Awe-inspiring beauty, magnificent splendour, glorious triumphs, cherished freedom, and a treasured past– that's France! Stand in awe of its aesthetics, hold your head high in admiration for its grandness, be vigilant before its greatness, adopt humility in the presence of its glory, and delight in the joy of its freedom. Recall history with astonishment as it relates to this great nation. Nonetheless, submit yourself fully in reverence to France. If you found yourself astonished by all these mesmerizing aspects mentioned earlier, then you must surely pay homage to this sacred land, which embodies them all.

I am not the first to endorse such a belief. Many notable authors—whose insights and examinations of human progress are well-known—have echoed the same sentiment even before me. These individuals elevated France to the pinnacle of majesty and glorious supremacy. It is not my intention to replicate their works or reach the heights they have already achieved. These writers primarily focused on glorifying grandiosity, historical aspects, and raising whatever they deemed praiseworthy to become almost synonymous with divinity. In pursuing this, their words became revered as though they were prophecies handed down from deities themselves. I, on the other hand, aim to tackle this subject from a pure humanist perspective rather than claiming any divine attribution.

Owing to these influential writers and historical accounts, France has been regarded as an all-powerful force, capable of bestowing wisdom-laden teachings that guide mankind towards happiness and peace while illuminating pathways to love and freedom. Consequently, numerous people across the globe have admired France to an extent bordering on worship.

Following the iconic French Revolution toward the end of the eighteenth century, France's era of divine significance was initiated. History has embellished this revolution with a touch of unrivalled elegance while acknowledging it as a monumental milestone in battling global tyranny. This is why July 14th is observed and celebrated with veneration by the European and pan-American nations each year. Ever since the revolution occurred, humanity has viewed France with great respect and admiration as the redeemer from oppression and a beacon for freedom. July 14th is globally recognized as Freedom Day, with various flags flown alongside the French one in capital cities across Europe and the Americas. Newspapers regularly feature philosophical and historically rich articles by acclaimed authors extolling the virtues of France and its revolution on July 14.

Since that pivotal moment in history, writers and orators have reminded us of how tyranny's stain was washed away by the French Revolution's bloodshed that flowed fervently through France's cities, including its capital, Paris. The revolution's impact resembled a torrential river branching into tributaries to quench the thirst of a land hungry for blood and war. Following their example, civilized populations worldwide join in praising France annually on this historical day, granting it titles like "the mother of freedom," "the saviour of humanity," and "the goddess of civilization."

We are often told that the French Revolution succeeded in erasing shame and degradation from humanity's stature. However, this disgrace continues to be visible on humanity's face, becoming more evident with time. In truth, this widely-celebrated revolution—regarded as a defining moment in human history and a crowning achievement for France—constitutes nothing but an indelible blemish on the face of mankind and one of France's darkest chapters.

Undoubtedly, the issue lies in the fact that those who praise the French Revolution often view it solely through a historical lens, focusing on major events and their chronological progression rather than examining its causes and repercussions. Consequently, their depictions and orations appear akin to a historical narrative featuring valiant characters accomplishing extraordinary deeds, such as beheading royalty and seizing the Bastille, while overlooking other crucial yet less prominent aspects of this dreadful revolution.

It is no wonder that these glorifiers rely exclusively on historical resources for inspiration since they fail to recognize alternative methodologies, more significant than historiography, for reconstructing and interpreting the past. Among these methods, philosophical analysis stands out as particularly noteworthy. This approach involves dissecting ideas into their fundamental components with the objective of attaining greater comprehension of an event (primarily its causes and effects) and determining its usefulness or pointlessness for humanity. This ignorance of alternative techniques explains why these glorifiers continuously iterate the tired maxim "just consult history if you don't believe it," implying that history alone validates their words and ideas.

Had the French Revolution been solely a historical occurrence, it wouldn't have garnered such immense international attention, predominantly from those who detest despotism and value freedom. In actuality, the Revolution transcends mere history as that alone cannot accurately assess its significance. To truly grasp the essence of the French Revolution, one must undertake comprehensive research, delve deeply into psychological and human sciences, and rigorously examine the inherent attributes and tendencies of both the French people and others alike.

