An Introduction To The French Revolution

ISBN: 0688169783

After helping America in its Revolutionary War, France was in dire economic straits. The price of bread was rising and protests were were becoming more common. The anger focused upon the aristocracy, who nonetheless fought against yielding their power or money. This set the stage for the French Revolution. This book gives a moderately fast recounting of events that serves as a strong starting point for further self-study.

…the struggle between the monarchy and the aristocracy was transformed into a social and political conflict between the privileged and unprivileged classes. As the issues broadened, the solidarity of the privileged orders weakened.


Bread was the people’s staple diet. Most workers, who consumed about three pounds a day, spent half their wages on it, as opposed to about fifteen per cent on vegetables, oil and wine, five per cent on fuel and one per cent on lighting. Skilled workers such as locksmiths and carpenters earned about fifty sous a day in 1789, masons about forty, labourers no more than twenty to thirty, so when the price of bread, normally about eight sous for a four-pound loaf rose above ten or twelve sous they had to face the prospect of hunger, and disturbances became commonplace.


…the coffee-houses in the Palais Royal present yet more singular and astonishing spectacles; they are not only crowded within, but other expectant crowds are at the doors and windows, listening à gorge deployée to certain orators, who from the chairs or table harangue each his little audience. The eagerness with which they are heard, and the thunder of applause they receive for every sentiment of more than common hardiness or violence against the present government, cannot easily be imagined.


He had fastened a green ribbon to his hat as an emblem of spring and hope and liberty. And he urged everyone else to wear some sort of green cockade in token of their support for the ‘common cause’. Hundreds did so, some of them pulling off the leaves of the horse chestnut trees for the purpose, until, as Gouverneur Morris discovered, it became dangerous to be seen out of doors without a hat garnished with foliage. Then they all marched off into the city to search for arms. The crowd was becoming an irresistible force.

The modern French have done a good job manipulating public opinion that their culture is sophisticated and civilized, but they did unspeakable horrors to quench their bloodlust during the revolution, which I must remind you took place less than 225 years ago. You will not find written accounts of Americans behaving in such a manner.

The leader of the mob rushed up to one of the carriages and plunged his sabre twice through the open window. As the passers-by gasped in horror, he waved the reddened blade at them and shouted, ‘So, this frightens you, does it, you cowards? You must get used to the sight of death!’ He then slashed at the prisoners again, cutting open the face of one, the shoulder of another, and slicing off the hand of a fourth who endeavoured to protect his head. Others of the mob then joined in the attack, as did some of the fédérés; and soon blood was dripping from all the carriages as the horses dragged them on their way to the doors of the prison. Here another mob was waiting; and when those prisoners who had escaped unscathed or only slightly wounded tried to escape inside, nearly all of them were cut down and killed before they could reach safety.


…each priest was summoned before a makeshift tribunal before being executed. He was asked if he was now prepared to take the constitutional oath and when he said that he was not – as all of them did – he was taken away to be killed. Some bodies were removed in carts, the rest thrown down a well from which their broken skeletons were recovered seventy years later.


One prisoner who did not escape the assassins’ blades was Marie Gredeler, a young woman who kept an umbrella and walking-stick depository in the courtyard of the Palais Royal. Charged with having mutilated her lover, she was herself mutilated, her breasts were cut off, her feet were nailed to the ground and a bonfire was set alight between her spreadeagled legs. As the heaps of corpses mounted, carts drawn by horses from the King’s stables were obtained to take them away to the Montrouge quarries. Women helped to load them, breaking off occasionally to dance the Carmagnole, then stood laughing on the slippery flesh, ‘like washerwomen on their dirty linen’, some with ears pinned to their dresses.


‘Do you want to see the heart of an aristocrat?’ asked one assassin, opening up a corpse, tearing out the heart, squeezing some blood into a glass, drinking part, and offering the rest to those who would drink with him. ‘Drink this, if you want to save your father’s life,’ commanded another, handing a pot of ‘aristocrats’ blood’ to the daughter of a former Governor of the Invalides. She put it to her lips so that her father could be spared. Women were said to have drawn up benches to watch the murders in comfort and to have cheered and clapped as at a cock fight.


The Queen’s emotional friend, the Princesse de Lamballe, who had been held in La Petite Force, was one of the most savagely treated victims. She had been stripped and raped; her breasts had been cut off; the rest of her body mutilated; and ‘exposed to the insults of the populace’. ‘In this state it remained more than two hours,’ one report records. ‘When any blood gushing from its wounds stained the skin, some men, placed there for the purpose, immediately washed it off, to make the spectators take more particular notice of its whiteness. I must not venture to describe the excesses of barbarity and lustful indecency with which this corpse was defiled. I shall only say that a cannon was charged with one of the legs.’ A man was later accused of having cut off her genitals which he impaled upon a pike and of having ripped out her heart which he ate ‘after having roasted it on a cooking-stove in a wineshop’. Her head was stuck on another pike and carried away to a nearby café where, placed upon a counter, the customers were asked to drink to the Princess’s death. It was then replaced upon the pike and, its blonde hair billowing around the neck, was paraded beneath the Queen’s window at the Temple.


Joseph Fouché, a frail former teacher who had become one of the most dreaded of the Jacobins, decided that the guillotine was too slow an instrument for their purpose and had over three hundred of their victims mown down by cannon fire.

Here’s a group of men preparing for their death:

The most important matter that employed our thoughts was to consider what posture we should put ourselves into when dragged to the place of slaughter in order to suffer death with the least pain. Occasionally we asked some of our companions to go to the turret window to watch the attitude of the victims. They came back to say that those who tried to protect themselves with their hands suffered the longest as the blows of the blades were thus weakened before they reached the head; that some of the victims actually lost their hands and arms before their bodies fell; and that those who put their hands behind their backs obviously suffered less pain. We, therefore, recognized the advantages of this last posture and advised each other to adopt it when it came to be our turn to be butchered.

It was all a big Gladiator show for the mob:

In Paris thousands of people went out regularly to witness the operations of what the deputy, J. A. B. Amar, called the ‘red Mass’ performed on the ‘great altar’ of the ‘holy guillotine’. They took their seats around the scaffold with the tricoteuses, buying wine and biscuits from hawkers while they waited for the show to begin.


‘The time has come which was foretold,’ as Madame Roland had said, ‘when the people would ask for bread and be given corpses.’

The fat, weak-willed king at the time, King Louis XVI, had neither the ability nor the strength to fight the revolutionary forces that would eventually take his head. When the revolt was bubbling to the surface, he sat on the sidelines delaying action or made concessions to the opposing forces that helped build their confidence and power. He phoned it in and paid with his life.

