both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution were written there. It was home to Ben Franklin, who made the trip to Paris to secure diplomatic recognition and assistance for America.
But look at Ben Franklin Parkway, it was modeled on the Champs Elysees, in Paris. The tower of Philadelphia City Hall, at one end, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, at the other end, represent the obelisk at one end of the Champs Elysees, and the Arc de Triomphe, at the other end. Both buildings look like something right out of Paris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_Franklin_Parkway-27527.JPG
Look at these two buildings just off Ben Franklin Parkway, the Library of Philadelphia and the Family Court of Philadelphia. Notice that they are exact copies of the two buildings facing Place Concorde in Paris, where the obelisk is at the eastern end of the Champs Elysees and where Ben Franklin secured diplomatic recognition for the United States:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logan_Square.JPG
The National Mall, in Washington, is also a copy of the Champs Elysees. There is a perpendicular line from Place Concorde, along Rue Royale leading to the former temple built by Napoleon that is now Eglise (church) Madeleine, just as there is a perpendicular line from the National Mall which leads from the Washington Monument (which is a copy of the obelisk in Place Concorde) to the White House. One side of the White House faces Lafayette Square, named for the French military officer dispatched to assist America in the Revolutionary War. The south side of the White House faces the Ellipse, very similar in form to the ellipse around the obelisk in Place Concorde. At one end of the National Mall is the Lincoln Memorial, very similar in form to the temple built by Napoleon, and at the other end is the Congress Building, congruent to the Arc de Triomphe. The design of Washington was actually set out by a Frenchman, Pierre Charles L'Enfant.
Here is America's National Mall, from the Lincoln Memorial (with pillars) to the Congress building in the distance. The Washington Monument is the obelisk, representing the obelisk in Place Concorde:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WashingtonDCMallAerialNavyPhoto_crop.jpg
There is water, a reflecting pool, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, while the Champs Elysees is a street. But if we look along the line of the obelisk in Place Concorde from a perpendicular angle, we see the obelisk, represented by the Washington Monument, as between the pillared La Madeleine in one direction, representing the pillared Lincoln Memorial, and the Palais Bourbon, named for the Bourbon kings but now where the lower house of the French congress meets, representing the U.S. Congress Building. There is water present because the Palais Bourbon is across the Seine River from Place Concorde, and is directly facing the building where the U.S. was first given diplomatic recognition.
What about the nearby Pentagon? Where else in America do you see a building with such multiple sides? That is because it is designed to take the place of the streets coming together at the Arc de Triomphe. In this photo, you can see the Washington Monument in the distance, almost like looking down the Champs Elysees from the Arc de Triomphe to the obelisk at Place Concorde. There are now twelve streets coming together there, which is more than the five sides of the Pentagon, but there used to be fewer than this before the renovation of Paris in the late Nineteenth Century.
This fits into place because the Arc de Triomphe is a military monument, celebrating Napoleon's victories, just as the Pentagon is America's military headquarters. The Arc de Triomphe is actually the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which is reflected in a similar tomb near Washington at Arlington National Cemetery. It further brings coherence because the identical adjacent building, to the one where Ben Franklin gained diplomatic recognition for the U.S. at Place Concorde, is the headquarters of the French Navy.
Here is an old aerial photo of the streets coming together at the Arc de Triomphe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Collier%27s_1921_Vol_4_Frontispiece_--_Paris.jpg
Compare it with the sides of the Pentagon, with the obelisk of the Washington Monument in the background, just as the obelisk in Place Concorde is down the Champs Elysees from the Arc de Triomphe. The Pentagon even has a courtyard reminiscent of so many buildings in Paris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pentagon_US_Department_of_Defense_building.jpg
Las Vegas, as mentioned above, has it's essential historical link in that is a reflection of the gold-seeking in the old American west. But, in the same way as Paris, it links itself to the further history that it does not directly have by building cartoonish replicas of global monuments including the pyramids and the Sphinx and, of course, the Eiffel Tower. The continuous demolition of hotels and other buildings along the Las Vegas Strip, vaguely reminiscent of the Champs Elysees and in order to build better ones, is a reflection of the massive rebuilding of Paris in the Nineteenth Century. Even though Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert, it further links itself to the quick grabbing of money in the attraction which reenacts pirates looting other ships. It links back to Rome by way of Caesar's Palace. Finally, the link is strengthened by the fact that "champs", as in Champs Elysees, is the French word for "field", while Las Vegas means "the meadows".
7) THE INFLUENCE OF FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY NAMES AND SYMBOLS ON AMERICA
The name of Lafayette, the French military officer dispatched to help America in it's Revolutionary War, is all over America. The influence of the Bourbon Dynasty can be seen in the numerous cities, towns, parks, town squares, streets, schools and businesses, that bear the name of Lafayette. In later years, he made a return trip and visited all then-twenty-four states, receiving a thunderous welcome everywhere.
Even more prominent in America is the name of Louis, the name of the line of French Kings that assisted America in it's Revolutionary War and was the first country to give it diplomatic recognition. Most prominent is the state of Louisiana, and the cities of St. Louis and Louisville.
Just as Paris links itself to previous history by use of street and district names, America links itself to this dynasty of French royalty by use of their names. When a boy in America is named Louis, he is more likely to be known as "Louie", which is the French pronunciation of Louis. "Louie and Marie" were not only the last French king and queen before the French Revolution, but are two of the most common American names. How many Americans have you known named Napoleon? The name of the Dynasty was Bourbon, which today is the name of a popular American whiskey and the main street in the French Quarter of New Orleans.
Clearly, America prefers the royal dynasty over the revolutionaries who overthrew it, and Napoleon who ultimately arose from it. There is little in America today names for Napoleon or leaders of the French Revolution, like Robespierre. In fact, my feeling is that the French Revolution and Napoleon is still somewhat ignored in American schools. I didn't know much about either, until I read on my own.
The influence on America of the French royalty who helped America, and the revolution which overthrew them not long afterward, goes far deeper in America than just their names. This was actually one of America's defining events, possibly the most important defining event.
American capitalism has it's roots in the French monarchy, the acceptability of the concentration of much of the nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively few people, no matter how much poverty the rest were mired in. Modern socialist ideals, in contrast, are rooted in the revolution which displaced the monarchy and sought equality for all. The struggle between the two is far from over, it goes on today. Despite their name, there is nothing republican at all about America's Republican Party, they are very much the heirs of the Bourbon Dynasty.
Here is the coat of arms of the French Bourbon Dynasty, the ancestors of America's Republican party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grand_Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_France.svg
Consider the Louisiana Purchase, the large tract of land that was named for the French kings and was sold to the U.S. after their overthrow. We hear of the Democrat Party in America tending to win votes on the coasts, while the center is the "Republican Heartland". Have you ever noticed that this "heartland" of the country, which votes overwhelmingly Republican, corresponds just about exactly to the land of the Louisiana Purchase, which was owned by the French monarchy? This political effect of the Louisiana Purchase extends into Canada. Part of the present provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan was in the Louisiana Purchase, and that area is today Canada's "conservative heartland".
This is America's Louisiana Purchase, which is today the core of it's "Republican Heartland":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louisiana_Purchase.png
All three states with the prominent name of Louis in them vote overwhelmingly Republican, Louisiana, Missouri with St. Louis and, Kentucky with Louisville, even though socioeconomic factors in those states make them seem more likely to vote Democrat. In fact the states named for British royalty, Georgia (for the King George line), Maryland (for Queen Mary) and Virginia ( for the Virgin Queen) are all Republican states also.
