#La liberté ou la mort

[theartisticcrow]

THE EVE OF REVOLUTION: A "Short" Analysis of the UHC shooter situation and what this could mean for the future.

[Originally written on 13 December, 2024 by yours truly]

I find myself quite intrigued by the events that have occurred within the past couple of weeks. Brian Thompson, former CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot dead in New York city and the working class hasn’t been this happy since the sinking of the Titan submersible [EDIT: I was told that apparently this exact line was used in a negative way by some politician and I want to say that I wrote this line on my own as a joke and I had no idea that this happened. I am a part of the working class. I am a part of the people who are happy when bad people die. I wrote this line jokingly trying to be funny and I did not intend for it to sound like something out of a news headline].

I’ll give a brief explanation of what happened in case you don’t already know: Brian Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare—as was previously mentioned—an American-owned private company meant to provide health insurance to American citizens who found themselves in need of it. However, UnitedHealthcare has a long and excruciating history of denying several claims for insurance without practical reason despite the majority of claims coming from people who do need the insurance money to cover the costs of healthcare related services. Millions of citizens have suffered and died as a result of the company's greed and lack of regard for the good of the people. UnitedHealthcare is neither the only health insurance company to operate in such ways. It is simply one of many American companies corrupted with power and all of them are aware of how their actions affect the public, but they do not care because the money that lines their pockets is built purely off the anguish of innocent people. 

I have reason to believe that this is the start of something greater, but there’s a lot here that I need to explain before I get to that point, so I hope you like reading because this is going to be a bit long.

On 4 December, Brian Thompson was shot and killed on the pavement outside the New York Hilton Midtown building along West 54th Street at roughly 6:45 a.m. (EST). The suspect was identified on CCTV footage to be a young man in a hoodie which concealed most of his face aside from a joyful smile as he walked away. He then escaped by bicycle and evaded the police for three days before allegedly being arrested in a McDonald’s with several pieces of incriminating evidence in Altoona, Pennsylvania. During the time that police went searching for the shooter, they found a bag in Central Park believed to belong to the suspect that was filled with monopoly money (the fake currency from the capitalism board game) along with three bullet casings at the sight of the shooting that had written on them the words: Deny, Defend, Despose. Seeing as the police had no leads, they began requesting the help of the public, but were met with an interesting response that went something along the lines of ‘claim denied’. 

All across the world, the UHC shooter was quickly regarded as a hero. People began celebrating the death of Brian Thompson and began laughing in the faces of the government, police and news outlets alike. The media attempted to pose the assassination as a shocking and unexpected tragedy and the vast majority of the population could do all but take them seriously. The news spread like a wildfire across all internet platforms. Fan art began being posted online, a UHC shooter look-alike contest was held and every news article was filled with people in the comments merely laughing. Quite soon after the assassination, it was discovered that someone left a balloon at the sight of the shooting that depicted a graphic of a star with a smiley face and written in pink text, “CEO DOWN”. People began calling him The Claims Adjuster. He became viewed as the real life version of Robin Hood. People would turn on the news each morning to make sure he hadn’t been caught yet, expressing that they actually felt safer knowing that the shooter was still at large.

On 9 December, Luigi Mangione was arrested by local police in Pennsylvania and accused of killing Brian Thompson after an employee of the fast food joint he was sat in reported to police his location. However, there is no true confirmation that he is the real UHC shooter. He was arrested in a McDonald’s supposedly with several pieces of incriminating evidence including a gun and a three page explanation of his motives. The day after his arrest Luigi Mangione immediately accused the police of having planted the evidence. And despite police having offered reward money to anyone that gave them a reliable tip, the McDonald’s employee received not even a penny. The conditions of his arrest immediately presented themself as extremely suspicious. You’re telling me that the guy who carefully planned out and succeeded in the assassination of a corrupt health insurance CEO as well as escaping on a bicycle and evading authorities for several days was caught multiple days later in a McDonald’s with a gun and three pages explaining how and why he committed the crime? The chances of this being true are quite unlikely, especially considering the American police department’s notorious incompetency and a long history of corruption and lies. (All cops are bastards.) A far more realistic situation that would make more sense in the UHC shooter timeline is one in which the police either decided to or were given the order to arrest an innocent man that matched what was known of the shooter’s profile as closely as possible, planting fake evidence at the scene of the arrest and doing everything within their power to deny this man a fair defense in an attempt to shut down whatever hope and optimism has sprung up among the public, considering that if enough people realise how many other individuals feel the same of this situation and they possess the same spite and anger towards those in power, it could eventually lead to revolutionary tendencies. 

Along with this, there have already been several efforts made by the government to silence the voices of the opposition, in particular those who have openly threatened other health insurance companies and/or have worked to expose the corruption of some of those said companies. Such is the case with a woman in Florida, Brianna Boston who ended a phone call with her insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield—who had just denied her medical claim—by saying: “Delay, deny, despose. You people are next.” She was then arrested despite having no weapons, nor a criminal record of any kind and is being charged with a crime she did not truly commit.

A few news articles recently appeared describing Luigi Mangione as having an outburst outside of the court, however upon reviewing the footage it becomes clear that this is not what happened, rather the outburst came more from the police officer with a hand around Mangione’s neck and another officer that slammed Mangione into a wall after he had attempted to communicate “It’s completely unjust and an insult to the intelligence of the American people and their lived experience”. The government is already enforcing censorship upon the internet and citizens where they can, and the media is making every effort to sway the opinion of the American people by posing the assassination as something to be scared of. This is called fear mongering and it is quite prevalent in American politics (as well as Nazi Germany).

