Class warfare is not left-wing...

Yes it is, and you are a left-wing revolutionary.

...and by the way I believe in class harmony but the upper-classes have to submit their ideas and businesses to that of the nation, just as the working-class must work for the benefit of the nation.

Right, you are a liberal.  You believe in the liberal concept of the nation-state and believe in a deposit of authority apparently deriving from the people of a "nation."  I also believe that the upper class has duties to and should sacrifice itself for the good of the nation, but I have the mediaeval and ancient view of what a "nation" actually is, rather than your tainted Enlightenment theory.  I have explained the difference plenty of times on this forum.

Oh and by the way you act as if there were no government schools before the French Revolution.

There was no public education system like we see in all republican governments in Western Europe and North America today, right.

Also the French monarchy believed in the nation as well, considering the wars that all the nations had between eachother in Europe for hundreds of years.

Hah, sure.  The French monarchy is the antithesis of the liberal concept of the nation.  Many different nations of Romano-Gallic peoples, Basques, Normans, Bretons, Alsatians, and various other regional ethnicities composed the kingdom of France, though all of them would be considered French because of their place under the King of France.  Anyway, those wars between the nations were not understood in the same way at all as the modern nation-state understands itself, nor were they fought for the same motives and forms of organisation.

No my friend I am the antithesis of the French Revolution because I believe in religious instruction for one in public schools, and the French Revolution was anti-religious.

That hardly makes you the antithesis, haha.

I am also against the causes that lead up to the French Revolution i.e. the monarchy not giving a damn about the common people...

Obviously I dispute this claim that you unthinkingly made.

...also it seems strange to me why the monarchy did not ban the literature of revolutionaries eh?

Not really.  The reasons why Louis XV and Louis XVI did not use a heavier hand to root out vice, bad customs, and pernicious errors are well known and easy to understand if one knows very much about the culture of the XVIIIth century.  These two Kings were wrong to stay their hands in the way they did, and they could have stopped the Revolution if they were more serious about executing the duties laid out in their coronation oaths (one of which is "extirpating heretics").

Oh and I don't need to take a bunch of fancy college classes like an intellectual like yourself does, to know what I am talking about.

Apparently you do, since you have no idea what you are talking about.  Ironically, I did not need classes at university to become well-educated, yet I am pursuing a degree.  You do need these classes or some teacher to instruct and chastise you for insolence, yet you believe yourself to know very much.  Anyway, as I have learned more, I have become increasingly aware of how little I actually know and how little actually can be known.  Hopefully you will grow up one day and realise this lesson yourself.

I also laugh at your "centrailizing the government" argument since the government was heavily centralized around the absolute monarch in France.

No, it wasn't, not anything like how it is today.

Also "support of the working class" is not left-wing either since Papal docuмents support the working class given a chance to rise out of their conditions.

I never said "support of the working class," but it says a lot about your state of mind that you read it that way.  I believe in helping the poor and cultivating poverty of spirit amongst all the classes, as well as the creation of stable conditions for the lower classes to be securely employed in dignifying work.  Unlike you, however, I as a Catholic see socialism and class warfare as being categorically opposed to the interest of the lower classes and to the common good.

Hah, sure.  The French monarchy is the antithesis of the liberal concept of the nation.  Many different nations of Romano-Gallic peoples, Basques, Normans, Bretons, Alsatians, and various other regional ethnicities composed the kingdom of France, though all of them would be considered French because of their place under the King of France.  Anyway, those wars between the nations were not understood in the same way at all as the modern nation-state understands itself, nor were they fought for the same motives and forms of organisation.

Not to get in the way of this discussion, but do you know what was the reason for changing the traditional title en vogue till the reign of Philip II, the King of the Franks (Rex Francorum, Roi des Francs, as in other countries Rex Anglorum, Hungarorum etc.), to the King of France?

..for men of outstanding intelligence naturally take command, while those who are less intelligent but of more robust physique, seem intended by nature to act as servants;

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles

Bringing the discussion back to the topic.  
The Angelic Doctor's statement goes against everything most of us have been taught in the modern age.

Catholic monarchy vs. distributism vs. democracy vs the other 'isms'
The evil of pagan freedom vs the evil of slavery

Whew!

A strong papacy should guide man to all that is holy and best for his soul, including his leaders.

Quote from: PereJoseph

Hah, sure.  The French monarchy is the antithesis of the liberal concept of the nation.  Many different nations of Romano-Gallic peoples, Basques, Normans, Bretons, Alsatians, and various other regional ethnicities composed the kingdom of France, though all of them would be considered French because of their place under the King of France.  Anyway, those wars between the nations were not understood in the same way at all as the modern nation-state understands itself, nor were they fought for the same motives and forms of organisation.

Not to get in the way of this discussion, but do you know what was the reason for changing the traditional title en vogue till the reign of Philip II, the King of the Franks (Rex Francorum, Roi des Francs, as in other countries Rex Anglorum, Hungarorum etc.), to the King of France?

Pyrrhos,

1.  inspiring auto signature
2.  in my immense ignorance, I look forward to an answer to your question.  

Thank you!

Good quotes.
I wouldn't characterize him as a favorite of mine, since I tend to agree with this assessment:

In his darkest moments, he even suspected his own work – rightly – of having been contaminated by revolutionary thought

He seemed a troubled soul.

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles

Bringing the discussion back to the topic.  
The Angelic Doctor's statement goes against everything most of us have been taught in the modern age.

Catholic monarchy vs. distributism vs. democracy vs the other 'isms'
The evil of pagan freedom vs the evil of slavery

Whew!

A strong papacy should guide man to all that is holy and best for his soul, including his leaders.

Well to borrow from everyone's favorite Catholic conservative, Joseph de Maistre:

"I have spoken of the basic characteristics of true legislators...they are never intellectuals; they do not write; they act on instinct and impulse more than mere reasoning."

"No government has ever resulted from deliberation...popular rights are never written."

"No doubt a terrible suffering has come against French mathmeticians, scientists and philosophers but these were some of the strongest supporters of the Revolution."

Right, which is precisely why you should not be parroting some XXth century ideology and going on and on about "the Nation."

Joseph de Maistre is certainly a favourite of mine, one of the strongest influences on my thought, in fact.  I assure you that your class resentment is of a different species than the mature animosity for the intellectual class harboured by the great Savoyard lawyer (and myself).  You are prescribing an ideology in the name of fighting ideology and conflating those who learn from history, theology, philosophy, and experience with the decadent and degenerate academics, natural scientists, calculators, and soi-disant philosophers who have advanced the Revolution.

Right, which is precisely why you should not be parroting some XXth century ideology and going on and on about "the Nation."

Joseph de Maistre is certainly a favourite of mine, one of the strongest influences on my thought, in fact.  I assure you that your class resentment is of a different species than the mature animosity for the intellectual class harboured by the great Savoyard lawyer (and myself).  You are prescribing an ideology in the name of fighting ideology and conflating those who learn from history, theology, philosophy, and experience with the decadent and degenerate academics, natural scientists, calculators, and soi-disant philosophers who have advanced the Revolution.

You really obsess over every little thing I say, but nevertheless...

I'm guessing myself being against free trade and demanding corporations pay a living wage is now consider "class resentment." I don't even want to bother with such foolish assertions.