People ended up losing their lives for the most trivial of reasons, not unlike what happened in Stalin’s Soviet Union:

Another who had lost his temper while playing cards and, when reprimanded for behaving as no good patriot should, had shouted, ‘Fuck good patriots!’ was also brought before the Tribunal, condemned and executed.


Jean Baptiste Henry, aged eighteen, journeyman tailor, convicted of having sawed down a tree of liberty, executed 6 September 1793… Jean Julien, waggoner, having been sentenced to twelve years’ hard labour, took it into his head to cry ‘Vive le Roi’, brought back to the Tribunal and condemned to death… Stephen Thomas Ogie Baulny, aged forty-six, convicted of having entrusted his son, aged fourteen, to a garde du corps in order that he might emigrate, condemned to death and executed the same day… Henriette Françoise de Marboeuf, aged fifty-five, widow of the ci-devant Marquis de Marboeuf, convicted of having hoped for the arrival of the Austrians and Prussians and of keeping provisions for them, condemned to death and executed the same day… François Bertrand, aged thirty-seven, publican at Leure in the department of the Côte-d’Or, convicted of having furnished to the defenders of the country sour wine injurious to health, condemned to death at Paris and executed the same day… Marie Angelique Plaisant, sempstress at Douai, convicted of having exclaimed that she was an aristocrat and that she did not care ‘a fig for the nation’, condemned to death at Paris and executed the same day.


‘A man is guilty of a crime against the Republic,’ declared Saint-Just, ‘when he takes pity on prisoners. He is guilty because he has no desire for virtue. He is guilty because he is opposed to the Terror.’


The Tribunal was no longer required to interrogate the accused before their public trial, since this merely ‘confused the conscience of the judges’; now, in the absence of positive proof, juries must be satisfied with ‘moral proof’. ‘For a citizen to become suspect,’ said Georges Couthon who had been elected President of the Convention the previous December, ‘it is sufficient that rumour accuses him.’ After the law of 22 Prairial everything, indeed, went on much better, in the opinion of Fouquier-Tinville: heads fell ‘like tiles’. ‘Next week,’ he said one day, ‘I’ll be able to take the tops off three or four hundred.’


A performance at the Comédie Française was interrupted by a Jacobin who stood up to object to the line, ‘les plus tolérants sont les pardonnables’. When the audience told him to be quiet he went off to the Jacobin Club to denounce the actors who were all arrested.

In spite of all the murder and upheavel, the French people were no better off than before:

To the sans-culottes it seemed that the gap between rich and poor was becoming almost as wide as it had been before the Revolution. Sudden fortunes were being made by profiteers and speculators who spent money as rapidly as they made it.


The cost of living had by then risen almost thirty times higher than it had been in 1790. The police were accordingly not surprised when the annual celebrations commemorating the fall of the monarchy passed off in what they termed ‘a state of apathy’.

One politician makes the strong case against the notion of equality:

Absolute equality is a chimera. If it existed one would have to assume complete equality in intelligence, virtue, physical strength, education and fortune in all men… We must be ruled by the best citizens. And the best are the most learned and the most concerned in the maintenance of law and order. Now, with very few exceptions, you will find such men only among those who own some property, and are thus attached to the land in which it lies, to the laws which protect it and to the public order which maintains it… You must, therefore, guarantee the political rights of the well-to-do… and [deny] unreserved political rights to men without property, for if such men ever find themselves seated among the legislators, then they will provoke agitations… without fearing their consequences… and in the end precipitate us into those violent convulsions from which we have scarcely yet emerged.

Those in power at the time, the National Assembly, was composed of multiple factions. They played a putrid political game where everyone tried to get everyone else killed with endless scheming, intrigue, and denouncement instead of actually alleviating the plight of the lower classes who ushered them into power. Like a pinball, the power center went from right to left and back again until finally settling upon the middle class in the end, a group who wasn’t a huge improvement over the artistrocrats. Many of those who helped start the revoultion did not live to see the end, when a general by the name of Napoleon Bonaporte used his army to gradually usurp control of the country.

This book was a fine introduction that gives you a basic history and feel for what happened, but if you want to really understand the French Revolution, you’ll have to dig deeper.

Read More: “The Days Of The French Revolution” on Amazon

130 thoughts on “An Introduction To The French Revolution”

    1. That’s the most retarded thing I’ve read on this blog. Americans can’t understand the struggle of the french people after century of monarchy. Monarchy was a right by birth wich mean that without any fight, the situation would never changed. What happened after the revolution was indeed a dark time, we call it “The Terror”, unfortunately the leaders of the revolution were corrupted by their new powers (as seen many time in history) and ended murdering each others but it all start by the desire to change things and many were ready to throw away their life to do it.
      The funny thing about that time is that King Louis XVI actually did a lot of social things, he was one of the best king for the people. Louis XIV, wich is the most famous french king for most of the world (The Sun King as we call him) was an horrible and manipulative man who kept every person with power close to him to better manage absolute control over the country (the Versaille palace was built especially for this reason, to gather and control every wealthy or powerfull person in France by creating a cult around the king).
      French revolution is a symbol that no things are set in stone, a difficult notion to understand today as the vast majority of the people are brainwashed by propaganda and reality show.

      1. The French revolution can be called the Ur-Katastrophe of the West, from there, the rot began spread and the institutions that held the fabric of the West started to rot (family, religion…). Whether you like it or not the French monarchy was not perfect but by no means was the source of all the problems of France even at that time, as even you in your post can accept that Louis XVI main defect was not his tyranny and abuse of force, but his weakness. Had he been a tyrant, is almost guaranteed that nothing would have happened and he would have weathered the storm.
        People is unlikely to rise because the same people who orchestrated the French Revolution are the powers that be of today, the French revolution was not a popular revolution, it was directed from the top (a wealthy rival group that wanted power but not wanted to take it directly but from the shadows, like the Kriptocracy of unelected robber barons we have today).
        By the way the reason they hated God and Christianity is the little fact that they were freemasons.

        1. “By the way the reason they hated God and Christianity is the little fact that they were freemasons.”
          This is correct. And every freemason worships lucifer whom they call the light bringer. You can find it in their own writings by men like Albert Pike.

        2. He was a decent man. The flaw was that he liberalized the politics of France and attempted to curtail aristocratic excesses. Tsar Alexander (assassinated) freed the serfs, Tsar Nicholas (assassinated) actually expanded the electoral franchise.

      2. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The french revolution is no different.
        Our capacity for brutality is unmatched by any other organism on this earth. Truly is astounding we haven’t utterly destroyed everything yet.
        And every revolution in modern times has been progressed by those fellows who practice “the craft”. Even the american revolution which was far less brutal given that there weren’t hordes of lecherous french about with an excuse to rape and pillage.
        These revolutions have happened by design and the stupid masses seem incapable of ever deducing that fact and acting on it.