But regardless of every attempt the government and media makes to take control of the situation, they cannot control the sudden shift in American politics that has been prompted by the assassination of Brian Thompson. For the longest time—ever since the end of George Washington’s presidency, really—the politics in the United States have always been made out to be a conflict of the Left versus the Right. Democrats versus Conservatives. However, as of the past couple weeks it would seem as though the true conflict in American politics has been realised by more and more people. It has nothing to do with the different political groups that exist partially to keep the country divided and weak. The true enemy of the people is the privileged and wealthy elites. It is all the lower classes—regardless of their beliefs, religion or who they are as a person—versus the wealthy politicians, billionaires and corrupt CEOs that have come to believe the citizens are there to serve them rather than the other way ‘round as it truly should be. The people of America are slowly becoming more and more united by a similar motivation: Liberty, equality, fraternity. For far too long have these wealthy company executives and corrupt politicians sat upon a throne of blood and lies bought with the money stolen from innocent people, gorging themselves upon a feast of human suffering and wine made from the tears of children whose parents were killed in a bombing run funded by the US government for no other reason than profit and power. But little do these people know that terror does not reign. That term in of itself was also a lie, and they were so caught up in their own lies that they forgot they were just as frail and weak as every other human being that they slaughtered to get their way. To put it simply: Times are changing and so is the people’s tolerance. 

Of course, not everyone agrees. There are some who I have seen say that the death of Brian Thompson should not be celebrated. That to do so should be considered sick and twisted behaviour, but what the people saying this either do not realise or are choosing to fully disregard is the fact that Brian Thompson condemned thousands of people to death and made his entire fortune off of doing so. Some argue that now his children are without a father and that is a reason not to support it, but think of how many children have ended up without fathers, or mothers because he made the deliberate and knowing choice to deny them the insurance that could have saved their life? What about friends, family, parents who have lost their own children because of things that insurance refused to cover, deeming it unnecessary despite doctors making clear that nothing else is more important than the very thing that insurance is denying? Brian Thompson’s family will be fine. They live in a house built of blood and bone. Few people can afford even so much as a broom closet.

The media has referred to Brian Thompson’s assassination as ‘brutal’, ‘shocking’, and an act of ‘senseless violence’. They speak as though everyone could not see it coming, because they do not bother to acknowledge the inherent violence that the entire medical, insurance, and governing system is built upon. They spread propaganda and provide the richest country in the world with a major lack of proper education in an effort to keep the people from rising against them, however this fear and every attempt to prevent it from happening will be the very thing that has wrought it in the end. This assassination was not unprovoked, nor was it an overreaction. It was long overdue and truly a wonder that it didn’t happen sooner. If this were somewhere like France, people would be outraged. They would be setting fires in the streets and threatening to shit in the river. The reason this doesn’t happen in America is due to the country’s history.

America is rather young compared to other countries in say Europe, Asia or Africa. They fought a revolutionary war, but after that, the newly formed United States focused on taking over the rest of the land now known as modern day America. The early government was ruled by slave owners and racists. Their education system is underfunded, thus the people do not learn a good enough history. The country is built upon violence, war, nationalism, hatred and a people that have come to treat their political figures like gods. That is not to say other countries are not full of flaws, but I’m rather choosing to focus on the history of the United States and what led to the country’s current predicament and I’ll be using that historical knowledge to explain the true significance of the UHC shooter because it’s the start of something big and I’ve been saying it for years. 

American politics are inherently fascist. That part is obvious, but why? There are several factors throughout American history that come into play here, but I believe that a lot of it can be traced back to the American Revolutionary War and the creation of the country itself. Revolutions are prompted by many of the same and similar factors all throughout history. This can be observed in the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Haitian Revolution, etcetera… However the American Revolution can be said to differ in a fair few ways. In particular, the American Revolution was prompted by a desire for separation from England and the issues it was causing for the colonies as well as the freedom to do what they wanted with the land across the sea, including expanding their territory West into lands that were already occupied by the native people. Keep in mind, this is one of several factors, but it is what can objectively be referred to as one of the major priorities/motivations in what led them to declare war. The Americans also throughout this part of history and all the way up to the present day saw the native people as inferior. This was a common theme within its politics and nationalistic ideologies that the country maintains today. The vast majority of the major revolutionary figures were slave owners. Come the time of the revolution, they made no efforts to bring a proper end to slavery. Many of them believed it wasn’t necessary. They started to form a new government and formed new laws. However, many parts of the American justice system possessed several flaws and several contradictions. Political corruption became prevalent fairly quickly. (Although that is not to say that any government is without corruption.) 

There is also the thing I mentioned earlier of how the United States has a strange habit of treating politicians like gods. Praising and worshipping at their feet like it’s a cult. Children must stand in their classrooms and pledge their life to a country that betrays them time and time again. This is known as America’s weird obsession with nationalism (a concept basically created by Napoleon). But what does the country owe them? What has the country ever done for them? America is the war country. There is a specific reason that it is often referred to as the American Revolutionary War, because the battle they fought is different from other revolutions in history. It was not the same kind of uprising as the French Revolution for example, which was the working class people fighting against the monarchy and taking over the government. The American Revolution functioned more like two countries fighting against each other rather than an uprising and take over of the government within one country. 

