LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Aellex]

If apologists are gonna piss themselves over some little princeling getting a close shave perhaps they should remember that if monarchism makes every royal's child, especially one in line to inherit, an equal part of that regime. Blame the royals for hiding behind their kids.

"Killing children is justified as long as it's the ruling class!"

Jee, because yeeting the King's head off wasn't enough, you wanted to separate everyone's heads from their bodies.

Just force the remaining royal members to abide to a pact of completely staying out of politics.

>when he's actually for real when he says that shit

[Valrifell]

If apologists are gonna piss themselves over some little princeling getting a close shave perhaps they should remember that if monarchism makes every royal's child, especially one in line to inherit, an equal part of that regime. Blame the royals for hiding behind their kids.

"Killing children is justified as long as it's the ruling class!"

Jee, because yeeting the King's head off wasn't enough, you wanted to separate everyone's heads from their bodies.

Just force the remaining royal members to abide to a pact of completely staying out of politics.

They're going to break that pact the second they step foot in Vienna and tell the Habsburgs that the peasantry are being uppity again. Great way to have a very temporary revolution.

You'd have to exile them to some small part of the country or kill them. The former let's them be used as a rallying cry for counterrevolutionaries and Royalists, plus they could always escape and head towards Vienna like I mentioned before.

If you want a true and absolutely transformative Revolution, you have to get rid of the old regime in any way you can. You're not just trying to reshape politics, you're trying to reshape all of society in one go. Since monarchies have children as potential threats to legitimacy down the line, the resulting purge of regime is rather unpleasent.

[Frievolk]

If apologists are gonna piss themselves over some little princeling getting a close shave perhaps they should remember that if monarchism makes every royal's child, especially one in line to inherit, an equal part of that regime. Blame the royals for hiding behind their kids.

"Killing children is justified as long as it's the ruling class!"

Jee, because yeeting the King's head off wasn't enough, you wanted to separate everyone's heads from their bodies.

Just force the remaining royal members to abide to a pact of completely staying out of politics.

To be completely fair, the idea of them accepting, and abiding, to that pact is extremely outlandish. Especially when half of Europe is conservative, reactionary, and doesn't seem to have any tolerance for liberalism or republicanism as an idea.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Not a sufficient reason to put someone in prison.

Lmao, yes. In case you don't remember, his daddy was a traitor to the fatherland who called all the neighboring countries to declare war on the nation he was allegedly the king of to put him back into power and, now that he had gotten shortened by a head's length, it was his son who was the new so-called monarch and the target of the war.

Locking him away was the very minimum thing to do, the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar.

Do you know how individuality works? I am not my father, and can't be held responsible for anything my father does.

"the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar."

Oh well in that case...

That's probably the worst attempt at whataboutism I've ever witnessed. "Yeah, well this authoritarian regime did even worse stuff, so it must be okay."

[Frievolk]

Lmao, yes. In case you don't remember, his daddy was a traitor to the fatherland who called all the neighboring countries to declare war on the nation he was allegedly the king of to put him back into power and, now that he had gotten shortened by a head's length, it was his son who was the new so-called monarch and the target of the war.

Locking him away was the very minimum thing to do, the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar.

Do you know how individuality works? I am not my father, and can't be held responsible for anything my father does.

"the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar."

Oh well in that case...

That's probably the worst attempt at whataboutism I've ever witnessed. "Yeah, well this authoritarian regime did even worse stuff, so it must be okay."

I mean, the Russian Revolution, and later the early Bolsheviks, took a lot of influence from the most "successful" revolution they knew of. It's no wonder they'd "perfect" the most dirty parts of it, to be honest.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Bold of you to suggest that some of us don't also support Monarchy as a superior form of government.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find Idi Amin supporters too. Doesn't make it any less retarded.

I mean, "the basic common decency of not murdering Children" aside (which most people adhering to any ideology don't seem to care about in specific situations)

I mean, if you're a royalist, then you accept that royal kids are valid portions of a royal family and thus members of a royal government. "Member of deposed regime dies in prison" doesn't tug at the heart strings, though.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Do you know how individuality works? I am not my father, and can't be held responsible for anything my father does.

Your theoretical cunt father shouldn't have made you part of his regime, then.