        1. It’s always important to look at who and whom. The French secured loans for the American revolutionaries at crippling interest rates. Who and whom? Look at Washington’s financial backer. He forwards £20,000 to pay the continentals right before Yorktown. Oy the sufferinks! Who did Necker get to loan the French contribution to the World War between Louis XVI and George III? Who and whom?

      3. You can’t compare Louis XIV and Louis XVI like that. The first was loved and respected. He was strong and he prevented another civil war by uniting the country under his rule. What you yankees don’t understand is that France was not united in the XVIIth century. French was only spoken in the Paris area but not in the rest of the country. Louis XIV did a very important thing in our eyes, he restrained the local lords powers (which were absolute) and gave ordinary people (like Colbert or Vauban) important roles (as secretaries) in the kingdom.
        Louis XVI was weak, he let the aristocrats do everything they wanted and let them pressure the humble people to pay for their insane luxuries. Guess why it went bad…

        1. Utterly incorrect. Louis XVI was deposed BECAUSE he actually was in conflict with over privileged aristocrats. You ought to look at the actual record of his tenure not the lazy ass BS that historians regurgitate. Louis was weak in the same way that Nicholas II was weak. He was deposed.

        2. Louis XVI was weak because he couldn’t handle aristocrats like Louis XIV did. He could’nt manage them before 1789 and neither after when he became a constitutional king. Of course aristocrats were in conflict with him, they always were shit testing kings. A strong king would pass the tests, Louis XVI did not and let his woman do her follies.

      4. Louis XVI was a liberalizer. Much like the Russian Tsar Alexander who was assassinated after he freed the serfs. It’s a great shame that Louis XVI was deposed when you actually look at his proposed reforms of aristocratic priv. He would have been like Henry of Navarre had he rode out the storm.

  1. what’s going on in the middle east is really the same as what went on in europe a couple of hundred years ago…. shit in 1870 Bismark surrounded Paris and laid siege to it, until people had to eat cats and dogs, because there was no food.

  2. The French Revolution was engineered to introduced the worship of Goddess which was later exported to America with the Statue of the Liberty (The Babylonian Ishtar).
    The figure of God was replaced with the worship of the feminine, the Goddess of Reason. Woman was put on a pedestal. The French revolution was in fact when Feminism really started.

    1. Throw some references at them. I actually agree. It’s telling that they were killing the priests. Those that hate God love death.

      1. They hated god because the King bloodline was supposed to have been chosen by god himself. If you make a bit of research you’ll see that the worship of The goddess of reason was not the worshiping of a feminine figure but the embodiment of the ideas developed by philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau under what is called “The century of lights” wich lead to the french revolution by questioning the rules of the monarchy. Reason mean that only the man ability to thing can rule the people, not some kind of divine power. Robespierre was a fanatic of Rousseau idea’s and pushed this “religion” when power drove him insane after the revolution. In the end, this cult didn’t even last 5 years and wasn’t worshiped by many.

      2. How many French men hated priests because the priests buggered them in their youth? I’d want to kill priests too if I got a chance to clean up that cesspool of sexual exploitation.

        1. The molestation rate amongst the modern priesthood is far lower on average than you’ll find in the general population. What makes them abhorrent isn’t the frequency, which again is far lower in occurrence than in general society, but rather the cover up afterward by the established powers in the Church.
          tl;dr – you have a better chance of being molested by your school teacher or your football coach than you do by a priest.

        2. This is a good point. Priests are actually better behaved than the ordinary population. The critical problem is that the Church didn’t defrock culprits and report them to the state. Their casual reaction in the 1970s and 1980s to just keep the offenders away from ministering to children was the problem. I suspect they regret being soft on the issue. They are better behaved than their Islamic, Jewish and Hindi counterparts. They are better behaved than public school teachers and the faculties at elite private schools.

    2. Much of feminist thought was created in France -Simone de Beauvior along with Existentialism from Camus to Satre. The post modern destruction that questions any concrete settings of sex and gender can be found in the works if Focult. All French thinkers. It must be said that there is a marked difference in the thought process of the southern to northern French. Despite this being the cradle of the woes if the West the French perhaps do not take what is published as seriously and as many western(anglo)feminists critique do not adhere to their take in feminism. The French take Definitely takes into consideration biological differences and French men and women eat healthier, smaller portions, exercise harder and avoid many western vices.

      1. Existentialism is not feminism. Feminist thought was created by the Frankfort School – mostly Jewish thinkers.

        1. Uh, no. A whole lot of Europeans from christian backgrounds created feminism over several generations:

          You could even argue that feminism goes back to Plato, because he allowed that women could become Guardians in his ideal city-state in his famous dialogue, The Republic.

        2. Satre and Simone de Beauvior were dating. Existentialism in the hands of the masses amounts to apathy. Existentialism while not feminism is the buffet intellectual ideology of many intellectuals who support the feminist narrative. It is also the grounds to which they hold themselves less accountable to social judgement. YOLO is the modem day war cry of western existentialism. To them existentialism means they can live a guilt free life.

        3. Satre: “Hell is other people.” Easy conclusion to come to with Simone de Beauvior padding around your house.

    3. Genesis 3:16 NLT
      Then He said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you. ”
      Feminism started right at the beginning when Eve ate the forbidden fruit and gave some to Adam to eat. It has been alive and well ever since.

  3. The differences in the way equality is viewed between Conservatives and Marxists is that for Conservatives, the law should apply equally regardless of gender and access to jobs and education should not bar anyone by gender but be allocated on merit. For the Marxists, equality must be absolute; pay and education should be split 50/50 in all sectors regardless of talent, work ethic, working hours, academic ability, etcetera. The folly of the Marxist perception of equality is that equality is a social construct. It does not actually exist in nature.
    Equality is created as a means to promote a civil society where each can aspire to the best of their capability. Not as a means to keep everyone in a state of the lowest common denominator of society. When Marxist equality does not meet its quota, it is assumed that an invisible force or a covert group of men is deliberately conspiring against women. Instead the reality is that the differences seen are a product of natural evolution. One such example is the wage gap. The pay gap, it is argued, shows that women on average earn less than average due to misogyny. The truth is the pay gap is derived form comparing the wage gap across all disciplines as a whole rather than by category. The wage gap is utterly false.

    1. Equality of opportunity not outcome. Impartiality over partiality. An honest scale over a dishonest scale.

      1. A dishonest scale would be the one which doesn’t recognize that people are only able to capitalize on opportunities to the extent that they have access to the appropriate tools or resources.