America often likes to proclaim itself as the ‘freest country in the world’, but I always have to call into question what that statement is actually referring to. Among the things the Americans fought for in their revolution is the freedom of expression, but the government is constantly fighting to strip away the rights of as many people as they can and turn the country into an authoritarian dictatorship. So it’s rather hypocritical, isn’t it? I ask once again: Freedom for whom, and to do what exactly? Freedom for white men to do what they like with whomever they please? Freedom for the police and military to kill anybody that they disagree with or don’t like for whatever reason? What about the freedom of having affordable housing, food, medical care and education? The monopoly game of a country run by clowns (derogatory) can’t even do that much. Politicians are supposed to serve and protect the people, not the other way around. Yet so often do I see people forget or completely disregard that fact. The education system is underfunded for a reason. 1984 by George Orwell is banned for a reason. The system is not flawed. It is working exactly as it was designed, keeping people divided and weak whilst also presenting them with the illusion of freedom as they set up every other citizen for failure. But that tactic is exactly what will bring its downfall. You can already see it happening. You can smell it in the air: the calm before the storm. It’s really not that hard to see so long as you know where to look.

The American people, in particular the political left, seem hesitant to get up and physically fight back. There is a hesitance there that results in them not defending their rights as ruthlessly as they should. The origins in this hesitance do lie partly in the American Revolutionary War and the particular major revolutionary figures in said war. The way the country was founded and slowly sculpted into what it is today. They wanted freedom, but for different reasons. They had different goals and motivations. Of course the country born from a war is going to do nothing but wage war. It’s just a matter of why so many of the people would rather sit around and wait for something to happen rather than doing something themselves? Why is it not the same in somewhere like France where the people are more than willing to break out into a riot at the slightest change to a law? While I already made a comparison to France as I explained the difference between a revolutionary war and a proper revolution, I’m going to talk about the French Revolution again and in a little more detail, because I believe there’s no better way to explain the problem with American politics and where said politics are heading than by talking about the most impactful revolution in history.

France is a country decidedly owned by the people with a government meant to serve the people whether the politicians like it or not. The French Revolution is arguably the most iconic revolution in history with an impact that has stretched across multiple centuries, and it’s my personal favourite historical event to study. Call me biased all you want, but that thirty page essay changed me in ways I still have yet to figure out and I might as well use this knowledge however I can. Of course, I can't start talking about my favourite historical event without starting with a disclaimer: Maximilien Robespierre was not a bloodthirsty dictator. That is a very common misconception made popular by Thermidorian and British propaganda, but it is not true. Any historian of the French Revolution worth their salt should be able to confirm this. Regardless, when most people think of the French Revolution, they think only of the Terror and a historically inaccurate depiction of Robespierre, but it is so much more than that. People who think only from this perspective are truly missing out on the bigger picture (as well as the autism). This revolution was fought by the citizens of France as they demolished an entire royal monarchy and fought for years to keep the country from collapsing under the intense pressure of having all of Europe declare war on them. 

I occasionally see people saying that the French Revolution failed, but if you’re the type of person to prioritise thorough research, you would know that this is not true. The French Revolution most certainly did not fail. It set the groundwork for the freedom and equality of the French people. During the Revolution, they got rid of slavery (until Napoleon came along), they legalised homosexuality, cut off the heads of several rich people and so much more. They established the National Assembly and the National Convention, and eventually the CSP (Committee of Public Safety, and that’s how I get confused whenever someone brings up Child Protection Services by its acronym). The Revolution succeeded in so many ways with its major failing being for the most part putting so many responsibilities on the shoulders of the individual members of the CSP and expecting them to be able to handle all of that. The French Revolution had a massive impact upon the world, changing it in so many different ways and it represents so many things that I could genuinely spend fifty pages talking about its historical significance and how it relates to the modern world, but I will keep things brief (for once) with a quick summary so that it’s at least somewhat comprehensible to those who doesn’t have my level of autism. 

The thing that sets the American Revolution apart from the French Revolution and explains in many ways the difference of politics lies in the ideas that drove each revolution. The Americans wanted ‘freedom’, sure, but the French wanted much more than just that. They strived for equality and a country that was not controlled purely by the monarchy and the church. By abolishing their monarchy—something that not even the Americans could do—they achieved a lot both in the short-term and long-term. The Revolution did not fail, even despite Napoleon, the Thermidorian Reaction and establishment of a constitutional monarchy just a few decades later. They killed their King, someone that held a position of power believed to be bestowed upon them by God, and they created a Republic. Such things were unheard of until now. This led to massive changes in society with the rise of the middle class. It redefined the concepts of governance, citizenship and human rights. The distribution of power was forever changed and the realisation that the French people could rise up against their own government, take down the monarchy and succeed is also what sparked the Haitian Revolution, as well as paving the way for the eventual elimination of several monarchies across the continent. It helped shape our modern day ideas of liberty and democratic rights and it unified the French people in a way that still affects the culture of France along with several other places. On top of that, it can also be said that the French Revolution set up the foundations for the rise of socialism and communism. The French Revolution succeeded in more ways than most people realise and it’s that fight for equality by the working class that has given France such an intense revolutionary spirit. To say that it was an overreaction to start burning stuff down when France’s government raised the retirement age by a couple of years is foolish, because that revolutionary spirit is the reason that the French have so many rights and America does not. 

And the only reason why people tell you that the French Revolution didn’t work or was a bad idea is because that then discourages other people from attempting any kind of their own revolt regardless of how corrupt and abusive the government becomes. So long as the public remains undereducated, they will be easier for the government to control.