When travelling across the U.S., one thing that mystified me was the Arch in St. Louis, billed as "The Gateway to the West". But the terrain to the west of it, in Missouri, does not look at all "western". It is not until you get into Kansas that the landscape starts to appear like the west. The Arch, if it is to represent the "Gateway to the West", should be in Kansas City rather than St. Louis.
But now I realize that the arch in St. Louis is a reflection of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which is on the Champs Elysees that was originally built to open up areas to the west of what was then Paris. Even though the Arc de Triomphe was built by Napoleon, a product of the revolution that executed the last of the kings named Louis, it is still in France and thus fits best in the city named for a Bourbon king that was so kindly he became known as Saint Louis. Furthermore, the Louisiana Purchase began at the Mississippi River so that the St. Louis Arch represents the entrance to this land named for the French kings.
Notice how the St. Louis Arch relates to the Arc de Triomphe, from the building in stone era to the metal era, in the same way that the Eiffel Tower relates to the pyramids of Egypt, which ultimately inspired it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Louis_night_expblend_cropped.jpg
Notice also that the aircraft in which Charles Lindbergh made the first solo crossing of the Atlantic Ocean is named "The Spirit of St. Louis". The flight made in the plane, from the U.S. to France, was like the renewal of the friendship with the Bourbon kings of the past.
The first flight of a human was in the balloon of the Montgolfier brothers. The flight took place at the Versailles Palace, and was witnessed by an amazed king Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. How much was the inspiration from this responsible for America's Wright Brothers making the first powered flight, and the first moon landing? The flight of the Spirit of St. Louis was like a reflection back to this. The balloon had a portrait of the king and the royal monogram. Without the wonder of looking up at humans aloft for the first time here, I wonder if the Eiffel Tower would have been built, more than a century later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgolfier_brothers#/media/File:1783_balloonj.jpg
In the southeastern United States, we come to another "Republican Heartland" in the states of North and South Carolina. But these are named for an earlier line of French Royalty, the Carolingians. America's Carolinas were thus ultimately named for Charles Martel and Charlemagne. Interestingly, just as the Carolingian Empire was to split in two, into what because modern France and Germany, so there is not one Carolina in America but it is split into North and South Carolina.
The Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne was what the Nazis, the "Third Reich", considered as having been the First Reich. They recognized that France had been the other half of this First Reich, before the Franks split between east and west. The French half had ultimately resulted in the rise of Napoleon, and when Hitler made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb and having his soldiers parade under Napoleon's Arc de Triomphe, he was symbolizing the coming back together of the two halves of the First Reich, and that he was picking up where Napoleon left off. Hitler's field of conquest ended up being nearly identical to that of Napoleon. The name of the Carolingian Dynasty, began with Charlemagne's grandfather Charles Martel, lives on in America's North and South Carolina.
This is the tomb of Charles Martel, in the Basilica of St. Denis in Paris. Has anyone noticed how ironic it is that the shoot-out between terrorists and police, following the terror attacks in Paris in November 2015, took place right near this tomb of Charles Martel, who is best remembered for saving France from Moslem conquest?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charles_Martel_Saint_Denis.jpg
A prominent factor in the beginning of the French Revolution was the Palace of Versailles. It's sheer extravagance is unbelievable, even though most of the people in Paris at the time lived in poverty. This palace was the forerunner of the mansions of the rich and famous in America. The reason that the Louvre exists today as the most visited museum in the world is that it was a palace, until the construction of the Versailles Palace left it less used so that it was used to store important artifacts.
How would you like to live, not only in a palace, but where all roads led to your palace, even while most people in Paris lived in poverty?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vue_a%C3%A9rienne_du_domaine_de_Versailles_par_ToucanWings_-_Creative_Commons_By_Sa_3.0_-_073.jpg
The Palace of Versailles has a marble courtyard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cour_de_Marbre_du_Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Versailles_October_5,_2011.jpg
The most famous single room in the world might be it's Hall of Mirrors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chateau_Versailles_Galerie_des_Glaces.jpg
Marie Antoinette, the famed last French queen before the revolution apparently said of the poor "Let them eat cake". It now does not seem as if she ever said this, and the "cake" actually refers to a roll of bread. But this sums up the attitude, or at least the perceived attitude, of the monarchy toward the poor just before the French Revolution.
This is reflected today in the acceptance of a vast wealth gap by Americans and possibly, given the tremendous influence that all of this had on America, it's preponderance of junk food particularly burgers and, of course, the beloved "french fries".
Should we be surprised that the classic example of a neglected American city, and the largest American city ever to declare municipal bankruptcy, is Detroit, which is a French name. Detroit represents the poor areas of Paris at the time of the extravagant monarchy, long before the great renovation of the mid-Nineteenth Century. There were a number of uprisings in this old and poor Paris, that were later reflected in the urban uprisings in the 1960s in America, including the 12th Street Riot in Detroit.
Now, what about the Statue of Liberty, which is a gift from France that has become very much the symbol of America? The Statue of Liberty is a creation of Gustav Eiffel, for whom the Eiffel Tower is named, and came long after the revolution and Napoleon. The Statue of Liberty represents the "new France" of equality and socialism and fairness for all, the polar opposite of the monarchy.
Have you ever noticed that the "Democratic Heartland" of America is the area within several hundred km of the Statue of Liberty. New York City votes overwhelmingly Democrat. The Statue of Liberty is based on an ideal of "Lady Liberty", from the French Revolution. It was the French Revolution, with it's emphasis on freedom from both the monarchy and the great power of the church, which put socialism together with secularism.
This is America's Statue of Liberty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Liberty_7.jpg
The Prime Minister of Canada lives in a fairly ordinary house. The Prime Minister of Britain does not even reside in a house but in a mere apartment, 10 Downing Street. The U.S. President, in contrast, lives in what looks much more like a palace. It is true that the French President also lives in a palace but it is not very imposing, relative to the other buildings in central Paris, and, except for the guards outside, one could walk by without really noticing it. This is America's White House:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5492/3756/1600/dc_250978.jpg
8) THE EFFECT OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION ON AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY
The French Revolution has possibly had it's greatest effect on America in the shaping of it's relations with other countries.
America never got along well with Communism from the beginning. In a mostly long-forgotten military endeavor, America led the way in landing a military force in Russia in 1919, to try to stop Communists from winning the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_troops_in_Vladivostok_1918_HD-SN-99-02013.JPEG
I was somewhat mystified by this, until I realized how much the Russian Revolution resembled the French Revolution, which was mush fresher in historical memory then than it is now. The last Czar of Russia represented the Bourbon Dynasty, which had been America's closest friends. The U.S. Government saw the Bolsheviks as the new incarnation of the nasty, cruel and irrational revolutionaries that had overthrown and guillotined them, but now America was strong enough to intervene and save them. America's involvement in the Vietnam War would later be a replay of this.
This was also behind America's enthusiasm for going to France during the World Wars. Hitler, who had made such a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb, was simply the new Napoleon, who had ultimately replaced America's beloved monarchy. But yet America didn't get along well with Charles De Gaulle. Maybe it was because he was, even though an ally, a little bit too reminiscent of Napoleon. Indeed, Place Etoile (Place of the Star) around Napoleon's monument, the Arc de Triomphe, was renamed Place Charles De Gaulle after De Gaulle's death in 1970.
It was the same when the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949 forcing the Republic of China, who had been America's ally and who represented the French Monarchy, to relocate to the island of Taiwan. China's Cultural Revolution, of the 1960s, was very much a reflection of the earlier Russian Revolution, which was a reflection of the French Revolution. The Cultural Revolution would later be reflected by the Khmer Rouge, in Cambodia.