    2. Abraham Lincoln was wrong…..
      You CAN in fact.. “fool most of the people most of the time.”

    3. What a massive strawman. Care to mention one self-proclaimed Marxist country (past or present) where slacking is publicly accepted and even those who slack with the full knowledge of the system are considered entitled to the same salary as those who work? Or, for that matter, one Marxist intellectual with any kind of influence or following who thinks that’s how it should be?
      If conservatives really are for equality of opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcomes) and allocation based on merit, well, feel free to start working against social stratification and the resulting, well-documented inequality of opportunity that follows from it. I’m not holding my breath though for that to happen.
      As for equality being a social construct, the same would be true for the kind of equality that conservatives claim to advocate. “Do as I say, not as I do!” and prohibiting others from doing what you are doing are natural consequences of disparities of power.
      Besides, the whole “X is a social construct” is a bogus argument against anything. Everything in society is a social construct, and the entirety of social development and social conflict is about what kind of social constructs we should collectively adhere to.

      1. “What a massive strawman. Care to mention one self-proclaimed Marxist country (past or present) where slacking is publicly accepted and even those who slack with the full knowledge of the system are considered entitled to the same salary as those who work?”
        Eventually, almost all Russians had come to realize that Marxism was a system of laziness and stupid waste in Russia.
        “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us!” (A joke that circulated freely in factories and other places of state-run employment.)

        1. Thank You Sgt POG. A quick review of communism – from Stalin to Mao and all the wonderful heads-of-state in between – reveals counter-productive work culture, mass murder/starvation (on scale even above Adolf Hitler), and abuse upon abuse in the name of “equality.” Communism denies the inherent nature of all living creatures to act in their self-interest. It denies that all people are motivated to some extent by this “greed”/self-interest, and when great possibility of reward is removed, then people will simply follow the path of least daily resistance to a “good-enough” existence.
          I encourage Red Knight to have discussions with older Russian/East European ex-pats living in the US. Or Vietnamese war-era immigrants to the US. Ask them what they think of the virtues of communism and it’s effect on a population. Those that I have talked to, that have actually lived it, are hard-eyed and hateful of their former communist masters. The only hopeful collectivists I know are young idealists or aging liberals that are romantically committed to the virtuous ideas of collectivism – but have yet to live under the system they advocate.

        2. But that’s exactly the point, “We have to pretend that we work”, they had to cheat and fake it to get away with slacking. There were various kinds of systems in place to punish slacking and reward those who contributed more. Those systems often failed, but they were there, no Communist ideologue ever thought that the slackers should be allowed to live off the work of others. The very fundamental premise of Socialist ideology is the illegitimacy and immorality of living off the work of others. Which, in the 19th century, they thought the owners of the means of production did, as they got their income simply by virtue of passive ownership.
          So, I’ll ask again the question I asked Mark, pay attention to the exact wording before attacking a strawman:
          Care to mention one self-proclaimed Marxist country (past or present) where slacking is publicly accepted and even those who slack with the full knowledge of the system are considered entitled to the same salary as those who work?

        3. But if commuism dunt work, how can Stalin kill off 20 or 100 millions, when the 1914-1918 industrialized trench wars didn´t even manage to kill 2 millions Frenchmen?

        4. It also directly contradicts the claims of democide, that Stalin killed off between 20 millions and 100 millions soviets and that mao was even worst.
          Despite having only the ressources of post civil war former Russian Empire, not exactly a center of industry and ressources for large-scale state activities and traditions of somewhat functional bureaucracy, the NKVD somehow managed to become at least 100 times more efficient than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Atomic bombs. How is that for work ethic?
          Also, if Stalinian industrialization was achieved by slavery and sheit, why didn´t the South just use blacks to make cannons, gunpowder and rifles in 1863 instead of picking cotton? Why doesn´t Saudi Arabia or Libyan rebels use Ethiopians in factories today?
          Mind you, all this achieved without turning the Soviet-Union into a basket-case that would simply collapse in the face of an invasion, as the German command believed would happen in 4 weeks and British medias claimed would happen in 6 weeks.
          Instead, the Red Army showed harder resistance than the French did the previous year and eventually, the Red Army reached Berlin after years of massive warfare.
          I have had the misfortune of reading texts of Conquest and Anne Applebaum.
          What can anyone who bother to understand see in these? That is easy, pure and unadultered propaganda for morons who will believe anything they are told without question.

        5. I’m not going to respond to your question because it is a useless utopian philosophy question that Marxists are famous for shouting. It is a statement along the lines of “Communism would have worked if it weren’t for the USA!”
          The fact is that communism fails to practically consider and account for the lazy good for nothing slobs. Its solutions are liquidation, re-education, euthanasia, institutionalization, and all around inhumanity. My examples prove the point that the entire system is eventually run by a bunch of depressed slackers, wealthy elitists in the politburo, and a few true believers who still sing Communism’s praises as they’re declared Enemy of the State for some frivolous reason. In fact, my favorite victims of Communism are the true believers who get liquidated by the State for their sins. It doesn’t get much funnier than that.
          Take your question and shove it. I’m reframing that shit.

        6. Reframing, oooh, how womanly. Well, I’m going to be alpha and “maintain frame”, as they say.
          It’s not a useless utopian philosophy question, it’s a challenge of a straw man posted by Mark.
          Mark made a statement about what Communists advocate, what they consider equality to be. I pointed out that no, no Communist who has ever mattered has adhered to that kind of a notion of equality, and challenged him to provide an example of someone who has.
          Whether such a notion of equality is practically achievable is utterly irrelevant for the truth value of Mark’s statement. And so is your rant on how overall crappy any practical implementation of Communism is, even if assuming for the sake of argument that every word of it is true and the whole truth.
          Now, if Mark had made a statement on the actual, expected consequence of adherence to actual Communist notions of equality (adhered to by real Communists in the real world, not stupid caricatures imagined in right-wing brains), that would have been another matter.