That is also why I believe that history is the most important subject that you can learn in school. That’s also a part of why I’m saying all this. If you are able to understand the past, you can predict the future. Many of the same or similar factors are present before and during the beginning of every revolution. These factors often include, but are not limited to:

Inflation; a lack of affordable food and housing; increased violence; high levels of unemployment; social inequality; suppression of opposing voices; economic failure; increased class consciousness; underpaid workers; worker strikes; political protests; intentional election rigging; people no longer accepting the traditional powers of authority; rising popularity of radical ideologies; the collective realisation that several other individuals share the same opinion on a certain situation; increased risk and fear of death among the citizens; high taxes; a shift in politics that results in the people becoming less divided; increased focus on the real conflict being the privileged rich elites versus everyone else; politicians not keeping the promises of things they said they would do; decreased trust and approval of the government; stricter and more dictatorial laws; unlawful arrest of innocent citizens because of something they merely said (the government is becoming paranoid); lower classes becoming more and more fed up with the old regime; government debt; army/military joins the side of the people rather than the government; groups of people rebelling against the law; an ineffective government with politicians focusing on the wrong issues, ignoring the voices of the people and patting themselves on the back for nothing; politicians and government members are fighting amongst themselves and getting nothing done; political deadlock; more people speaking out against the government; the government is losing control over the people; the government is desperately trying to gain back control through the use of propaganda, fear mongering and taking advantage of media outlets; a general increased struggle to survive; mass frustration; riots and local uprisings; conflict between the old and new ways of governance; visible difference in wealth distribution; unifying motivations; and finally a prolonged period of economic and social development followed by a period of sharp reversal in which people fear that progress made is about to be stripped away and lost.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Yeah, only after writing all this down in my draft did I realise that nearly every single cause of revolution can be applied as a true statement of the United States of America. Huh, what a funny and extremely specific coincidence that is. So what exactly am I suggesting here? Well, to essentially summarize everything that I have written thus far: We might just be on the verge of Revolution. I learned a while ago that once a country hits rock bottom, that’s when a revolution begins and based on the presidential election results, America is about to dive quite deep into the pits of Hell. But don’t worry, it’s not all doom and gloom. That’s why I’ve written this. So long as the individuals of the lower classes are able to stand united and fight for liberty, equality and dare I say fraternity, a greater change shall be able to be made. The choice of standing around and simply hoping that things will improve isn’t much of a choice anymore. There is no better time to take action than right now while we still have a fighting chance. This is not something to fear, but rather to look forward to and encourage. The American citizens combined together can greatly outweigh the government. Those wealthy politicians are not as powerful as they think they are. Their power lies in ensuring that the people remain divided and the recent events with the UHC shooter prove that there is indeed a chance to diminish that power. They are not immortal. Even the greatest empire eventually burned away. 

And while we can’t all be famous revolutionaries, that doesn’t mean that each person can’t help to bring the change we’ve needed for a long time. It starts small. It starts with taking care of our own communities and advocating for other people every chance we get. So long as we as a people remain united, there is little change we cannot bring. The Revolution has only just begun…

[roehenstart]

Toussaint L'Ouverture by George De Baptiste.

[azzrael99]

News is coming for thermidor!!! 😜

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Give me the last words of every figure that had a role in the French revolution

(Maybe it will be to many so you can give a little of if you want)

Louis XVI — on January 22 1793, Suite du Journal de Perlet reported the folllwing about the execution that had taken place the day before:

[Louis] climbs the scaffold, the executioner cuts his hair, this operation makes him flinch a little. He turns towards the people, or rather towards the armed forces which filled the whole place, and with a very loud voice, pronounces these words: “Frenchmen, I die innocent, it is from the top of the scaffold, and ready to appear before God, that I tell this truth; I forgive my enemies, I desire that France…” Here he was interrupted by the noise of the drums, which covered some voices crying for mercy, he himself took off his collar and presented himself to death, his head fell, it was a quarter past ten.

Jean-Paul Marat — several people who came to witness during the trial of Charlotte Corday reported Marat’s last words to have been a cry for help to his fiancée Simonne Évrard:

Laurent Basse, courier, testifies that being on Saturday, July 15 (sic), at Citizen Marat's house, between seven and eight o'clock in the evening, busy folding newspapers, he saw the accused come, whom citoyenne Évrard and the portress refused entrance. Nevertheless, citizen Marat, who had received a letter from this woman, heard her insist and ordered her to enter, which she did. A few minutes later, on leaving, he heard a cry: ”Help me, my dear friend, help me!” (À moi, ma chere amie, à moi !). Hearing this, having entered the room where citizen Marat was, he saw blood come out of his bosom in great volumes; at this sight, himself terrified, he cried out for help, and nevertheless, for fear that the woman should make an effort to escape, he barred the door with chairs and struck her in the head with a blow; the owner came and took it out of his hands.

The president challenges the accused to state what she has to answer. I have nothing to answer, the accused says, the fact is true.

Another witness, Jeanne Maréchal, cook, submits the same facts; she adds that Marat, immediately taken from his bathtub and put in his bed, did not stir.

The accused says the fact is true. 

Another witness, Marie-Barbe Aubin, portress of the house where citizen Marat lived, testifies that on the morning of July 13, she saw the accused come to the house and ask to speak to citizen Marat, who answered her that it was impossible to speak to him at the moment, attenuated the state where he had been for some time, so she gave a letter to deliver to him. In the evening she came back again, and insisted on speaking to him. Aubin and citoyenne Évrard refused to let her in; she insisted, and Marat, who had just asked who it was, having learned that it was a woman, ordered her to be let in; which happened immediately. A few moments later, she heard a cry: "Help me, my dear friend!” (À moi, ma chere amie !);she entered, and saw Marat, blood streaming from his bosom; frightened, she fell to the floor and shouted with all her might: À la garde! Au secours !

The accused says that everything the witness says is the most exact truth.

Girondins — Number 64 of Bulletin du Tribunal Criminel, written shortly after the execution, reports that, once arrived at Place de la Révolution, the Girondins sang Veillons au Salut de l’Empire together while waiting for their turn to mount the scaffold. Lehardy’s last words are reported to have been Vive la République, ”which was generally heard, thanks to the vigorous lungs nature had provided him with.”