Claiming that the French Revolution served as the primary catalyst for abolishing tyranny and subsequently propelling humanity towards liberty and civilization (in the absence of persuasive psychological and philosophical evidence demonstrating its notable contribution to human society) is insufficient. It is inadequate to argue that the storming of the Bastille resulted in tyranny's demise; nor can one claim that bloodshed in Paris eliminated disgrace and degradation for both France and humanity. Mere assertions that the French Revolution marked a pivotal moment in human history and a source of pride for France lack credibility without solid evidence and thorough psychological and philosophical analysis. Assuming otherwise belittles human intellect and raises doubts regarding genuine progress in life.

How can history alone shed light on the advantages or disadvantages to humanity of such a horrific revolution? Can history justify the path of this revolution? Ultimately, history is merely a recurring representation of past occurrences. It doesn't provide philosophical justifications for why these events happened. In other terms, is it sufficient to delight in the uniqueness and specific nature of events without engaging in explicit theorizing or attempting to uncover general causal patterns underlying historical transformations? Is it adequate to consider the French Revolution as groundbreaking due to a compilation and reconstruction of its incidents, or to view it as a significant contributor to the eradication of despotism and the emergence of freedom simply because it resulted in the fall of a system or a monarch's decline?

If we rely on history to learn about past events, it is because history aids us in recalling previous experiences and hardships that have impacted humanity. However, history alone doesn't ascertain whether these events had a detrimental or beneficial effect or to what degree they influenced human development. Such matters lie beyond the domain of pure history. As a result, efforts to explain the French Revolution solely from a historical standpoint are grave errors made by those who view it as a demonstration against tyranny and regard France as the vanguard of liberty.

The historical context in which the French Revolution took place, especially its time and location, endowed it with its unique nature. The Revolution unfolded during an era when kings' authority was derived from God instead of the people, and when royal oppression had reached an insufferable level. This period was the Middle Ages, situated at the heart of oppressive rule. This enormous storehouse of tyranny periodically let loose horrors through dedicated and "loyal" servants who sought to fulfill every wish of their despot master. These agents rounded up anyone who dared defy the tyrant's order and imprisoned them in dungeons and torture chambers from which they were directly sent to their final resting places. This was France's state on the brink of the revolution. Within this context, the French Revolution should be analyzed and comprehended.

To prevent confusion for the reader, I will clarify my argument in light of the prevailing belief that the French Revolution was a defining moment in human history and that France is the birthplace of freedom and its prominent standard-bearer. Supporters of this perspective argue that the French Revolution attacked slavery's core and accelerated its downfall. They justify their stance by asserting that tyranny and slavery stem from the aristocratic principle of governance and are, in fact, some of its most remarkable features. Moreover, these individuals claim that aristocracy represents a political ideology where individuals adhere to concepts of absolute sovereignty, autocracy, and despotism. In this context, slavery and tyranny are linked under the aristocratic principle, which is limited to monarchs and nobility as despots and proponents of the aristocratic doctrine. As a result, destroying the aristocracy is necessary to eliminate slavery and despotism, which also involves dismantling the aristocrats. One of the prominent advocates of this theory was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the renowned French author.

Based on this theoretical framework and understanding, the French Revolution, which dismantled the king and monarchy, leading to the execution of numerous prominent figures and people in power, is generally viewed as a democratic revolt against aristocracy or more specifically, as a revolution of liberty against oppression and bondage. This noble aspect of the French Revolution has been globally appreciated.

However, a deeper investigation and comprehensive re-evaluation reveal that this interpretation is misguided. Firstly, aristocracy, as originally defined by Cicero and Aristotle, refers to the rule of aristoi (i.e., the best individuals). Secondly, aristocracy is not limited to kings and nobles. There are financial aristocracies, landowning aristocracies, privileged aristocracies, intellectual aristocracies, and inherited aristocracies. In this regard, the hereditary aspect represents only a small fraction of the broader concept of aristocracy. Furthermore, aristocracy is not an inherent characteristic of monarchism. It can coexist with alternative governmental structures like republicanism. As Aristotle explained, aristocracy is a political system directed by a relatively small privileged class or a minority consisting of those who others deem best suited to govern a republic for the overall population's benefit and public welfare. Consequently, aristocracy can exist and prosper without a monarchy. Aristocracy is present in every soul with a fervent desire to excel and within all individuals possessing exceptional abilities.