        7. Very well. See you on the battlefield. Unless you get relocated to gulag first.

        8. “Eventually, many Russians had come to realize that Marxism was a system of laziness and stupid waste in Russia.”
          Not really. First of all, Marx’s presents a theory, meaning an explanation, not a plan of action or normative ethical system. Marx presented a theory of how history changes and why. He wasn’t explaining how he thought things should be but how they already are and always were.
          Second, your critique of the Soviet Union is that it didn’t have a market price mechanism to efficiently allocate resources or match supply and demand. But Marx never argued that such a command economy was possible; he in fact argues the opposite when he made the case that it was the advanced development of markets, of capitalism itself, which would make socialism and then communism as inevitable as feudalism turning into capitalism.
          This isn’t a minor point where we can scoff and say “yeah right, Marxism didn’t work in the Soviet Union because they didn’t apply it correctly! Whatever!” because you would literally have to toss the core of Marx’s theory in order to make 20th century “communist” revolutions make sense. Marx presented a theory of historical change based on stages of development where the advanced form of industrial capitalism produced its own destruction regardless if anybody had heard of Marxism or communism. In Marx’s theory, it would do this on its own by its own logic, or its own invisible hand because market competition would force producers to become ever more efficient at production, meaning that it would lead to market gluts and the falling value of ever more abundant commodities which, paradoxically, nobody would be able to afford since there would be increasingly less need for their labor in an increasingly “efficient” mode of production.
          In virtually every case where “communist” revolutions took off in the 20th century, they were preindustrial states, which Marx never even indicated was possible. It’s a theory of historical change. The 20th century revolutionaries were arguing, contra Marx, that they could somehow skip the development of capitalism, and so they produced inefficient command economies. Marx never argued this would work, in fact he argued the opposite.
          You also need to keep in mind why there were even communist revolutions in the first place anywhere in the 20th century. Foreign policies are shaped by private financial interests, therefore we can say that the history of modern imperialism is the history of capitalism, since its origins are in the competitive interests of capitalists who coopt the state and turn it into an arm of private industry. After the world wars, the imperial center of world power which had carved up the globe during Europe’s industrial revolution imploded. So the only reason anyone wanted to stage a revolution for independence at all in any country was because it had previously been turned into an imperialist backwater with corrupt, foreign capitalist backed leadership against its own people.
          I know that you think that, since it seems like a bunch of people take the view you’re taking, that you can safely voice it without having really studied any of this or knowing much about it. You are, however, mistaken. Ask yourself how that happened.

        9. Literally everything you’ve said in this post is ridiculous and inaccurate. Please see above.

        10. Please see above. As far as “utopianism” goes, to argue that the lazy are punished and the hard working and naturally superior are rewarded by the free trade god is utopianism. It’s not realism but a dopey ideology. An old one at that, seeing as how it’s really just a secularized version of protestant Calvinism.
          What I get out of everything you’re saying is that you think the paternalistic and disciplinarian Daddy State is somehow preferable to your imaginary big government/Nanny State. You seem to believe that “work or starve” is an acceptable social contract and that it will motivate people to work and be productive.
          In reality however, the big government/small government paradigm is a false one that has little relationship to reality because the most competitive, badass capitalists will coopt the state and turn it into an arm of private industry by the logic of the same competitive invisible hand. That is the most competitive position to be in, so they will try to achieve it because the end goal of any competitor’s game isn’t to compete forever and continually risk losses, but to win the competition outright.
          For this reason, if big government didn’t exist, big business would create it for its own benefit. Then people like yourself come along later and see what are only the results of capitalism and “free trade” itself and deny that these are the real world consequences of it. Then you whine about “crony capitalism,” when in reality there was never any other form of it.
          In your “work or starve” utopia of efficient markets, those who face starvation don’t just disappear, they instead stage revolts. The end result is war or civil war, not your free market utopia of personally responsible rational economic actors. Sorry.

        11. Speaking of gulags, take a look at any U.S. backed dictatorship or oligarchy. Google “Villa Grimaldi,” that was the gulag torture chamber built by the U.S. backed Pinochet regime which replaced Chile’s 140 year old democracy on behalf of capitalists in the U.S. Take a look at the Suharto regime which the U.S. installed in Indonesia in 1965 after slaughtering half a million people in the countryside in order to do it.
          That is real world capitalism and the death toll is off the charts. Simple people like yourself imagine that these are all independent economic systems that sink or swim on their own “merit.” In reality, the supposedly efficient and just capitalist system you have is one in the same as its client dictatorships and state terror regimes because that is where the cheap raw materials and labor comes from. They are not separate systems but one system and so, just in the same way you attempt to judge Marxism by its supposed real world outcomes, you can only judge capitalism by its real world outcomes. So look at the real world death toll and consequences in Childe, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Angola, Indonesia, Vietnam, the list goes on and on, because that is real world capitalism.
          See you on the battlefield.

        12. Why does everyone assume that, simply because I call out a particular comment thread for being BS, I have taken some side in some ideological controversy?

        13. I fondly remember when it was just good policy to travel around the world and kill people simply for being communists.


          Except the “communist” are often just labor organizers, student leaders, Catholic priests, and people who want workplace safety guidelines or democracy. Civil rights organizers in the United States were accused of communism also. In fact, everybody making an argument you can’t respond to can be labeled a communist.
          You’re not a defender of “freedom,” you’re an apologist for genocide and state terror, you’re just too clueless to know it.

    4. Change “gender” to the proper “sex” and your paragraphs are perfect.

    5. Marxism had nothing to do with equality of outcomes and everything to do with equality of opportunity. It’s that you don’t make any distinction between goods and capital goods. Goods are things we consume, capital goods are things we consume in order to make goods. Without access to capital goods, you can’t make goods and so there is no equality of opportunity. Land, affordable housing, healthcare, tuition–these things are capital goods, not goods, and without them, you have no opportunity.
      The “economic liberty” of the slaveholder isn’t the economic liberty of the slave. By your own reasoning, the institution of slavery was simply the “natural” outcome of a competitive system in which the superior won out over the inferior. But what makes a slave inferior isn’t any natural inferiority, it’s his condition as a slave in the first place, that is to say, it’s his condition in which he has no access to capital goods.
      Feel free to totally misunderstand everything I’ve said here because your ego is invested in this silly strawman argument which somehow proves that feminism is bullshit. Feminism may or may not be bullshit, but this silly anti-Marxist argument doesn’t hold water. No Marxist believes what you’ve explained here.

  4. The French revolution was the first example of what happens when the revolutionary left (now in control of nearly every organ of cultural power in the United States) comes to power.

    1. Neoreactionary bloggers point out that leftism started out as classical liberalism. The classical liberals began the process of dismantling Europe’s organic, hierarchical societies and replacing them with masses of rootless, alienated, atomistic individuals.

      1. Its not as easy as that. Efforts to break up clans for nuclear families or force people into some bigger “multi-cult” called Christendom date from the earliest era of Christianity.
        Also if you’ve studied medieval history it was no more and no less atrocious at times than the Terror. Its romantic to think that there is some better time in which righteous men ruled wisely but its just false. Mans nature simply doesn’t change and atrocity murder and slaughter are always on the plate and baring some doomsday weapons being used, always will be,

        1. Another product of modern school s I guess. The French revolution broke all the records of the Middle Ages when it comes to governments killing its own people without provocation (outright revolt) in a wide variety of barbaric forms. Whether you like it or not the French revolution was a catastrophe, not a breakthrough, even the country in which it happened never again rose to World Power category after that.