If America was founded on the breaking away from the control of a foreign king, in the name of liberty for the people, then why is it so attached to the Saudi Royal Family even after 15 of the 19 attackers of 9/11 were Saudis? Barack Obama even bowed to the Saudi king. Is it maybe because Saudi royalty historically reminds America of it's early relationship with French royalty?
What about the former Shah of Iran? He was royalty also. The Peacock Throne went back 2500 years. He acted like a king too, only a king would throw a party like the 1971 celebration of the 2500th anniversary in the ruins of Persepolis. Britain's royal family can throw a party too, but they know that the country is carefully watching how much money they are spending, while the Shah seems to have had no such concerns (which, of course, is part of what brought about that reflection of the French Revolution that overthrew him eight years later). But a democratically elected prime minister, named Mossadegh, upset the United States by playing the role of the French Revolutionaries with his socialist reforms, and it secretly acted to restore the Shah to full power in 1953.
After the Shah had left Iran in 1979, he required treatment for cancer. The Democrats, including President Jimmy Carter, did not want to allow him into the U.S., thinking that it would just lead to trouble, and seeing a need to get along with the new government in Iran. The Republicans, however, were adamant against abandoning an "old friend", and ultimately got their way.
But should this surprise us? The Shah was a king, of the oldest royal line in the world. The Democrats, representing the France after the revolution that had overthrown the king, reenacted history by shunning him. The Republicans, representing the France from before the revolution, which had helped America to gain independence and been the first country to give it diplomatic recognition, welcomed the king.
When revolutionary Iran was holding the staff of the U.S. Embassy hostage, in 1980, it was Saddam Hussein who indirectly secured their release. Seeing neighboring Iran in revolutionary turmoil, and cut off from it's former closest ally, the U.S., and certainly worried about the Iranian Revolution spreading to Iraq's own majority Shiite population, Saddam decided to capitalize on the situation by invading Iran, possibly to gain majority-Arab and oil-rich neighboring Khuzestan Province. This invasion became Iran's main focus, no longer the U.S. hostages, and many of those guarding the hostages went off to the battle front. The hostages had become a liability, rather than a rallying point, and were released not long after the beginning of full-scale war between the two countries.
At that time who could possibly imagine that, within a quarter century, America would go to war twice, not with Iran but with Iraq? At the time, it seemed utterly inconceivable. But history is a powerful force. Saddam was a strutting, militaristic dictator, who had come up through the ranks of the military and had overthrown a king to take power. That, at least unconsciously, brought back American Republicans' historical memories of Napoleon, who had replaced their executed Bourbon descendants. Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini was far more hostile to the U.S. than Saddam, but had nothing about him or his life that was reminiscent of Napoleon. Napoleon didn't actually execute the French king and queen, they were dead before he took power, but had arisen from the chaotic revolution that had executed them.
Exactly the same can be said for Republican Ronald Reagan's arch foe, Libyan Moammar Gaddafi. He was also a militaristic secular dictator, like Saddam, who had risen through the ranks of the military and had overthrown a king to take power. Nothing arouses the ire of America's Republicans as much as someone who reminds them of Napoleon, even if they do not directly realize it.
Consider Hugo Chavez, the late leader of Venezuela. He was very much in the mold of Napoleon also, and just had to be an antagonist of U.S. Republicans. He first tried to come to power by overthrowing the government. He followed a set of principles, known as the Bolivarian Revolution, which were not unlike those of the French Revolution. He led what is known as the Fifth Republic Movement, and France's current constitution is known as the Fifth Republic.
Nasser of Egypt was another leader, not popular with U.S. Republicans, who came up through the ranks of the military, overthrew a king to take power and, engaged in military ventures, Yemen's civil war of the 1960s and Israel's Six-Day-War of 1967.
Remember Manuel Noriega, of Panama? He was indicted by U.S. courts on drug trafficking charges, deposed in a late 1989 invasion, and brought to trial. But how much of a coincidence is it that he was yet another military dictator, who the U.S. Government perceived as strutting around in the mode of Napoleon?
Consider that Vietnam had been a French colony, and that France had given up trying to save it from Communists in order to concentrate on Algeria. The U.S. decided that it had to take up the mantle of saving the country. Is it possible that the successful Communist assault on Dien Bien Phu historically reminded Americans of the success of the French revolutionaries in the Storming of the Bastille? It seemed like it was necessary to prevent another French Revolution from succeeding.
How about Fidel Castro? After overthrowing the government of Cuba in 1959, he was very popular in America. But soon, John F. Kennedy would demonize him and forbid travel by Americans to Cuba. Could part of it be him in a military uniform, and having come to power by overthrowing an pro-U.S. government that brought back historical memories of Napoleon?
(Note-By the way, have you noticed two great ironies in U.S. dealings with Cuba? Kennedy's edict forbidding travel to Cuba only made it more appealing to certain people. hijacking aircraft to get to Cuba was a regular routine for some time. There were persistent rumors of a U.S. plan to assassinate Fidel Castro, and Cuban exiles were armed and sent in an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Castro. One of those Americans that was fascinated with Cuba was named Lee Harvey Oswald. He had earlier defected to Russia, and planned to leave for Cuba. He apparently thought that killing Kennedy would bolster his credentials in Cuba. So, it turns out, this is what indirectly got Kennedy killed.
This shooting of the president, from a high window in Texas, would be followed by another shooting from another high place in Texas. This was the massacre by Charles Whitman at the University of Texas, which inaugurated the modern era of mass shootings. The obsession with Cuba led U.S. Republicans to suspect that Democrats were receiving funding from Communists in Cuba, which led to a burglary to try to find evidence, which led to the burglars getting caught, which led to the Watergate Scandal, which led to the resignation of President Nixon.
The second great irony is that the November 2015 terrorist attack in Paris was related to Kennedy's embargo on Cuba in the reason that it was done. The real reason for the attack on Paris seems to be to create paranoia and suspicion of the thousands of refugees from Syria that were pouring into Europe. Terrorists do not want them to be welcomed in non-Moslem lands. Likewise, I am sure that there never was a serious U.S. Government plan to kill Fidel Castro. The Kennedy Administration did not want the Americans who hijacked planes to get to Cuba to be welcomed. The rumor that there was a plan to kill Castro was to arouse Cuban suspicion that some of those landing there might really be CIA agents, intending to pull off an assassination. This would assure that they would not be welcomed, and the plan generally worked).
The heritage of America is of breaking away from a king, in order to form a republic. But it was helped in that endeavor by another king, who was soon after overthrown and executed, and ultimately replaced by a dictator. The effect is that America today prefers kings to dictators, even dictators who come to power through a democratic process.
9) THE KING FACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, BASED ON THE PATTERNS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
Conflict and inter-relationships in the Middle East are usually portrayed as Sunni against Shiite Moslems, Islamic fundamentalists against modern secularists and, Jews against Moslems. Ethnically, it is numerous Arabs against the non-Arabs, such as Persians, Turks, Kurds and, Berbers. It is also pointed out that the region has not really reached a new equilibrium since the end of the Ottoman Empire.
But consider the following question, which is so important that I would like to name it "The Middle East Question".
"Is there a king, or has the king been overthrown and, if so, has the king been replaced by a military leader"?
Let's start with the relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Relations between the two countries in the days of the Shah were fairly close. Even though Iran was trying to be modern while the Saudis were traditional. The Iranians were mostly Shiite while the Saudis were mostly Sunni. Iran was an ally of Israel, while Saudi Arabia didn't have diplomatic relations with it.
But the Iranian Revolution of 1979 completely changed everything. Even though Iran moved closer to the Saudi position on both fundamentalism and Israel, relations have deteriorated to the point where the two countries now do not have diplomatic relations at all.