Hébertists — On March 31, a week after the execution, Suite de Journal de Perlet reported the following anecdote, though I’ll let it be unsaid whether it should be taken seriously or not:

Here is an anecdote which can serve to make better known the eighteen conspirators whom the sword of the law has struck. On the day of their execution, several heads had already fallen when General Laumur's turn arrived. Ronsin and Vincent looked at him at the scaffold and said to Hébert: ”Without the clumsiness of this j... f... we would have succeeded.” They were alluding to the indiscretion of Laumur, who would tell anyone who would listen that the Convention had to be destroyed.

In Mémoires sur Carnot par son fils (1861), Carnot’s son also claims that, on the day of the execution, his father got stuck in the crowd witnessing the tumbrils pass on their way to the scaffold, close enough to hear Cloots say: “My friends, please do not confuse me with these rascals.”

Dantonists — the famous idea that Danton’s last words were: ”show my head to the people, it’s worth seeing” is, according to Michel Biard, at best backed by a dubious source — Souvernirs d’un sexagénaire (1833) by Antoine Vincent Arnault:

I found there all the expression of the sentiment which inspired Danton with his last words; terrible words which I could not hear, but which people repeated to each other, quivering with horror and admiration. ”Above all, don't forget,” he said to the executioner with the accent of a Gracque, ”don't forget to show my head to the people; it’s worth seeing.” At the foot of the scaffold he had said another word worthy of being recorded, because it characterizes both the circumstance which inspired it, and the man who uttered it. With his hands tied behind his back, Danton was waiting his turn at the foot of the stairs, when his friend Lacroix, whose turn had come, was brought there. As they rushed towards each other to give each other the farewell kiss, a guard, envying them this painful consolation, threw himself between them and brutally separated them. "At least you won't prevent our heads from kissing each other in the basket," Danton told him with a hideous smile.

Biard does however question how reliant Arnault really is, considering his account partly contradicts what earlier, more reliable ones, had to say about the execution. None of the authentic to somewhat autentic descriptions of the dantonist execution I’ve been able to find mention any recorded last words from Danton or his fellow convicts. That has not hindered authors and historians throughout the centuries to let their imagination run wild with the execution — look for example at how many have had Danton say something menacing about Robespierre on his way to the scaffold. Early Desmoulins biographers often have him be a sobbing mess, saying things like "Citizens! it is your preservers who are being sacrificed. It was I — I, who on July 12th called you first to arms! I first proclaimed liberty… My sole crime has been pity...” (Methley, 1915) or ”Thus, then, the first apostle of Liberty ends!” (Claretie,1876) and for Fabre there exists the claim that he hummed his song Il pleut bergère on his way to the scaffold, or muttered his biggest regret was not being able to finish his vers (verses), to which Danton replied that, within a week, he’ll have more vers (worms) than he can dream of. None of these statements do however appear to be backed by any primary sources. Finally, John Gideon Millingen, twelve years old at the time of the execution, reported in his Recollections of Republican France 1791-1801 (1848) that ”[Danton’s] execution witnessed one of those scenes of levity that seemed to render death to a jocose matter. Lacroix, who was beheaded with him, was a man of colossal stature, and, as he descended from the cart, leaning upon Danton, he observed, ”Do you see that axe, Danton? Well, even when my head is struck off I shall be taller than you!” It does however strike me as unlikely for Milligen to actually have been able to hear anything of what the condemned had to say.

Robespierrists — like with the dantonists, we have several alleged last words from more or less unreliable sources. The apocryphal memoirs of the Sansons does for example report Saint-Just’s last words to have an emotionless ”Adieu” to Robespierre, and for the latter we have a story that his last recorded words were ”Merci Monsieur,” which he said to a man for giving him a handkerchief to wipe away the blood coming out of his shattered jaw with (can you even talk under such conditions?). However, here I have again collected trustworthy descriptions, and none of them record any last words. In this instance it’s not exactly strange either, given the fact many of the condemned had been injured so badly they were more or less unconscious by the time of the execution. 

Other alleged final words can be found in this post, among others Madame Roland’s ”Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name” and Bailly’s ”I’m cold.” I will however doubt the authenticity of all of them until someone shows me a serious source for them (the author of the post doesn’t cite any at all). Like I wrote above, I doubt anyone actually stood near enough to hear any eventual last words.

[marcetimetraveller]

I have a better term for non binary royalty: SCUM!

Because I’m absolutely sick of having literally no decent terms for nonbinary people:

Nonbinary Gendered Titles

(Not to be mistaken for ungendered/unisex titles)

Emperor/Empress - Emperett/Emperon

King/Queen - Caln/Reign/Rege

Prince/Princess - Princet/Princen/Prin

Lord/Lady - Loden

Baron/Baroness - Baronen

Baronet/Baronetess - Baroneten

Duke/Duchess - Duxen/Duket

Count/Countess - Counten/Countet

Mom/Dad - Bub/Pib

Mommy/Daddy - Bubby

Mama/Dada - Baba

Mother/Father - Pither

Son/Daughter - Tawn

Brother/Sister - Kinther

Niece/Nephew - Nepom

Aunt/Uncle - Entle

Mister/Miss - Misset/Misser

Sir/Ma’am - Don

[withercrown]

The worst thing about the reductive argument about whether Vander and Silco are "brothers" is that everyone involved misrepresents what that word actually means, and as a historian I have had enough.

"Brothers" is not meant to evoke either actual brothers (they are just simply not brothers, either by blood or adoption) or brothers-in-arms (this is a militaristic concept which is not appropriate imo).