"the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar."

Oh well in that case...

That's probably the worst attempt at whataboutism I've ever witnessed. "Yeah, well this authoritarian regime did even worse stuff, so it must be okay."

Killing the royal family helped splinter the Whites and pretty much ended any serious chances of a Romanov restoration. It was a sound move.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Pragmatically speaking, I understand the idea of revolutionaries terminating royal lines to prevent heirs becoming a rallying point for opposition.

Any substantial socio-political transformation necessitates a certain level of greater-good morality because those who were advantaged by the old system won't roll over and freely give away some of their elevated position, so I'm not particularly moved to knee-jerk condemnations of revolutionary violence. But when it involves a family with such symbolic power, it does feel like a form of cultural and historical violence against the nation. I'm a sucker for constitutional monarchy but the transition to such a thing is a toughie.

[Aellex]

Do you know how individuality works? I am not my father, and can't be held responsible for anything my father does.

But if people declare war on your country and slaughter its inhabitants all for the sake of putting your father and then you on the throne, then you can be held responsible in fucking deed because that whole fuckery is done in your name.

"the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar."

Oh well in that case...

That's probably the worst attempt at whataboutism I've ever witnessed. "Yeah, well this authoritarian regime did even worse stuff, so it must be okay."

That's not whataboutsim tho. That's just kindly trying to inform your very naïve self of the usual fate of previous rulers' heirs after a change of power because it seems that you're blissfully unaware that just killing the whole family was essentially the "regular" custom for literally everyone through history after such events took place.

[Fahran]

He was essentially in a luxurious house arrest for a year,

Where he allegedly endured deliberate ideologically motivated psychological manipulation and possibly sexual abuse in order to extract a false accusation against his mother by the people who eventually murdered both of his parents. He was seven when this began.

in a normal cell for six month

Healthy, young adults occasionally died in those cells. The elderly and children often died in them. He was a child who had been psychically brutalized and then thrown in a cold prison cell. That's probably where he contracted tuberculosis honestly.

and then in a more comfortable than average cell again until his death.

From the tuberculosis he probably contracted in prison. Where he was thrown as a child. Despite never having committed any crimes.

No melodrama there despite what our bleeding heart royalists would like you to make you believe as they play the world's smallest violin.

Well, we save the world's largest violin for the 50,000 other people murdered in the Revolution. :^)

[Fahran]

TIL that trying to think about things logically and factually is trying to be a robot.

ID isn't arguing that you shouldn't employ reasoning. She's arguing that you have to include practical wisdom and human emotion in the discussion as well.

[Frievolk]

He was essentially in a luxurious house arrest for a year,

Where he allegedly endured deliberate ideologically motivated psychological manipulation and possibly sexual abuse in order to extract a false accusation against his mother by the people who eventually murdered both of his parents. He was seven when this began.

in a normal cell for six month

Healthy, young adults occasionally died in those cells. The elderly and children often died in them. He was a child who had been psychically brutalized and then thrown in a cold prison cell. That's probably where he contracted tuberculosis honestly.

and then in a more comfortable than average cell again until his death.

From the tuberculosis he probably contracted in prison. Where he was thrown as a child. Despite never having committed any crimes.

No melodrama there despite what our bleeding heart royalists would like you to make you believe as they play the world's smallest violin.

Well, we save the world's largest violin for the 50,000 other people murdered in the Revolution. :^)

Do we also count in the hundreds of thousands (?) murdered in the revolutionary wars in that 50,000 too? I personally do. The deaths of the Seven Coalition Wars (+the other, non-coalition wars between France and virtually all of Europe until the Congress of Vienna) were all on the French Revolution in my opinion.

[Aellex]

He was essentially in a luxurious house arrest for a year,

Where he allegedly endured deliberate ideologically motivated psychological manipulation and possibly sexual abuse in order to extract a false accusation against his mother by the people who eventually murdered both of his parents. He was seven when this began.

in a normal cell for six month

Healthy, young adults occasionally died in those cells. The elderly and children often died in them. He was a child who had been psychically brutalized and then thrown in a cold prison cell. That's probably where he contracted tuberculosis honestly.

and then in a more comfortable than average cell again until his death.