The underlying reason involves kings. Before the revolution, both countries had a king even though they were far apart on other issues. After the revolution, the two countries moved apparently closer together on the other issues but now there was a difference that was even more crucial. The Saudis had a king, while the Iranians had overthrown their king.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein was an even worse enemy of the Saudis than Iran, even though both countries were ruled by Sunni Moslems. The reason, once again, comes down to a king. Iraq once had a king, but not only had the Iraqis overthrown their king, as the Iranians did, they went a step further and replaced him with a military leader. This, of course didn't help relations with neighboring Iran, and the two countries fought an eight-year war.
The patterns ultimately come, like so much else in the world, from the French Revolution. The king was overthrown and replaced by a governing council, which was ultimately replaced by Napoleon. This is also exactly the same pattern of the Russian (October) Revolution of 1917, in which the tsar abdicated, was replaced by a Provisional Government, which was then overthrown and replaced by Lenin in the October Revolution.
This is also the pattern of the Iranian Revolution in which the Shah, before leaving the country, chose Shahpour Bakhtiar as prime minister to create a new government, but was rejected and replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini. There were actually three successive interim councils in the French Revolution, the Committee of General Defense, the Committee of Public Safety and then the Directory, before Napoleon finally took control. The pattern is very much the same in all three of these revolutions.
If you want a vivid example of just how much influence the French Revolution had on modern politics consider that, not only did the great uprising against Communism in eastern Europe come in 1989, exactly two hundred years after the French Revolution, but Iraq's Revolution of 1958 which overthrew and executed the king (just like in the French Revolution) took place on the same day as France's Bastille Day, and is known as the July 14 Revolution.
Also consider the exile destinations involved in the Iranian Revolution. Paris is where the French Revolution overthrew the king, and opened the modern political era. Notice that Ayatollah Khomeini and associates, including current Iranian president Rouhani, who were trying to overthrow the king, lived in exile in Paris. After the Revolution those who fell out of favor, such as the last prime minister of the Shah's Iran Shapour Bakhtiar and Khomeini's too-moderate president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, also chose Paris for exile. Before Paris, Khomeini had been in exile in Turkey and Iraq, two other lands that had overthrown kings as Khomeini was trying to do. But the overthrown king himself, the Shah, went nowhere near the country that had set the modern precedent for overthrowing kings. Instead, his first destination for exile was the land of the pharaohs, Egypt.
Kuwait has a king, known as the Emir. Using my scenario here, this explains why Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait was still in the king mode, while Iraq was in the "killed king and replaced him with a military ruler" mode. During the Iran-Iraq War, Iran threatened to invade Kuwait also and, at one point, fired a missile into Kuwait. Remember again that, by this time, Kuwait was still in king mode, while Iran was in the "overthrew the king" revolutionary mode, and this put the two countries out of alignment.
What about Saudi relations with Egypt? The two get along fairly well, and the president of Egypt is at this time transferring some islands to Saudi control. There are great differences between the two. Both are mainly Sunni Moslem, but Saudi Arabia is much more fundamentalist. Alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia, while Egypt has bars that serve alcohol. The two countries were on opposite sides of the Yemen civil war of the 1960s, and Egypt's commitment there greatly helped Israel in the Six-Day War.
Furthermore, Egypt overthrew a king and replaced him with a military ruler, even though he may have the title of president, while Saudi Arabia is the world's ultimate kingdom.
But actually the royal dynasty, the Pasha Dynasty, that ruled Egypt was not really "native" Egyptian. It was imposed by Egypt's Ottoman Rulers, as we saw in our visits to "Cairo" and "Alexandria". As I pointed out there, the Pasha Dynasty had a lot in common with rule of Egypt by the Hyksos in ancient times. The Saudis were also ruled for a time by the Ottomans. The pharaohs of old were never actually overthrown from within and the modern rulers of Egypt, even though they hold the title of "president" and go through elections, give the impression of being Egypt's modern pharaohs. Since the overthrow of the last Pasha Dynasty king, in 1952, all of Egypt's leaders have originated from the military, but are not active military while ruling and do not wear military uniforms.
This gives Egypt resonance with the Saudi kings and, despite the wide differences between the countries, explains the cordial relations between the two. But there was some difference between the two in king mode, since the leader of Egypt does not have the title of king. The king of Yemen was overthrown in the 1960s, leading to a civil war, with the Saudis being on the royalist side and the Egyptians on the republican side. In 1967, Egypt had overthrown King Farouk only fifteen years before, and sought to impose that recent history in Yemen. But now that memory of overthrowing a royal dynasty, that was not actually of Egyptian origin anyway, has faded and Egypt and the Saudi Kingdom can be closer friends.
The same goes for Pakistan. It is a relatively new country, and while it has not officially had a king, it's military rulers, who seem able to interrupt the democratic process whenever they find it necessary, resonate with Saudi kings in the same way as the rulers of Egypt. Since there was no king in Pakistan, the military leaders did not differentiate themselves from any kingdom by overthrowing it. To get along with Saudi Arabia, it is better to never have had a king than to have had one and overthrown him.
Next, we come to Saudi-Turkish relations. Modern Turkey began when Ataturk overthrew the last Ottoman sultan (a king), abolished the Islamic Caliphate (which IS is claiming to have brought back), and modernized the country, including adopting the Latin script. This would seem to put it at odds with Saudi Arabia, but the relationship is softened by the fact that Ataturk overthrew the same Ottoman dynasty that had ruled Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis generally get along with all nearby monarchies the exception, at the time of this writing, being Qatar. But kings are not all created equal. There are constitutional monarchies, in which the royals abide by a constitution and then there are the old-style "real" kings, who answer to no one. Qatar, unlike Saudi Arabia, is a constitutional monarchy. The Saudis accuse it of being too close to Iran. Most of all, the Saudis are irritated by it's government-funded, and globally popular news service, Al Jazeera. A "real" monarchy wouldn't allow such freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
Saudi Arabia also tends to have exceptionally good relations with monarchies outside the Middle East, such as Britain and Japan. King Abdullah even went for a ride, with Queen Elizabeth driving, in Scotland, even though women are not allowed to drive in his country.
Jordan is a Middle East country that seems to have good relations with nearly everyone. It is a kingdom, but a very moderate kingdom. Using this scenario here, it's good relations are the result of it getting into a moderate position that any nearby country can be comfortable with.
There have been efforts at Arab unity in the past, but these efforts revolved around Egypt, Syria, Libya and, Iraq, all of which none of the rulers are officially kings, even though the leader of Egypt is reminiscent enough of a pharaoh for the Saudi kingdom to resonate with.
Iran and Libya were not close during the 1980s, even though both were in conflict with the west and had many common enemies. The reason is explained by this scenario. Both had overthrown kings, but Libya had replaced the king with a leader (Moammar Gaddafi) wearing a military uniform, reminiscent of Saddam Hussein, and that represented a course different to that of Iran.
This also gives insight into Russian relations with the Middle East. The Soviets also overthrew a king, the tsar in 1917 in an echo of the French Revolution. At the time Egypt was on the republican side, against the king, in the Yemen Civil War of the 1960s, it was also an ally of the Soviet Union. But, as we saw above, this was not long after Egypt's overthrow in 1952 of the originally Ottoman Pasha Dynasty, when Egypt saw itself as an "over-thrower of kings". The main reason that this vision did not last, and the country is now a friend of Saudi Arabia, is simply that the Pasha dynasty was not originally Egyptian, it was imposed by the Ottomans who also ruled Saudi Arabia. It was also natural that Iraq and Libya would both be Soviet allies, they had overthrown kings too.