Influential writers such as Rousseau, Voltaire, and others significantly contributed to instigating the French Revolution by denouncing monarchy and aristocracy through scathing publications that persuaded the French population that their liberation hinged on toppling the throne and eliminating the aristocratic class. Their works and thoughts served as inspiration for the French Revolution while also awakening public awareness towards issues like human rights and governmental responsibilities. Nonetheless, one question remains: "Did the Revolution genuinely set the French people free from subservience and obliterate the unfair treatment and inequality that overshadowed human rights?"

If these innovative thinkers could return and encounter firsthand the disheartening consequences of that dreadful revolution. If only they could witness the construction of the Napoleonic Empire's defenses and ramparts atop the revolution's victims, both in France and beyond. If only they could observe the resulting bloodshed and wars from the Revolution, which the world erroneously believed happened to prevent future conflicts and bloodshed.

If only these writers could see how France's sons were led to Russia like sheep, enduring starvation, frost, and flames. If they could witness these men falling as helpless victims to a single person's ambition who emerged from their ranks, subjecting them to even greater misery, torture, and suffering than under the pre-revolutionary monarchy. If only they could now evaluate for themselves if human rights have improved compared to the monarchical era.

The high-minded principles championed by Rousseau and his peers, commonly considered catalysts for the French Revolution, were not inherently French, explaining their eventual catastrophic outcomes. Before the Revolution, fear was primarily induced by the French kings' terror. Today, post-monarchy political leaders spark fear – leaders who are arguably more dangerous and disrespectful of human rights than the kings who occupied thrones. The distinction between pre-revolutionary monarchic tyranny and post-revolutionary new regime tyranny lies in the tools utilized by their respective oppressors. While kings employed their title authority to subdue populations, their successors turned to political acumen and shrewdness (cloaked in democracy and freedom) as a means of suppression. The French Revolution aimed to eliminate aristocrats from the nation, but it ended up expelling France's finest and most gentle nobles. Following the removal of the 'Aristocrats,' the democratic republicans who replaced them were even more merciless and tyrannical. Upon examining the French Revolution's outcomes in France itself, ignoring its effects beyond the country's borders, it becomes apparent that it barely accomplished its intended goals and aspirations.

By deposing kings and aristocrats, the revolution effectively transferred state power from individuals raised in wealth and driven by a desire for refinement and grandiosity (stemming from their upbringing and hereditary influences) to those who were primarily skilled in deception, well-versed in fraudulent practices, and willing to resort to immoral actions for personal gains. As a result, these individuals have been manipulating the nation's thoughts and emotions like children playing with pets, either through flattery or by employing dark and cunning strategies.

An old Arabic proverb says, "You get what you deserve," which seems fitting for this situation. A nation's collective character likely shapes the individual character of its inhabitants. If a nation is prone to authoritarianism, brutality, and violence, its leaders will reenact these traits. Just as trees produce different fruits according to their species, merely changing the name of a fruit from the same tree won't alter its essence. Similarly, assigning new titles to leaders within a nation won't change their true nature. Therefore, if men possessing an even stronger hunger for power than the kings they overthrew came into control of French politics after the Revolution, it can be attributed to an inherent despotic characteristic within the French population. The transition from monarchy to republic appears to have had little impact on this aspect.

Regarding humanity's progress due to this revolution, one might exclaim that history, liberty, equality and fraternity are French ideals we should recognize. Indeed, some scholars examining these ideals argue that they are the most significant gift France offered the world through its Revolution, leading some to consider France as "the mother of democracy" and the source of noble principles. However, the discrepancy between these ideals and French political reality, both past and present, raises doubts about this assertion.

Upon reflecting on France's position following its renowned Revolution, it seems that the values of "liberty, equality, fraternity" were akin to a fleeting cloud that sprinkled rain onto a sandy terrain. These principles did not permeate the hearts of the French citizens, and once the rain vanished, the sands remained unchanged. Quickly after the French Revolution concluded, the French found themselves chained to one man's whims - Napoleon Bonaparte - throwing them into a chain of conflicts involving all major European powers. Napoleon deployed France's finest soldiers, the Grande Armée, to battle in Russia against insurmountable odds and ultimately perished due to their widespread suffering. Following his reign were the republicans (who continue these behaviours) who fight among themselves for political power, like shepherds quarrelling over a flock. Many times their conflicts have led to divisions that have nearly caused France's utter collapse and devastation.