The kind of 'brotherhood' they share is specifically revolutionary/national brotherhood.

The French flavoring of the show—everything from the graffiti to the architecture of Piltover (it's just Paris, guys) to the revolutionary imagery—is one of the things I love most about Arcane. Fortiche is a French studio. They wove their own history and culture into their work.

What's the single most famous phrase associated with the French Revolution?

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité".

This motto was popularized by Robespierre in a speech he gave in 1790. It encapsulated the spirit of the French Revolution so completely that it became institutionalized as the national motto of France to this day. The concept of brotherhood in an explicitly French revolutionary setting is not ambiguous and we are not going to pretend that it is.

"Men of all countries are brothers, he who oppresses one nation declares himself the enemy of all." -Maximilien Robespierre, speech delivered April 24, 1793

During the Revolutionary period, it was the feeling of belonging to a common struggle among the people of France, all together, united as brothers, by their beliefs and their nationality: This struggle was led internally in France against the absolute monarchy, which had to be toppled. Source: France Diplomacy, Liberty – Equality – Fraternity

We have got to start thinking about why the creators might want to emphasize the revolutionary brotherhood between Silco and Vander so strongly. Fraternité was arguably the most actively dangerous part of the triad:

Fraternité was sometimes styled as “fraternité ou la mort” — “brotherhood or death.” This “you’re with us or you’re against us” mentality, cloaked in the ideals of freedom and enlightenment, would go on to fuel one of the bloodiest episodes in France’s history: the Reign of Terror. Source: Liberté, égalité, fraternité: French Political History and THE PLAGUE

Fraternity is not a toothless concept. This isn't about picking a brother and a sister and maybe a mommy and a daddy. This led directly to the beheading of the King and Queen of France and their son, and to a political slaughter severe enough to be named the Reign of Terror by historians. 30,000 people died, 17,000 by execution. These guys were not messing around. Again: this is France's (and Haiti's) motto today. You can go to France right now and see this all over their buildings and monuments.

Vander and Silco diverged on this point. When they speak to one another, they use the past tense. You were my brother. They no longer see each other as being part of the same vision. They no longer interpret brotherhood in a way that includes one another.

Fraternité ou la mort is practically a thesis statement for Silco's character. He lives and dies on his sense of brotherhood—and in fact, choosing his daughter over Zaun and his sense of revolutionary brotherhood directly and almost immediately results in his death.

(Not so incidentally, in making the choice of Jinx over Zaun, he refers to Vander as brother again, as their visions have finally come back into alignment.)

(they're both still wrong tho)

It's not enough to say they were brothers-in-arms. It's also not textually supported to say they were siblings. Their relationship to one another was defined through their commitment to Zaun, and their relationship with the fraternity promised by that dream.

I think there is a broad scope for valid interpretations of their relationship, btw—from revolutionary brothers to best friends to boyfriends. I am just so tired of seeing the same points repeated ad nauseam about the word 'brother' when it isn't really ambiguous at all what was intended, and learning that information is just France 101.

[secretmellowblog]

One super funny thing about the French Rev (that Victor Hugo even references in Les Mis) is the way it altered naming conventions, resulting in tons of WILD amazing ridiculous names!

Basically what happened was— during the French Rev the laws around registering names were relaxed, so people started giving extremely revolutionary names to themselves and their babies.

Sadly Napoleon’s government later cracked down on this. When Napoleon came into power he passed a restrictive law mandating that people had to choose among a list of “normal” names, banning the weird revolution ones, because he was a spineless coward afraid of the power these names had. The restrictive naming laws weren’t repealed until late in the 20th century.

But anyway here are some of my favorite French Rev baby names (taken from this list):

Mort Aux Aristocrates -“Death to Aristocrats”

Amour Sacré de la Patrie l’an Trois -“Sacred Love of the Fatherland Year III”

Lagrenade —“The Grenade”

Droit de l’Homme Tricolor “Right of Man Tricolor”

Égalité — “Equality”

Régénérée Vigueur— “Regenerated Strength”

Marat, ami du peuple -“Marat, friend of the people”

Marat, défenseur de la Patrie—“Marat, defender of the Fatherland”

La Loi-“The Law”

Philippe Thomas Ve de bon coeur pour la République — “Philippe Thomas ‘Go with a good heart for the Republic’”

Raison —“Reason”

Simon Liberté ou la Mort —“Simon “Freedom or Death””

Citoyen Français—“French Citizen”

Sans Crainte— “Without Fear”

Unitée Impérissable— “Imperishable Unity”

Victoire Fédérative— “Federal Victory”

Vengeur Constant —“Constant Avenger”

[czerwonykasztelanic]

La Liberté ou la Mort! Acrylic on canvas. Somehow managed to exceed my own expectations.

[alchemyfire]

Have any of you read this yet?

I just downloaded this e-book. My heart is beating faster with excitement, already. :-)

[nietzsche813]

La liberté ou la mort, extrait

Robespierre jouait à lancer des branches à Brount avec Elisabeth, à quelques distances devant eux. Il courrait pour entraîner le molosse derrière lui, et jetait le bâton de toutes ses forces, ne se souciant pas de voir s'il risquait de tacher ses bas blancs de boue. Brount partait comme un fou avec ses grandes pattes désordonnées, la langue pendant sur le côté et la queue frétillante. Quand il revenait avec le morceau de bois, Elisabeth et Maximilien devaient s'escrimer à le lui récupérer et tiraient de toutes leurs forces pour le lui arracher de la gueule. Le jeu recommençait ensuite, pour la plus grande joie des trois participants.

Saint-Just marchait les bras croisés dans le dos, au rythme d'Eléonore.