Can you see now why Anwar Sadat of Egypt eventually made peace with Israel (which, of course, got him assassinated)? Egypt's vision of itself in the "over-thrower of king to military leader" mode didn't last simply because the king that was overthrown (Farouk) was of a foreign dynasty that had been imposed on Egypt. The willingness to politically unite with other Arab military-ruled states, such as Libya, Iraq and Syria in the short-lived United Arab republic didn't last beyond this "over-throwers of king" phase either.
10) AMERICA AND THE KING FACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Iran recently (2017) held a free and fair election, for the country's president, which would be unimaginable in it's rival, Saudi Arabia. Yet the U.S. Government, especially Republicans, clearly prefers Saudi Arabia.
Iraq, before the 1991 Gulf War, was a secular and progressive society that was much more like a western society than nearby Iran or Saudi Arabia.
So, considering the principles that America stands for, the order of preference for these three countries in the Middle East should very clearly be:
1) Iraq
2) Iran
3) Saudi Arabia.
But the reality is exactly the opposite and, even though Saudi Arabia is about as far from being a democracy as any country in the region, fifteen of the nineteen attackers of 9/11 were Saudis, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, the country enthusiastically joined the 1973 Oil Embargo against the U.S. and, does not have diplomatic relations with America's close ally Israel, Saudi Arabia is America's favorite of the three countries.
America's first ally, who gave it diplomatic recognition and helped it to gain independence, was the Bourbon Dynasty of France. Not long afterward, America's close friends would be overthrown and guillotined by the French Revolution which, far from initially achieving it's goals, would end in the prototype of modern dictators, Napoleon.
Saudi Arabia is ruled by a king. This reminds America, especially the Republicans, of the king who gave it diplomatic recognition and helped it to gain independence.
Iran, while considerably closer to being a democracy than Saudi Arabia, overthrew a king, the Shah, who had been a close ally of America. This reminds America, especially Republicans although Democrats are more willing to work with Iran, of the French Revolution that overthrew and guillotined America's close friends.
Iraq, having a history of being the closest of the three to a secular and progressive western society, is led by a military dictator, Saddam Hussein, who had overthrown a king. This reminds America of Napoleon who, although the king and queen were already dead by the time he came to power, became the symbol of the events that overthrew and killed them.
This also illuminates U.S.-Russia relations. America's Republicans are really the continuation of the Bourbon Dynasty. The Soviets overthrew and executed their king (tsar) in the same way that the French Revolution had done to the French Bourbons. This explains America's Republican anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s, known as the McCarthy Era. But by the 2016 U.S. election, Communism had long since been replaced by Vladimir Putin, who was more like a throwback to the tsars. This time, it was America's Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton, that was at odds with Russia for allegedly interfering in the election. If the Republicans are really the Bourbons, then the Democrats are the revolutionaries who overthrew the Bourbons, and Putin is more like a Romanov that met a parallel fate at the hands of Russia's revolutionaries.
11) AMERICA'S DIFFERENCES FROM THE OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES
America is seen as the western country that is the most "different" from the others. I explain this simply in that, while all western countries were greatly affected by the French Revolution, the rest were affected by the Revolution and what came after, while America was more affected by the monarchy which came before.
America is traditionally at least a little bit more religious than the typical other western country. But this can be traced to the hostility of the French Revolution toward Christianity. It began an active program of "de-Christianization", and actually developed it's own religion. The intense battles in France during reformation times, between Catholics and Huguenots, certainly influenced the French Revolution and it's hostility to traditional religion. The monarchy before it may not have been particularly religious but it ruled in conjunction with, and with the blessings of, a very powerful church.
While the world gladly accepts what America has to offer, from Google to Facebook, it is also somewhat mystified by many things about it. One of those things is America's harsh, and sometimes irrational, justice system. America has far and away a greater percentage of it's population in prison than any of the other western countries, or virtually any other country in the world. But, once again, this is reflected in the monarchist France that was once it's closest, and only ally. The author Victor Hugo wrote the classic "Les Miserables", revolving around a man in early Paris who had spent nineteen years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread. One of the two buildings near Ben Franklin Parkway that is a copy of the two identical buildings on Place Concorde is a courthouse, and so we should expect that those values would be brought to America.
The protests across America against unjustified police shootings could have some root in the name of Lafayette across America. Lafayette was later in charge of France's National Guard and, during the French Revolution, his guardsmen opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators in the Champs de Mars, where the Eiffel Tower is now located, killing up to fifty people.
America is also the only western country that executes people. But the building on Place Concorde where Ben Franklin gained diplomatic recognition for the United States was right in front of where the guillotine was set up, and where the French king and queen were executed. This is where America gets it's stubborn adherence to capital punishment.
The king and queen were in front of this building when they were being executed, and it is likely the last thing that they saw. Could they have imagined that what took place in that building, years before, would lead to their dynasty continuing, if not actually in name, on the other side of the ocean in the country that they had helped to gain independence?
America has mystified much of the world with it's laws allowing private gun ownership. But remember America's close allies being overthrown in the French Revolution. The symbol of the Revolution is the Storming of the Bastille. France's national day is July 14, which commemorates this event. The Bastille was a prison in Paris, where a vast number of guns and ammunition was stored. This is what the revolutionaries were after, and their success at seizing it gave them the armaments that were vital to the success of the Revolution, while leaving the royal authorities in that area of Paris virtually defenseless. Had the Storming of the Bastille not been successful, it is likely that the French Revolution would not have succeeded either and America's close allies, the Bourbons, would have remained in power. When someone like Barack Obama proposes to take their guns away from America's Republicans, it brings back historical memories of the Bastille, even if they do not realize it.
This is the popular image of the French Revolution more than anything else, and is the root of America's gun culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg
America's Republicans are more likely to think that going to war is necessary than Democrats. But, once again, Republicans are the heirs of the French kings. The Bourbon Dynasty had a vast empire, and warfare was necessary on a regular basis to defend and enlarge it.
The French Revolution was reenacted in 2003, when America's Bush Administration sought U.N. approval to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, who historically reminded them of Napoleon. This was not possible because France, now long a post-monarchy country, said that it would use it's veto power to block it. This caused indignation among America's Republicans, with some fast-food restaurants even renaming french fries as "freedom fries". But Republicans were simply acting out their role as the heirs of France's past monarchy, while the France of today was in it's new role of peaceful socialist post-monarchy and imperial power, where the ideals of the revolution that overthrew the monarchy had played out.
Notice that, even though America and France are close allies, the ghost of history is still there. A Republican campaign point in the 2004 presidential election was that John Kerry could speak French. What kind of American president speaks French? Even though any number of top American Republicans can speak Spanish, or other languages. Also notice that, although four Paris streets are named for U.S. presidents, Washington, Wilson, Roosevelt and, Kennedy, none are for Republican presidents.
One thing that really used to mystify me was why America was the only country in the world which had not officially adopted the Metric System. The Metric System did gradually seep into the United States, but why was America so resistant to it? I noticed that Republican Ronald Reagan was more opposed to it than Democrat Jimmy Carter had been. But the Metric System is a creation of the French Revolution, the same nasty, atheistic, disorganized and, irrational revolution that overthrew and guillotined America's close friends. The French Revolution came up with both a new calendar, with a ten-day week, which didn't last, and this new way of measuring, which did last.