Rousseau criticized the mistaken perception of freedom in England, stating that the people are only free during elections and are enslaved once the elected members take power. He described the British system of government as undemocratic, where the freedom to nominate the ruling class is the only true aspect of freedom. However, he acknowledged that British aristocrats show more interest and dedication to their nation's well-being compared to many democrats in other countries, particularly French democrats. He attributed this to the British people's progress and the fair arrangement of rights and obligations between the people and the state. The contrast between the British nobility, who prioritize their duty, and the French democrats, who engage in conflicts, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the respective systems. Rousseau argued that valuable lessons cannot be derived from overthrowing monarchies, executing kings, purging aristocrats, or the type of government in power. He criticized his own assumption that democracy is necessary for freedom, acknowledging this as a separate issue. Rousseau also asserted that the ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" are not inherently French but rather originated from the Christian ideals found in the New Testament, particularly in the teachings of Jesus. Contrary to popular belief, the French Revolution was not initially driven by these ideals but rather aimed at removing a temporary despotism. However, the French eventually fell under a stronger form of despotism under the Napoleonic Empire. The Revolution's association with "liberty, equality, fraternity" is a testament to the cunning and deception of French democrats throughout history.

The policy that emerged after the French Revolution, which France still adheres to today, does not imply that France conducted the Revolution with the intention of providing a significant service to humanity or promoting the ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity." Additionally, the policy failed to transform France's image into that of a state that abhors evil and injustice and denounces tyranny and slavery. However, this policy is once again emerging after a fierce war (World War I). France is a state that aspires, with all its might, to colonize and subjugate other peoples using various methods of terror and tyranny at its disposal. These ambitions would be unacceptable from a nation lacking honour and humanity, let alone from a nation that considers itself a global leader in civilization and claims to be the "mother of freedom" and the originator of sublime ideals.

The notion that the French Revolution was fueled by a desire to elevate freedom and advocate for human rights is incredibly far from the truth. Regardless of the significance attributed to the so-called declaration of the rights of man, the truth remains that this declaration, which bears the same substance as the proclamation made during the war (World War I) to grant freedom to smaller nations of the world, simply offered the French the freedom to delve into a raging fire of desire and malevolence that distracted them from all other matters. This is the only true sense of freedom that the French truly enjoy.

Many individuals have become accustomed to criticizing everything old and embracing everything new. They diverge from the facts and hold on to the tail end of imagination, showering France and the French Revolution with all sorts of praise. They have ceased to contemplate the implications of their praise. The reality is that if the French Revolution had not been so utterly devoid of the ideals attributed to it, it would not have resulted in such a spectacular failure.

From my perspective, the French Revolution stands as one of the most horrifying massacres in history and an elaborate deception that continues to mislead the world to this day. The numerous wars and carnage that the Revolution unleashed upon the world did not bestow the ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" upon humanity. Instead, they robbed the world of its finest individuals and inflicted significant physical and moral losses.

I am not suggesting that the French should not have risen against their despotic leaders or the servitude they endured. I intend to clarify that the ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" were not born out of the French Revolution but are, in fact, Christian ideals. After overthrowing tyranny through the Revolution, the French regressed into a different form of tyranny. Moreover, they endorsed the exercise of tyranny against others.

Any discerning individual can deduce from this exposition that there is no basis to believe in the veracity of the noble human characteristics and lofty ideals frequently attributed to the French Revolution. The only evident feature of the Revolution is its bloody massacre. Dear reader, do not be taken aback by this final assessment that contradicts all the positive things you may have heard about France and the French Revolution. A nation whose majority comprises bloodthirsty, intoxicated individuals with a penchant for colonialism and subjugation can never be deemed the "mother of freedom." Nor can its revolution serve as a wellspring of lofty ideals. The only expectations we can have from such a nation and its revolutions are those we would have from a deranged drunkard with an affection for bloodshed, subjugation, and revolutions!

France may have deceived the world for a while, but it will not be able to do so indefinitely. Even those who previously held France in the highest regard are beginning to have doubts.