From the tuberculosis he probably contracted in prison. Where he was thrown as a child. Despite never having committed any crimes.

No melodrama there despite what our bleeding heart royalists would like you to make you believe as they play the world's smallest violin.

Well, we save the world's largest violin for the 50,000 other people murdered in the Revolution. :^)

Royalist drivel for the sexual abuse. I've read quite some history books on the Révolution and not once heard of that tales before you brought it up.
You're also the only one to think there was some "long-lasting abuse" to get accusations on Marie-Antoinette when it appears he was just handed a letter, told to sign it and that's it.
Also, you meant executed. :^)

Healthy young adults and elderlies died there when they were poisoned and it was then called "natural causes".
Prison conditions for nobility were way kinder than life ones for the "commoners".

His father did and brought him into it. He was put there for his own protection as much as the one of the whole country.

[Aellex]

Pragmatically speaking, I understand the idea of revolutionaries terminating royal lines to prevent heirs becoming a rallying point for opposition.

Any substantial socio-political transformation necessitates a certain level of greater-good morality because those who were advantaged by the old system won't roll over and freely give away some of their elevated position, so I'm not particularly moved to knee-jerk condemnations of revolutionary violence. But when it involves a family with such symbolic power, it does feel like a form of cultural and historical violence against the nation. I'm a sucker for constitutional monarchy but the transition to such a thing is a toughie.

France was heading for a Constitutional monarchy with a relatively strong monarch when Citoyen Bourbon killed any hope of that by betraying his Fatherland by conspiring with foreign powers.

His fate and the one of his family is on him.

[Fahran]

But if people declare war on your country and slaughter its inhabitants all for the sake of putting your father and then you on the throne, then you can be held responsible in fucking deed because that whole fuckery is done in your name.

The revolutionaries weren't necessarily as worried about the Austrians as they were about counterrevolutionary elements among the French population, specifically the gentry and rural peasantry. The Revolution at its height saw increasing power concentrated into the hands of the urban mobs, specifically that of Paris, at the expense of more conservative and rural elements. Hence why they began picking a fight with Austria before murdering Marie Antoinette, murdered Marie Antoinette ensuring that peace would be impossible, and then proceeded to purge 50,000 dissidents, including many revolutionaries, while fighting a war against Europe with the armies that the old regime had left them.

That's not whataboutsim tho. That's just kindly trying to inform your very naïve self of the usual fate of previous rulers' heirs after a change of power because it seems that you're blissfully unaware that just killing the whole family was essentially the "regular" custom for literally everyone through history after such events took place.

While quoting Machiavelli is cool and all, you can't really claim the moral high ground when you're deliberately mistreating children. It kinda comes with the territory. Despite being pretty competent, nobody remembers Richard III as a hero.

[Fahran]

Royalist drivel for the sexual abuse. I've read quite some history books on the Révolution and not once heard of that tales before you brought it up.

Most likely, yes, but then the majority of the accusations you mentioned against Marie-Antoinette were revolutionary and republican libels which most historians reject as misrepresented or wholly contrived. Marie Antoinette did nothing wrong on her own.

You're also the only one to think there was some "long-lasting abuse" to get accusations on Marie-Antoinette when it appears he was just handed a letter, told to sign it and that's it.

Louis's sister made accusations of abuse in her diary allegedly. Those were her private thoughts as opposed to political propaganda. Additionally, having a child claim for a court that his mother molested him when you know that this never occurred is pretty abusive. It's not something that routinely happened to other children in France.

Also, you meant executed. :^)

Execution and justice imply desserts. You have not demonstrated that Marie-Antoinette deserved to die.

Healthy young adults and elderlies died there when they were poisoned and it was then called "natural causes".

They could also contract tuberculosis in the colder months. The elderly are more prone to illness especially.

Prison conditions for nobility were way kinder than life ones for the "commoners".

And aristocrats died from their treatment in prison throughout the medieval period. Because prison was awful. Usually, you sent people there for some morally justifiable reason like them being a prisoner-of-war or a criminal.

His father did and brought him into it. He was put there for his own protection as much as the one of the whole country.

Perhaps having to imprison a child so that people on your side don't murder him reflects poorly on your side?