This scenario is not as black-and-white as it might seem. France itself never completely escaped the monarchy. The "Axe Historique" in Paris begins with a statue of the executed king, Louis XVI. One room in the Palais Garnier, the centerpiece of the restoration of Paris long after the French Revolution, is clearly modeled on the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Op%C3%A9ra_Garnier_-_le_Grand_Foyer.jpg
The Hall of Mirrors is where France chose to have the armistice of the First World War signed. The lower house of the French Legislature meets in the Palais Bourbon, named for the Bourbon Dynasty. The U.S. also certainly influenced developments in France, Lafayette later turned down the chance to become dictator just as had his friend, George Washington, done in America. The Reformation, which provided the patterns for the French Revolution, and British influence also shaped America. The preaching and spreading of democracy across the world, which America feels compelled to do, is a reflection of the French Revolution's ideals, and not of the monarchy which it overthrew.
The U.S. flag is a variation of the flag of the British East India Company:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_(1707).svg
This was the first U.S. flag, after independence was declared, and the flags of Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii and, Ontario still include the British flag in the upper left:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Grand_Union_Flag.svg
It seems to me that the idea of the stars on the U.S. flag came from the coat of arms of the House of Guise, a prominent family of the French nobility, but with stars replacing the fleur-de-lis, as seen on the left side of the coat of arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Guise#/media/File:Armoiries_ducs_de_Guise.svg
The design of the British flag may have even influenced the design of Paris. Napoleon III did much of the thinking about grand reconstruction of Paris, which began in the mid-Nineteenth Century, while in exile in London. He was also responsible for the building of the Suez Canal. The convergence of streets, from different angles to a central square, such as is seen all over Paris, appears very much like the design of a British flag.
But I think we can say that Paris and the revolution which began there has shaped the modern world, and so much of what America is about has been a more than two centuries-long reenactment of the French Revolution.
Remember that the primary factor that makes America different from the other western countries is that, while the entire modern world was shaped by the French Revolution, the rest were more affected by the Revolution and what came after. Napoleon set the pattern of the modern dictator. While America was more affected by the monarchy before the Revolution, which had helped it gain independence and had been the first foreign country to give it diplomatic recognition.
Have you ever heard the very interesting fact that nearly every major figure in the French Revolution, which has done so much to shape the modern world, was a Freemason?
12) THE FUTURE
Finally, if the story of the French Revolution has done so much to shape the present, what might it be able to tell us about the future? The Bible foretells that the Antichrist, the great dictator of the Last Days of the world, will go into the Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem, which supposedly doesn't yet exist and has to be on the Temple Mount where the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are now located, and claim to be God himself.
Napoleon couldn't have been the Antichrist, but he certainly created the prototype of the modern dictator. We see that, similar to the Antichrist in the future, Napoleon went into Notre Dame Cathedral and had himself crowned as emperor. He insisted that the pope be present, but play no active role in the coronation, thus putting himself above the church:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacques-Louis_David,_The_Coronation_of_Napoleon_edit.jpg
Another parallel is the attempt, during the French Revolution, to replace Christianity with a religion of it's own making, the Cult of the Supreme Being:
I was struck by how Napoleon's famed Arc de Triomphe faces toward Notre Dame, but looks a lot like an inverted version of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NotreDameDeParis.jpg
The Eglise de la Madeleine (Church of Madeleine), also known simply as La Madeleine, is the building with columns seen between the two identical buildings facing Place Concorde:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fontaine-place-de-la-concorde-paris.jpg
It was later made into a church, but was originally built by Napoleon as a temple dedicated to the glory of his army. The interior centers on a large fresco depicting Napoleon as a Christ-like figure, leading the people. The painting is called "The History of Christianity":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%89glise_de_la_Madeleine_1,_Paris_July_2011.jpg
Ironically, just as there is a movement to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, there is also a movement to rebuild the Tuileries Palace in Paris. This was Napoleon's main residence when he was in power, and where he had served as Captain of the Guard earlier in his career.
13) THE INFLUENCE OF THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
Let's just have a quick look at England, across the English Channel from France, to see how much of the precedence for the French Revolution originated in the English Civil War.
What is referred to as the English Civil War was actually several separate conflicts. The war resulted in the execution of King Charles I, and the exile of his son who would eventually reign as Charles II. The monarchy was replaced with first the Commonwealth of England and then the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell.
This interruption in the monarchy is sometimes referred to as the Interregnum and lasted from 1649-1660. What is known as the Restoration brought the monarchy back, and ended the Interregnum, in 1660. One parliament, known as the Rump Parliament, opposed the execution of Charles I. It was replaced by the Protectorate Parliament, but the rump parliament was brought back prior to the Restoration of the monarchy.
Oliver Cromwell, who ruled as Lord Protector during the interruption in the monarchy, turned down being king himself, which would have begun a new dynasty, because he thought it was his divine mission to abolish the monarchy. But after Cromwell's death, his son did not inspire the same confidence. This is what led to the end of the interregnum and the Restoration of the monarchy.
The English Civil War was fought between the Royalists, supporters of the monarchy, and the Parliamentarians, supporters of the parliament. The Royalists are sometimes referred to as Cavaliers, and the Parliamentarians as Roundheads. The Royalists won the early battles but the turning point seems to have been, in military terms, the Seige of Gloucester. The Royalists failed to capture Gloucester from the Parliamentarians, and after that it was they who won most of the battles.
The war ended with a Parliamentarian victory. The future King Charles II famously escaped, following defeat at Worcester, by hiding in an oak tree. His father, Charles I, was beheaded at the Banqueting House on January 30, 1649.
This war is usually portrayed in religious terms. The religious side of the war was that it was between the Puritan Parliamentarians and the Anglican Royalists.
This was 130 years after the Reformation had begun, but it was not a Protestant-Catholic conflict. It was between two factions of Protestants. The Puritans were extremely conservative Protestants who wanted nothing to do with any kind of compromise with Catholicism. The Anglicans, in contrast, thought it best to establish a national church that was a compromise between such extreme Protestants and the remaining Catholics.
But what I want to point out today is the very long-lasting political influence of this war. It literally changed the way that the world is governed.
The French Revolution, which came 140 years later, is generally considered as the launching of the modern political era. But this much lesser-known and less-widespread war is what set the precedence for it.
The French revolutionaries had a lot in common with the Puritans, even if they did want to abolish conventional religion. The military leader that Napoleon was, having his power base neither in royalty nor religion, had it's prototype in Oliver Cromwell and the Protectorate which was direct military rule that was not subservient to either king or church.
The executions in France of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, their rule replaced by a series of committees, first the Committee of General Defense, then the Committee of Public Safety, then the Directory, followed by the military rule of Napoleon parallels the execution of Charles I, his rule replaced by the Committee of Safety to set the precedence of the country being governed as a republic, but being supervised by the military rule of Oliver Cromwell.
There was a lot of similarity between the organizations set up to administer the country after the execution of Charles I in England, the Committee of Safety which was set up by parliament, and the series of French revolutionary organizations which governed the country during the revolution. The French Royalty was executed and the National Assembly was ultimately formed to replace them, making the country a republic. In England in a similar way but over a century earlier, Charles I was executed by the forces of parliament, whose rule replaced his.
U.S. independence also followed exactly the same precedence except that it was called a congress, rather than a parliament or National Assembly, and a president was inaugurated as, in effect, a "temporary" king.
The Meiji Restoration in Japan, replacing the military rule of the Tokugawa Shogunate with the full power of the emperor, also greatly resembles the pattern of the monarchy being restored in England after military rule, two hundred years before. But with the emperor ultimately having less real power than before.
The monarchy in England was ultimately restored, Charles II being crowned as king. The Protectorate that had displaced and executed his father was dismantled. But when it was all over, the monarchy had less power than before and the parliament had more power than before. The king now needed the support of parliament, which represented the people. That is what set the pace for the modern world.
England had experienced being run as a republic, with power based on the will of the people and not on royalty or the church. The prototype of the modern leader from the military had been set. There was religious freedom that there hadn't been before.