-Eléonore, maintenant que nous sommes bons amis, puis-je me permettre une question?

La jeune fille lui sourit d'un air indulgent.

- Voyons la question.

Saint-Just se racla la gorge et fixa son regard sur la pointe de ses bottes.

- Eh bien... je ne comprends pas que tu ne sois pas amoureuse de lui.

Eléonore laissa échapper un petit rire. Elle ne paraissait pas particulièrement vexée ou embarrassée par cette question indiscrète.

-Et pourquoi cela ? demanda-t-elle.

Saint-Just redressa la tête et fit un geste de la main vague vers Brount qui s'était mis à aboyer joyeusement, et Elisabeth qui faisait semblant de jeter le bâton pour la troisième fois.

- Je ne sais pas, regarde le... Tout à l'heure il faisait un travail de géant pour la patrie, et maintenant il se contente d'une récompense si simple ! Jouer avec son chien, nourrir ses oiseaux, manger le potage de ta mère ce soir, lire quelques pages de Rousseau au coin du feu...

-... quelques oranges, une visite de son cher Saint-Just...

- Si nous parvenons à installer et à protéger notre république, il ne cherchera aucune récompense pour lui même. Il ne faudra pas davantage que ces quelques plaisirs que nous avons évoqués pour faire son bonheur. Quand on en vient à le connaitre, il est si doux, si sincère. Parfois, cela me noue le coeur quand j'y pense.

- Certainement, approuva Eléonore en venant prendre le bras d'Antoine, et c'est pour cela que mes parents le considèrent comme leur fils et moi comme mon frère. Le sang ne me le rendrait pas plus cher.

- Un frère, oui...Mais imagine le comme époux, ne serait-ce pas mieux encore ? La voix de Saint-Just s'était réduite à un murmure rêveur. Il est si loyal, si dévoué. Non vraiment, tu ne trouveras pas mieux que lui.

-Pour ce qui est du physique... commença Eléonore

- Du physique ! répéta-t-il, le cri qu'il ne réussit par à réprimer attirant un instant l'attention de Brount vers lui. Comment peux tu parler du physique face à une telle âme ! Et puis de toute façon la physionomie de Maximilien n'a rien de désagréable, regarde, il est petit certes, mais il a les mollets bien fait, une mine intelligente, des yeux verts, un joli nez...

- Tu ne trouves pas qu'il a un style un peu démodé?

- Maximilien s'en fiche des fariboles de la mode! Il prends soin de ses vêtement et il est toujours bien mis. On ne peut pas en dire autant des trois quarts des députés qui siègent à la Convention avec les cheveux gras et les bottes crottées. Son style est très respectable.

Eléonore se mit à rire de bon coeur devant l'air révolté de Saint-Just.

-Antoine... Si moi je ne suis pas amoureuse de lui, rien ne t'empêche de l'être, toi.

[papillondusublime]

En ce Jour du Souvenir, portons le coquelicot et accordons une minute de silence pour tous les soldats qui se sont sacrifiés pour notre liberté! N'oublions pas non plus d'honorer nos vétérans et ceux qui servent le pays car ils le méritent. En espérant que l'avenir nous apportera des temps de paix, voici un poème de Paul Eluard:

Sur mes cahiers d’écolier Sur mon pupitre et les arbres Sur le sable sur la neige J’écris ton nom Sur toutes les pages lues Sur toutes les pages blanches Pierre sang papier ou cendre J’écris ton nom Sur les images dorées Sur les armes des guerriers Sur la couronne des rois J’écris ton nom Sur la jungle et le désert Sur les nids sur les genêts Sur l’écho de mon enfance J’écris ton nom Sur les merveilles des nuits Sur le pain blanc des journées Sur les saisons fiancées J’écris ton nom Sur tous mes chiffons d’azur Sur l’étang soleil moisi Sur le lac lune vivante J’écris ton nom Sur les champs sur l’horizon Sur les ailes des oiseaux Et sur le moulin des ombres J’écris ton nom Sur chaque bouffée d’aurore Sur la mer sur les bateaux Sur la montagne démente J’écris ton nom Sur la mousse des nuages Sur les sueurs de l’orage Sur la pluie épaisse et fade J’écris ton nom Sur les formes scintillantes Sur les cloches des couleurs Sur la vérité physique J’écris ton nom Sur les sentiers éveillés Sur les routes déployées Sur les places qui débordent J’écris ton nom Sur la lampe qui s’allume Sur la lampe qui s’éteint Sur mes maisons réunies J’écris ton nom Sur le fruit coupé en deux Du miroir et de ma chambre Sur mon lit coquille vide J’écris ton nom Sur mon chien gourmand et tendre Sur ses oreilles dressées Sur sa patte maladroite J’écris ton nom Sur le tremplin de ma porte Sur les objets familiers Sur le flot du feu béni J’écris ton nom Sur toute chair accordée Sur le front de mes amis Sur chaque main qui se tend J’écris ton nom Sur la vitre des surprises Sur les lèvres attentives Bien au-dessus du silence J’écris ton nom Sur mes refuges détruits Sur mes phares écroulés Sur les murs de mon ennui J’écris ton nom Sur l’absence sans désir Sur la solitude nue Sur les marches de la mort J’écris ton nom Sur la santé revenue Sur le risque disparu Sur l’espoir sans souvenir J’écris ton nom Et par le pouvoir d’un mot Je recommence ma vie Je suis né pour te connaître Pour te nommer Liberté.