        2. “some better time in which righteous men ruled wisely but its just false”
          Such societies existed and exist. The Amish community (extremely low-crime, highly moral people), The white separatist communities like Orania (no crime, high moral values, inner conflicts are easily solved), eastern asian religious communes.
          The more homogenous a society is (both racially, homogenous, culturally etc) – the more stable and moral is.
          You can have an entire country with Satanists, they will live in peace. Because they tolerate each other “twisted” world-views and practices.
          “Mans nature simply doesn’t change and atrocity murder and slaughter are always on the plate”
          MEN are not more violent than women or insects, mammals, reptiles etc. We are not much more violent than a lion or a goat. We fight, because we exist. Fight internaly, externaly – from bacterias to mammals… if we don’t fight, we are dead.

        3. The methods were somewhat unique but let me remind you that half the population of Germany died during the 30 years war.I am pretty sure that beats the French Revolution. Maybe it wasn’t all auto-slaughter but the net effect was just as bad.
          These slaughters however were a product of surplus human and other capital. Its why the Elizabethan era was in some respects far more brutal than say the Middle Ages. If you mass slaughtered everyone circa 1100 you might go hungry. Do this at the time of the Terrors, prices go up but trade or theft makes up for the rest.
          What was unique is the wrath vented on the elite by the masses. That was unusual.
          Still as the world industrialized, even more genocide and murder became valid tactics. Break all you want they’ll make more.
          What I think slowed this is the lower birth rate and the H bomb, when you can’t replace people at all, the elite spend less lives and of course the H bomb is a you lose weapon.
          Really only fear of another Terror keep the elite in any check anyway so in most respects the French Revolution ended up doing a lot of good in the long run
          Now that may be subject to change, its possible that if technology in robotics and genetic engineering get advanced enough the elite may simply genocide everyone else except for a few comley slaves and some techs
          They don’t need people for anything after all and a society akin to the Hunger Games has a strong appeal for the sociopaths that dominate the ruling classes.
          As for true feudalism that is a mutual relationship between ruler and ruled its unlikely till energy runs out. Corporation want slaves or serfs but they won’t keep their end of any arrangements most times (as soon as profits are down,people go, c.f Japan) and the presence of energy makes the labor (those who farm/craft) component of the feudal triangle superfluous.
          So yeah, the French Revolution was horrific but this was an inevitable product of the technology and cultural shifts. The former was unavoidable and the later was a product of the old systems failures too. It wasn’t a bad system per-se after all we still have monarchies but the State and Church weren’t up to the tasks they needed to do so, as always psychos filled the vacuum

        4. Not entirely wrong but such societies are on the fringe, necessarily small (for example Hutterite communities have no more than 150 members) and are vulnerable to anyone who can keep a larger force together for even a little while.
          Also problems are everywhere and the Amish while they don’t have a mafia have some means to get rid of or exclude unwanted persons with expulsion or just them leaving on rumspringa and not returning
          Also social class can trump race, even if everyone is off the same ethnic type, you can still have diversity.
          Also a general bit about human nature, people can only see 150 people or so,( search for Dunbar’s Number) as people, everyone else is stuff. Now certainly in highly homogenous communities a functional value set can be made to fake caring but such configurations are unstable.
          Even the highly homogenous 1950’s US with a huge middle class had more than a little crime and villainy among its functional population.
          Now I certainly concur that homogeneity is better by far than heterogeneity and ought to be encouraged but super homogenous super normal societies are fringy at best and will never be the mainstream of human living

        5. I would certainly consider him a part of the Revolutionary Era. Post-Napoleon: Nothing.

        6. He could be considered the end of the revolutionary era but certainly nothing close to the events discussed above. And the French never historically were really that powerful. That’s why the two most dominant world languages are English and Spanish.

        7. Actually he directly participated in them as an artillery officer so I’m not sure what you mean. Mostly agree with the second statement.

        8. Basically what I meant was the time where Napoleon ruled was nothing like the reign of terror (at least inside France) that most of this article is focused on.

    2. Your comment is completely detached from reality.
      The french revolutionaires were nationalistic and patriotic people who got sick and tired from the ruling class treating them like toilets.

      1. …and so, in order to set things straight, they set out to behave like toilets.

    3. Ignoring the fact that at the time, “political left” simply meant support of the political ideas of the Enlightenment, and had very little to do with what later became known as Socialism. By the standards of the Revolutionary French political landscape, pretty much everyone in the contemporary Western world is a leftist.

  5. After Louis XVI married the Austrian princess who become Marie Antoinette, for several years afterwards he couldn’t figure out fucking works. One of his experienced male relatives and the family doctor apparently had to have a talk with him to tell him what to do so that he and Marie Antoinette could start a family.

  6. Good Read, mutilation similar to this occured during and after WWII by the red army against german civillians- and the us praised Stalin, probably because they felt they had to.
    Nonetheless, the cruelty of small men who crave power will always exist and be forgotten within generations.

    1. Believe it or not, you are part from those “small men”. You are not part from the mainstream, you are part from the silent angry majority.
      Let’s be realists, the western world is extremely corrupt. We live in a dysfunctional society, you get that? Dysfunctional.
      What do you think is the fate of all dysfunctional societies? Let’s look at Syria – 1% from the population (Some weird shia “muslim” sect) is dominating the Majority – Sunni Muslims (the Real Islam). They mocked them, they take their human rights… what happened? This happened
      So tell me… what will happen with dysfunctional society like the west in the long-therm? Be realistic about it.

      1. Yes the western world is corrupt, yes it will collapse- like all societies, kingdoms and cultures that have existed before ours.
        However I do not believe I would go to the extent of raping, decapitating or mutilating corpses.
        I do not believe I am part from the “small men” as I am not attempting to grab power and abuse it, when I think of a real political men the names like Martin Luther King come to mind- of which I cannot imagine mutilating a corpse.
        You can define me however you like over an internet forum, I define myself in reality and I define what I am a part of or believe in.

        1. Clear your mind from such filth like “mutilating corpses”. You mentioned Marthin Luther King, but politics nowadays is much more corrupt than in the “old days”. And it’s getting worse.
          Let’s say that there is a genuine trad, anti-mainstream, anti-feminist politicians out there (there are many politicians like that actually). So, let’s say that this guy is getting popular. Why wouldn’t he? Whatever says is fact, he is reason-logic based man, and he loves his country very much. What will happen? I will tell you what, because already the scenario is being repeated each year in my country and in most EU countries. The ruling political “elite” will start something called “black campaign”: they have the power of putting child porn on his PC and arresting him; they have the power to re-write his biography and paint him as the devil. I mean this shit is repeating every 4 years in EU. There is coming a nationalist group, they get very popular… and BAM, for the periods of 4 weeks, their reputation is completely ruined and on power are coming left and right “moderates” who continue the suicidal policies.
          Politics is THEIR game, not ours. If you want change, you can’t have it with giving your vote in the next elections. The western world will change sooner or later, but it will happen in our lifetime.
          Look Hungary, i don’t want to look as bad person. But the anti-globalists and nationalists are in power because for decades they waged Street Terror against the opposition (globalists, traitors, rad-fems, you name it). The ULTRA-NATIONALISTS from Hungary are in power, because of non-conventional actions and after those actions (terror) they entered politics… and won.