After the Restoration of the monarchy, Parliament had more power than ever before. But there were differences of opinion between it's members. That is what led to the founding of modern political parties. The modern terms of political "right" and "left" began when members of Parliament used to sit on opposite sides of the aisle, according to their political views.
There was the definite influence of the Reformation on these changes. It was the removal of the monarch's "divine right to rule", just as the Reformation removed the divine right of anyone to rule over the church.
Some say that it was the Magna Carta that began modern democracy. But the peak of England's monarchy was Henry VIII (the eighth), which came three centuries after the Magna Carta. It was this English Civil War that really shifted the balance of power from the king to the Parliament, which was elected by and represented the people. The world has been governed differently ever since.
Religion would no longer be absolutely dictated by the monarch. Protestant churches mostly did away with the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Only Anglicans and Lutherans, the two Reformation movements that retained the most Catholic liturgy, still had bishops and archbishops. New denominations, such as the Baptists and Presbyterians and later the Methodists, were far more egalitarian and reflected the new movement towards democracy.
The divisions of the English Civil War can still be seen in the differences today between the cities and the countryside. It is said that America's great political division is between the Democrat coasts and the Republican "heartland". But England's is between urban and rural areas. This is the legacy of the power base of the Royalists being in the countryside, while that of the Parliamentarians was in the cities.
14) THE DUPONT STORY
I live not far from what used to be a DuPont factory. The factory became part of Chemours, which was a spin-off of DuPont, and then it closed. DuPont was probably the most important industrial name in town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#/media/File:Dupont_logo18.png
We saw how the Republican side of America is actually a continuation of the Bourbon Dynasty of France. We should be aware of the story behind this company and how it represents what America is today.
One of the best-known kings ever was Louis XVI (the sixteenth) of France. He was the one that, along with his queen Marie Antoinette, was overthrown and guillotined in the French Revolution of 1789.
Pierre Samuel DuPont was of minor nobility and had opposed the execution of the king. He was thus due for execution himself but got a reprieve and left for America. His son was a gunpowder manufacturer who had been taught by Antoine Lavoisier, considered by many as the founder of modern Chemistry.
The DuPont family were Huguenots, French Protestants who battled with Catholics for France as we saw in the posting on this blog, "Christmas In Paris".
They started a gunpowder mill in the U.S. which would eventually become one of the most important chemical producers in the world. The DuPont family was instrumental in bringing America and Britain to peace to end America's Revolutionary War and in selling the Louisiana Purchase to America. The family would become devout American Republicans and the former Louisiana Purchase is what would today be called the "heartland" of America's Republican voters.
The company would manufacture much of the gunpowder used by the Union Army in the U.S. Civil War. It would find a way to synthesize ammonia for industrial use, which was vital for the production of fertilizer and explosives. It would develop materials that it is difficult to imagine life without, such as nylon, neoprene and kevlar.
Another DuPont by the name of Pierre would become president of General Motors. He would make it the number one automaker in America, a position it has held ever since.
But the name of DuPont in French means "Bridge". Considering the scenario that we saw in "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris", with America's Republicans being really the continuation of the Bourbon Dynasty of France, probably never has a family so well lived up to it's name. The DuPont family formed a dynasty that operated in much the same way as the Bourbon Dynasty that was overthrown in the French Revolution, ruling the company instead of the country.
The great technical accomplishment that the Bourbon Dynasty is known for is the first time humans had ever flown through the air. The flight was a demonstration by the paper manufacturers, the Montgolfier Brothers, who had made a hot air balloon. The inspiration for flying was to find a way to attack the British fortress at Gibraltar, which was difficult to attack by either land or sea.
The DuPont family brought the legacy of that balloon launch to America and, just as the material of which the balloon was made had to be carefully made, the products of their chemistry company were vital to the Apollo Space Program.
The DuPont company contributed greatly to the development of nuclear bombs. Just as that balloon during the Bourbon Dynasty was developed to attack a fortress that had water around it, so nuclear weapons were developed to save attacking Japan by a land invasion, since it was essentially an island fortress.
As the balloon was developed to attack Gibraltar from the air, and DuPont carried the legacy of the Bourbon Dynasty to America, the nylon that was developed by DuPont would become essential for parachutes, which paratroopers use to attack from the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgolfier_brothers#/media/File:1783_balloonj.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute#/media/File:US_Army_paratroopers_Fort_Bragg.jpg
DuPont would come back to it's ancestral homeland to defend it, not only by bullets propelled by it's gunpowder, but also with poison gas in World War One. Just as the balloon of the Bourbon Dynasty was to find a novel way to attack, heavier-than-air poison gases were intended as a novel way to neutralize enemy trenches.
Another legacy of that balloon and it's military mission is bulletproof vests made of kevlar, which was developed at DuPont.
If, as we saw in this scenario, America's Republican side is the legacy of the French Bourbon Dynasty, and the founder of DuPont escaped the overthrow of that dynasty and brought it's legacy to America, then very rarely has a family ever lived up to it's name as DuPont means "Bridge", a bridge between the Bourbon Dynasty and America as it's successor.
SPAIN
A mostly forgotten event today is the attempted Spanish coup of 1981. Francisco Franco had died in 1975. Both the democratic process and the monarchy had been restored.
On February 1981 elements of the military stormed the lower house of the Spanish Parliament and held everyone there hostage. There was a parallel coup in the city of Valencia. What they wanted was a restoration of Francoism. The Spanish king, Juan Carlos, was credited with saving democracy in Spain by making an address turning public opinion against the coup.
This attempted coup is an ideal example of the events across the world that are reenactments of the French Revolution, which opened the modern political era, but how the elements of it get rearranged.
First, notice the storming connection. Members of the Spanish military stormed the Congress of Deputies. Remember that the signature event of the French Revolution was the Storming of the Bastille. The signature event of the October Revolution was the Storming of the Winter Palace. The signature event of the Iranian Revolution was the Storming of the U.S. Embassy. The signature event of the would-have-been Donald Trump Revolution was the Storming of the Capitol, on January 6.
The pieces tend to be there in every reenactment of the French Revolution, but may be rearranged and fall into different patterns. The pieces are the storming, the king, the one that overthrew the king, the institutions of democracy and, the place of religion.
In the French Revolution the king was overthrown and the monarchy abolished. The revolution was very hostile to the church. It resulted in the emergence of Napoleon, as a military leader, although that was not the intention of the revolution and he had nothing to do with starting it. After the time of Napoleon the monarchy was, at least temporarily, restored as a constitutional monarchy with the institutions of democracy. Napoleonism, France ruled by an emperor, was later temporarily restored by his nephew, known as Napoleon III or Louis Napoleon.
The October Revolution followed a course that was very similar to the French Revolution, with Lenin in the place of Napoleon. The major difference was that Lenin did initiate the revolution and was not from the military. The fabled execution of the Tsar and his family was a reenactment of the execution of the Bourbons, except that the Romanovs were shot privately while the Bourbons were guillotined publicly.
The Iranian Revolution followed a similar course to the French and October Revolutions except that the Shah and his family got away, instead of being executed. Khomeini returned to Iran on an Air France jet, as opposed to Lenin on a train. The major difference was the role of religion. The French Revolution was hostile to the established church and the October Revolution officially atheist, but the Iranian Revolution was about the reestablishment of religion.
Francisco Franco abolished the Spanish monarchy, reflecting the role of Napoleon, although it was later restored, the same as with France. The attempted coup of 1981, seeking to restore Francoism, was a reflection of Napoleon III declaring himself as emperor and seeking to restore Napoleonism.