[Aellex]

Most likely, yes, but then the majority of the accusations you mentioned against Marie-Antoinette were revolutionary and republican libels which most historians reject as misrepresented or wholly contrived. Marie Antoinette did nothing wrong on her own.

She urged Citoyen Louis Bourbon in seeking her family's help in declaring war against his own country.
In that, she was an accomplice to treason and a culprit of it herself.

Louis's sister made accusations of abuse in her diary allegedly. Those were her private thoughts as opposed to political propaganda. Additionally, having a child claim for a court that his mother molested him when you know that this never occurred is pretty abusive. It's not something that routinely happened to other children in France.

She wrote that they weren't treated "as they deserved".
Given she was a pampered little aristocrat who took much from her mother, it's not surprising that she viewed it as an abominable thing to be denied the lavishness and luxury she was accustomed to.

Execution and justice imply desserts. You have not demonstrated that Marie-Antoinette deserved to die.

I'm not sure that "traitor to the fatherland" is a truly accurate description given she was a foreigner but "collusion with enemies of the Nation with the goal to cause it harm" certainly does.

They could also contract tuberculosis in the colder months. The elderly are more prone to illness especially.

They could but it was a "Secret de Polichinelle" if you can excuse me the use of an idiom I know no translation of in English that most "illness" that took prisoners were deliberately induced.

And aristocrats died from their treatment in prison throughout the medieval period. Because prison was awful. Usually, you sent people there for some morally justifiable reason like them being a prisoner-of-war or a criminal.

Or just saying bad thing about the King. Mere disagreement with him or, heaven forbid, insults was enough to land you a place in the Bastille or any one of the many, many royal jails.

Perhaps having to imprison a child so that people on your side don't murder him reflects poorly on your side?

When foreign armies are slaughtering your compatriots with the sole goal of making that child into a Tyran with absolute power over you, it's not much surprising opinions of him might be low.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I guess that makes America a one-party Fascist state because of the genociding of Native Americans. :^)

The U.S. would be a one-party fascist state even it didn't commit the horrible atrocities against Native Americans.

[Reikoku]

I guess that makes America a one-party Fascist state because of the genociding of Native Americans. :^)

The U.S. would be a one-party fascist state even it didn't commit the horrible atrocities against Native Americans.

The US isn't a one-party fascist state though.

[The Multiversal Communist Collective]

I've seen many self-described communists jump up to defend North Korea, so they defiantly practice a form of communism.

The fact that tankies may defend North Korea as communist does not make North Korea communist.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

The US isn't a one-party fascist state though.

So you say. The differences within the duopoly are so insignificant, from a communist perspective, that the U.S. is effectively a one-party (fascist) state.

[Proctopeo]

The US isn't a one-party fascist state though.

So you say. The differences within the duopoly are so insignificant, from a communist perspective, that the U.S. is effectively a one-party (fascist) state.

There's the problem; that's why you're spouting absolute bullshit as if it were fact.
Although it is amusing that you're basically affirming that the far-left doesn't actually know what "fascism" is.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, yes. I find the selective outrage of one single person dying in prison ridiculous, now that means I'm no better than your little clique which violently masturbates to thoughts of ethnically cleansing Palestine of the Jews and "Muhammedians."

What clique? Or is your imagination acting up again?

Like half the RWDT hates Muslims incredibly rabidly and unironically supports actual crusading.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do you know how individuality works? I am not my father, and can't be held responsible for anything my father does.

Your theoretical cunt father shouldn't have made you part of his regime, then.

"the Soviets one century later preferred to be even more expeditive with the heirs of the old Tsar."

Oh well in that case...

That's probably the worst attempt at whataboutism I've ever witnessed. "Yeah, well this authoritarian regime did even worse stuff, so it must be okay."

Killing the royal family helped splinter the Whites and pretty much ended any serious chances of a Romanov restoration. It was a sound move.

Killing children is ever justified makes you a sociopath. And yes, I think the same about the strategic bombings and atomic bombings. Killing innocent people under any circumstances is evil.

[Telconi]

The US isn't a one-party fascist state though.

So you say. The differences within the duopoly are so insignificant, from a communist perspective, that the U.S. is effectively a one-party (fascist) state.

Which is a bigger detractor to your "communist perspective" than it is to the United States Government.