        2. MLK is the grammaton for Molech. America sacrificed its urban core to this dark god. America has sacrificed it’s own posterity (children) to assuage this dark god. I always avoid MLK BLVD as I know it will be a crime infested shit hole. Someone should invent a ghetto app that warns you when you are getting too close to MLK BLVD.

      2. The Sunnis are Arabs invading what was once Phoenician, Greek, Latin, Armenian, Kurd and land. Damn the Jihadis, arm the Chrstians there with modern heavy weaponry and if that means allying with Assad and the Alawites: SO BE IT.

        1. Shia “muslims” are much more insane than the Sunni muslims. And christianity don’t belong in Europe. Have a national identity, choose a spirituality based on ideas like soil and bloodline. I am talking about good-old fashioned european paganism. That’s your true religion.

        2. Yeah that´s why they are doomed like the rest of us. Whether you like it or not Christianity was the blood and soul of Europe, once it was abandoned our continent began to die. Granted not the kind of Christianity you would find today or even in the 20th century, the Christianity found in St. Thomas et al the one that saved Europe from Islam and preserved the Classical world heritage, unlike the heathen Norsemen whose favourite hobbies were raping, burning and going berserk.
          Ignoring this reality is utter folly.

  7. Hopefully they will continue to have that spirit of rebellion so they can rid their country of the 5th worlders which the ruling class have imported in the name of a consistently ignorant population that will continue to vote for them.

  8. It’s almost as if the idea behind Making the World Flat ultimately brings out the worst in humanity.

  9. I like to wonder about what sort of a long term effect this may have had on the genetic makeup and predetermined personality of the country, especially of Paris. With so many conservative landowners and educated people chopped down, one would think that it’s possible that it significantly affected the population and increased the relative concentration of liberal vs. conservative genes. I don’t want to make the mistake of implying that the greater liberalization of the country versus the USA is due primarily to genetics and not other social factors that have impacted Europe over the past two centuries, but maybe it has made a noticeable impact…

    1. You are looking at the events from modern point of view. Just before 25 years, the ultra-nationalism was associated with the left-wing (Miloshevic actions against muslims, GDR ban on immigration, racism in all socialist republics etc).
      “When those conservative landowners were chopped”. The revolutionaires were patriots, nationalists… those “conservative landowners”, nowadays would be called “globalists”.

      1. European monarchs regularly switched countries and often combined distinct realms in personal unions. Authorities in England invited royals from Scotland, the Netherlands and the German-speaking city of Hanover to become their monarchs in the 17th and early 18th Centuries. Louis XVI’s wife, Marie Antoinette, came from Austria. One of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters even become the wife of Tsar Nicholas II, converted to Orthodox Christianity and bore heirs to the Russian throne.
        So yeah, you could argue that the aristocrats have a history of carpetbagging which shows only weak ties to any particular country, and even to the religions they grew up in.

  10. The French revolution was engineered by the Bourgeoisie, who envied the Aristocrats. No revolution started from the people, the elite has always dictated the rule of the game.

  11. I remember reading a treatise by John Adams and he said basically the exact same thing regarding equality and government as that French politician….

  12. Blame the feminists, blame the government, blame the white knights, blame the communists, blame the aliens…
    But don’t you ever dare blame women! Never!
    (Facepalm) Every single day I pray that the dumbos realize that shifting the blame on everyone but women, is just another facet of white-knighting.
    You are white knights in denial. Please try to realize this. The other factors that you attribute feminism to, have merely contributed toward feminism, much like an accomplice, a partner in crime.
    The root of feminism is – Women.
    Think about it.

    1. Think about this – the reason why we don’t work less as technology advances is women.
      John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d only be working 15/hr a week, not accounting for women’s constant pressure for jewelry, bigger homes, more modern appliances, fancier cars, trinkets, shiny objects, fur coats, etc.

      1. Keynes gets a bad rap these days for allegedly discounting the future because of his sexual orientation. Yet he clearly put a lot of thought into where a livable civilization should go. He advocated eugenics, for example, because he saw that haphazard breeding would lead to the deterioration of the quality of people in the world. When you see the randomly fathered kids women drag out in public these days – and I mean siblings who have had different “diversity” fathers with the same mother – then you might begin to wonder if the eugenicists had the beginnings of the right idea.

    2. Ironically, you give women too much credit if you think the feminist movement was established and funded by women (before feminism).

      1. See? Guys like you are a BIG problem. You inadvertently shift the focus away from the real issue. I just hope that people like the one above you increase, and ones like you keep decreasing. Keeping my fingers crossed.

  13. Focusing on the September 1792 slaughter, the darkest episode of the french revolution, is dishonest. You cannot reduce the Revolution to this. And if you want to talk about it, you need to precise the circonstances a little bit. This kind of nightmarish events does not come out of nowhere.
    First, the country was under attack, both from the outside and the inside. All the european kingdoms had declared war to France and the revolutionnary armies were loosing (until Valmy, then we kicked their royalist asses pretty badly). The Duke of Brunswick had published an open letter saying that if french people were to harm the royal family, his army would burn Paris to the ground, kill all the men and rape all the women. Inside, the aristocrats were ploting against the revolutionnary governement (duly elected), spying for the austrians and sabotaging the war effort.
    Then, a (false) rumor hit the city ; the austrians were coming very soon and the worst was to be expected of them. Panic spiked and the mob began to seek vengeance, opening the prisons were many aristocrats were incarcerated and started what were called later the September slaughter.
    It is not a nice thing to remember but, please, don’t make all the French Revolution about it ; it would be a shame because it is far more than that. You’ll find that these few years were very very rich, in all domains : politics, warfare (Napoleon was a former officer in the revolutionnary army), philosophy and science (Lavoisier and many famous modern scientists were revolutionnaries too).
    NB : the author of the book doesn’t seem to understand french very well. He uses idiomatic phrases that are out of context. It doesn’t sound very serious to me.
    Please forgive my poor english, I’m a french man who learned english the old school way.

      1. He was executed in 1794, during the ugliest episode of the French Revolution, la Terreur. Many revolutionnaries were executed by other revolutionnaries between 1793 and 1794. Revolutionnaries were not one big monolithic group, they were divided between girondins (moderate revolutionnaries) and Montagnards (hardcore revolutionnaries). The girondins took a big toll during the Terreur and then, when Robespierre falled, they got their revenge. What a bloodshed ! But we created the metric system in the meantime…

  14. The savagery of the American Civil War was Nth degree worse than the French Revolution. The ACW also came at a time when the failure of Equality was clear for all to see as well.