Ayatollah Khomeini had an element of Franco in that Franco had abolished the monarchy and supported the church and the 1981 coup had an element of the Iranian Revolution in that it came just after the Hostage Crisis had ended and took the Congress of Deputies hostage.
The Storming of the Congress of Deputies was a reenactment of the Storming of the Bastille, in neighboring France, but this time the king, Juan Carlos who was also of the House of Bourbon, was the one to end the crisis by turning public opinion against the coup.
There are a lot of parallels between neighboring France and Spain regarding coups that are inevitably attempted reenactments of the French Revolution. The Spanish Coup of July 1936 began in Morocco just as the French Coup of 1961 began in Algeria. An address by Charles DeGaulle ended that coup just as the address by King Juan Carlos ended the coup in 1981.
The French Revolution is considered as having opened the modern political era but was not entirely original. There were predecessor events in England, although these events were not lastingly successful.
Oliver Cromwell's execution of the king and abolition of the monarchy in the name of religion was later to be closely reenacted by Ayatollah Khomeini. It was also reenacted, although more moderately, by church-supporting Francisco Franco. It was certainly reenacted by the French Revolution, although against the church.
The Storming of the Bastille was preceded, in England, by the plot to set off a revolution that would reverse the Reformation and return the country to Catholicism by destruction the Parliament with barrels of gunpowder. We saw this in "The Far Reaching Story Of Guy Fawkes", April 2022.
What will be the next element added in this series of revolutions, where the elements get arranged in different forms? It might be the addition of a building and it might come from India.
The signature event of the turn of the Indian Government from secularism to Hinduism was the storming of the mosque in Ayodhya, in 1992. The Mughals once ruled northern India and had supposedly destroyed a sacred Hindu temple and replaced it with this mosque. The leader of the turn to Hinduism was Narendra Modi. This shows, again, that the Iranian Revolution, in contrast with the earlier French and October Revolutions, had turned the tide of revolution from secularism and atheism back to religion. The recent opening of a great Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi is a new signature revolutionary event. This is a mirror image of the Taj Mahal in that, just as the Taj Mahal is a Moslem structure built by the Mughals in a mostly Hindu country, the new Hindu temple is for Indian workers in a Moslem country.
ITALY
Possibly no nation has had it's history shaped by it's flag as much as Italy. Spain was affected by the French Revolution, which opened the modern political era, but rearranged the pieces of the revolution in it's own way. The same applies to Italy. We see the pieces of the French Revolution but rearranged in a different way.
Italy became a united country in 1871. The following illustration is from the Wikipedia article "Flag of Italy". The design in the center represents the House of Savoy and was removed from the flag when the monarchy was abolished by referendum in 1946.
Italy was greatly affected by Napoleon. He was from an Italian family on Corsica, and was born when the island had only very recently come under French control. Napoleon had emerged from the French Revolution to conquer most of Europe, although he had nothing to do with starting the revolution. Napoleon spread the ideals of the French Revolution across Europe.
The basis of these ideals are the overthrow of monarchy in favor of a republic where everyone had rights. The Revolution was represented by the tricolor flag, which is the flag of France today, and which is the same as the Italian flag except with blue instead of green. Italians generally shared the values of the French Revolution and the Italian flag is their version of the tricolor.
But, as with Spain, Italy would have it's own way of implementing the modern revolutionary ideals. Modern Italy had actually been put together by the House of Savoy, which was the royal family of Piedmont and Sardinia. Upon unification the Savoy king became the king of all of Italy. The first king was Victor Emmanuel II. The following image from Google Street View shows the monument that was dedicated to him in Rome, adjacent to the Forum from ancient Rome.
So what made Italy's implementation so different from that of France is that while the central event of the French Revolution was the overthrow and public execution of the king and queen, by guillotine, Italy had the revolutionary ideals while ruled by a king.
What I think of as the "Tomato Connection" is that Christopher Columbus was actually Italian, from Genoa. Tomatoes, which are so important in Italian cuisine today in the form of paste and sauce, are from the western hemisphere and were brought to Europe as part of the "Columbian Exchange". Then Napoleon, from an Italian family, brought the revolutionary ideals of the tricolor flag to Italy and the Italian version of the tricolor ended up with the same red and green as the tomato plant. The following image is from the Wikipedia article "Tomato".
There is also a religious side to the Tomato Connection. "Tomato" is actually from an Aztec word and we saw in the compound posting "The Aztec Prophecy", April 2018, how Our Lady of Guadalupe became the most visited Catholic site in the world.
The figure most associated with the French Revolution is Napoleon. Even though he had nothing to do with starting the revolution and executing the king and queen, and was actually what brought the revolution to a conclusion, he was the one who spread it's ideals across Europe. The French revolutionaries were obsessed with the number ten. They implemented a day with ten hours, a week with ten days, and a year with ten months. The one thing that lasted was their measurement system based on ten and water, the Metric System, and Napoleon's enthusiasm for it is why we are using it today.
But Italy having it's own version of the tricolor meant that, according to the forces of history, it had to have it's own version of Napoleon that could not be a king. The figure that emerged was Benito Mussolini. Although Napoleon spread the ideals of the French Revolution he was also the prototype of the modern dictator. The son of Victor Emmanuel II, Umberto I, had been assassinated and his son, Victor Emmanuel III, appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister.
But Mussolini managed to consolidate enough power to be the Italian version of Napoleon. This had to happen because the tricolor flag demanded a Napoleonic figure. Mussolini portrayed himself as a modern Roman Emperor, and lived adjacent to the Forum, although I see him as being in the mode of Napoleon, who had also proclaimed himself as a Roman Emperor.
Napoleon had been involved in Spain, as in Italy, and Spain also had to have it's version of Napoleon, in the form of Francisco Franco. But the monarchy in Spain, actually the same House of Bourbon that Napoleon had replaced, was abolished to make way for Franco, although it was later restored and remains today. In Italy the monarchy and the Napoleonic figure existed together.
What happened in Italy is that the monarchy and the Napoleonic figure fatally weakened each other, because they were two opposing strands of history and, during the 1940s, both were eliminated. The monarchy was abolished by referendum but the end of Mussolini was more violent.
A characteristic of the French Revolution, and the many revolutions that have reenacted it, have been some kind of "storming" of something representing the authority of the old order. The signature event of the French Revolution was the Storming of the Bastille. In the October Revolution it was the Storming of the Winter Palace. In the Iranian Revolution it was the U.S. Embassy. In the movement supporting Donald Trump it was the Capitol Building. In Spain it was the Storming of the Congress of Deputies. In India it was the mosque in Ayodha.
So if Italy had implemented it's own version of Napoleon and the French Revolution, according to the history of it's tricolor flag, then there must have been some kind of "storming" of something representing the authority of the old order. There was Mussolini's "March on Rome" but that doesn't quite fit because the storming has to be a somewhat spontaneous uprising by the populace, not something organized by an authority figure.
Just as Spain had reenacted the historical spectacle of the French Revolution and Napoleon, but with the pieces rearranged, so did Italy. What happened in Italy is that the Napoleon came first, in the form of Mussolini. The "storming" was a repudiation of Mussolini by the beating of his suspended body, after he had been shot, by a crowd of people in Milan. The hanging of his body, in a public square, is a reenactment of the execution of the French king and queen in Place Concorde.
So the Italian version of the French Revolution was for the Napoleon to come first and then the storming and the public execution to be directed against him, rather than against the monarchy. But the monarchy had been fatally wounded by it's association with Mussolini, and was abolished by referendum not long afterward. The design on the flag representing the House of Savoy has been removed.
#/media/File:Paris_1889_plakat.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Vue_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale_de_l%27Exposition_universelle_de_1889.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