  15. American Revolution-50,000 Americans dead.
    French Revolution-40,000 deaths during the reign of terror, 3-6 in a half million killed during Napoleonic wars
    Russian Revolution- 2.7 million in Russian civil war
    Spanish Civil War- 500,000 killed
    Why does every time some leftist nut jobs try to “change” society for “the better” they end either getting a shit ton of Innocent people killed or killing innocent people themselves?

  16. EXCELLENT crash-course on the French Revolution. Describes it in layman’s terms and is quite entertaining

  17. Never mistake the French for a bunch of cheese-eating, beret wearing, wine drinking, baguette carrying, chain smoking bohemian surrender monkeys. They have a mean military streak running through their veins and, together with the Portuguese, Spanish and British, were in the possession of some of the largest overseas territories of all of the old European imperial colonial powers. Though many of them may appear somewhat effete and douchey on the outside (due to their very own version of the niceguyTM craze taking hold), they generally retain a latent propensity for macho, turbulent, outright revolutionary (and potentially violent) zeal, as can be seen in their numerous uprisings and social cohesion when the time comes to stick it to their government. Though it is an imperfect process and the results can sometimes be quite debatable to say the least, it sure beats lining up for the fleecing like a bunch of obedient dumbfounded sheep.
    As for their women, much has already been written around these parts, and much of it is both true as well as the result of exaggeration, misreadings, cultural blindness and misperception. Though they can be very sensual and seductive, they also have their own specific version of feminism which is more subtle and insidious, and is calibrated to slowly but surely constrict a man like an invisible python until there is no wiggle room left to escape and the poor hapless prey is effectively trapped, waiting for the final squeeze indicative of the ultimate extraction of their remaining lifeforce. On the upside, the mating game can be played at a significantly higher level of sophistication than what you see in America, and the crude and vulgar manner in which some of these Americhicks attempt to “control” and “train” their North American male counterparts would simply be ignored and laughed at outright as a hilariously childish and wholly contemptible insult to their character by the higher-strata Frenchmen (unless they were aiming for the quick lay, of course). After all, If you are to ultimately be consumed by the hypnotizingly alluring praying mantis, might as well demand some style and refinement along the way so as to obtain maximum enjoyment from the ordeal before you go.
    Ah yes, France. A fine country with long-standing traditions, real culture and art, great culinary delights, beautiful sights, a sophisticated and highly elegant language, and a people who, once one is able to understand and navigate their Gallic “peculiarities” with aplomb, can make wonderful and engaging acquaintances. Though I will admit to some bias here given partial French ancestry and the consequent influence in my upbringing, I believe it does not detract from the fact that there really is much to be admired and learned from them.

  18. Things like the French revolution and such like, is what happens when God is ignored as irrelevant. Get ready USA.
    In Jesus’ name, Amen.

  19. How this article relates to the magnificent organ music of the church of the manosphere. With men awakening daily adding chords of brilliance to our resurrection. How such cultured and artistic folk as the French were swayed like the dumb beasts of the wild by a howling moon or the pole zap of uranus into a season of I’d guess 50% heads chopped in error? It is noted that bloodbaths come in cycles influenced by astrological alignments. If I were a commoner or peasant back then where the elitist ‘mauster’ of the house or business could have their way with my spouse and children and I had no recourse because I was just too poor or stupid in their eyes, then YES – I guess I’d hate their whole class enough to want to gore them, but likely would not act on it alone with no full moon. Fast foreward to today and we see men being harpooned by the feminazi socialist services daily. Good responsible fathers having their balls ripped off, thrown on the ground and stomped on the family courtroom floor. The war against men and their families continues like the shooting of fish in a barrel, and is perpetrated by FOOLS that think they can actually declare or even wage such a war just like that, and the people will never rise in defense. But what can I do, you say? Our brightest and socially equipped young girls are being funneled into the pre legal and teachers colleges to study socialist work and ball ripping and we need to switch their major to a meat stick education followed by titfeeding and learning how to cook. We’re coming for our women. All you swingin’ dicks RIIIIIISE UUUPP ! !

  20. A powerful warning against the radical left.
    This is the essence of who they are!

  21. I think you’ll find social change is a lot like continental drift – it can occur through a lot of little earthquakes or a few big ones, but either way its going to happen.
    The French Revolution was an unusually large and violent earthquake, as was the Russian. Compare it to England, where the aristocracy more gradually lost power in favor of the increasingly educated masses. There were some major earthquakes yes – the English Civil War or the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 for instance, but overall England’s shift from feudalism to democracy was a lot less bloody than France, not to mention Germany, Russia and most of Europe. The aristocracy has no one to blame but themselves for letting such pressure build up.

  22. It must be noted that beleiving in a ‘righteous’ cause does not automatically magick and AK47 (or in this case, a sword) into someones hand. Sooner or later we have to get down to the fact that soemone was paying all these speakers/ideologues/revolutionaries to do something other than work. How in the hell do starving (remember, there was a famine, and all attempts to find food pre-them-trying-to-raid other-countries-stocks) peasants overrun trained, armed guards on numerous occasions? Please, like most of the conflicts in today’s world, someone paid for the French revolution to happen.

  23. America never engaged in similar atrocities?
    How about the goddamn Indian Wars?

    1. wasnt aware that americans were eating the hearts and drinking the blood of indians…..dumbfuck

  24. The politics of the French revolutionaries wasn’t much different than their American counterparts of the same period. They drew on the same enlightenment intellectual trends. The American revolution threatened to turn into civil war in the 1790s. Like any revolution, after the original power is gone, the revolutionaries fight amongst themselves to define what the revolution meant. What made the American revolution different was that the poor and aspiring classes could be sent out west to the continental interior where there was land and opportunity, so they weren’t there to revolt against their enemies, who suddenly became their allies in expansion. When the Americans exported their revolution they ran into Native American tribes. When the French found themselves in the same predicament where they had to export the revolution or watch it turn into civil war, they ran into the monarchies of Europe. That is the only relevant difference. Sorry.

  25. Arguing that Communism doesn’t work is the ultimate ignorance. Communism creates slave economies, destroys nationhood, and establishes fiat rule for international bankers. Russia was dismantled in 1917, after which time taxpayer funding from capital-producing countries kept it going. There was no consumer market because there was no intention of having one. Nothing failed. Communism works perfectly. It has to be accounted the most successful political system devised since Monarchy, and accomplishes its goals with stealth.

Comments are closed.