[coulisses-onirisme]

Sur mes cahiers d’écolier Sur mon pupitre et les arbres Sur le sable sur la neige J’écris ton nom

Sur toutes les pages lues Sur toutes les pages blanches Pierre sang papier ou cendre J’écris ton nom

Sur les images dorées Sur les armes des guerriers Sur la couronne des rois J’écris ton nom

Sur la jungle et le désert Sur les nids sur les genêts Sur l’écho de mon enfance J’écris ton nom

Sur les merveilles des nuits Sur le pain blanc des journées Sur les saisons fiancées J’écris ton nom

Sur tous mes chiffons d’azur Sur l’étang soleil moisi Sur le lac lune vivante J’écris ton nom

Sur les champs sur l’horizon Sur les ailes des oiseaux Et sur le moulin des ombres J’écris ton nom

Sur chaque bouffée d’aurore Sur la mer sur les bateaux Sur la montagne démente J’écris ton nom

Sur la mousse des nuages Sur les sueurs de l’orage Sur la pluie épaisse et fade J’écris ton nom

Sur les formes scintillantes Sur les cloches des couleurs Sur la vérité physique J’écris ton nom

Sur les sentiers éveillés Sur les routes déployées Sur les places qui débordent J’écris ton nom

Sur la lampe qui s’allume Sur la lampe qui s’éteint Sur mes maisons réunies J’écris ton nom

Sur le fruit coupé en deux Du miroir et de ma chambre Sur mon lit coquille vide J’écris ton nom

Sur mon chien gourmand et tendre Sur ses oreilles dressées Sur sa patte maladroite J’écris ton nom

Sur le tremplin de ma porte Sur les objets familiers Sur le flot du feu béni J’écris ton nom

Sur toute chair accordée Sur le front de mes amis Sur chaque main qui se tend J’écris ton nom

Sur la vitre des surprises Sur les lèvres attentives Bien au-dessus du silence J’écris ton nom

Sur mes refuges détruits Sur mes phares écroulés Sur les murs de mon ennui J’écris ton nom

Sur l’absence sans désir Sur la solitude nue Sur les marches de la mort J’écris ton nom

Sur la santé revenue Sur le risque disparu Sur l’espoir sans souvenir J’écris ton nom

Et par le pouvoir d’un mot Je recommence ma vie Je suis né pour te connaître Pour te nommer

Liberté.

Paul Eluard

Poésie et vérité 1942 (recueil clandestin) Au rendez-vous allemand (1945, Les Editions de Minuit)

[roehenstart]

Portrait of Henri Christophe, King of Haiti. By Richard Evans.

[talonabraxas]

La Liberté ou la Mort, Jean-Baptiste Regnault

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Was suicide really seen as noble during the French Revolution? Was there any recorded tension regarding this cultural shift with more religious or less revolutionary people/groups? Thanks!

In the book La liberté ou la mort: mourir en député 1792-1795 (2015) can be found a list of all the deputies of the National Convention that died unnatural deaths between 1792 and 1799. Of the 96 names included on it, 16 were those of suicide victims, and to these must also me added a number of botched suicide attempts as well. 

Only a single one of these suicides appears to have been driven by something outside of politics, that of the deputy Charlier, who shot himself in his apartment on February 23 1797, two years after the closing of the Convention. The rest of the suicides are all very clearly politically motivated, more specifically, deputies killing themselves just as the machinery of revolutionary justice was about to catch up to them. There’s those who killed themselves while on the run and unsheltered from the hostile authorities — the girondin Rebecqui who on May 1 1794 drowned himself in Old Port of Marseille, Pétion and Buzot who on June 24 1794 shot themselves after getting forced to leave the garret where they for the last few months had been hiding out, Maure who shot himself while in hiding on 3 June 1795 after having been implicated in the revolt of 1 Prairial, Brunel, who on May 27 shot himself after failing to quell a riot in Toulon, and Tellier, who similarily shot himself on September 17 1795 due to a revolt directed against him in the commune of Chartres. Barbaroux too attempted to shoot himself on June 18 1794 but only managed to blow his jaw off. He was instead captured and guillotined. There’s those that put an end to their days once cornered by said authorities — Lidon, who on November 2 1793 shot himself after having been discovered at his hiding place by two gendarmes (he did however first fire three shots at said gendarmes, one of whom got hit in the cheek) and Le Bas who shot himself in the night between July 27 and 28 1794 as National guardsmen stormed the Hôtel de Ville where he and his allies were hiding out (according to his wife’s memoirs, already a few days before this he had told her that he would kill them both right then and there wasn’t it for the fact they had an infant son). In an interrogation held two o’clock in the morning on July 28 1794, Augustin Robespierre too revealed that the reason he a few hours earlier had thrown himself off the cordon of the Hôtel de Ville was ”to escape from the hands of the conspirators, because, having been put under a decree of accusation, he believed his death inevitable,” and there’s of course an eternal debate on whether or not his older brother too had attemped to commit suicide at Hôtel de Ville that night or if he was shot by a guard (to a lesser extent, this debate also exists regarding Couthon). There’s those who committed suicide in prison to avoid an unfriendly tribunal — Baille who hanged himself while held captive in the hostile Toulon on September 2 1793, Condorcet who took poison and was found dead in his cell in Bourg-la-Reine on 29 March 1794 (though here there exists some debate on whether it really was suicide or if he ”just” died from exhaustion) and Rühl, who stabbed himself while in house arrest on May 29 1795. On March 17 1794, Chabot tried to take his life in his cell in the Luxembourg prison by overdosing on medicine (he reported that he shouted ”vive la république” after drinking the liquor) but survived and got guillotined. Finally, there’s those who held themselves alive for the whole trial but killed themselves as soon as they heard the pronounciation of the death sentence —  the girondin Valazé who stabbed himself to death on October 30 1793 and the so called ”martyrs of prairial” Duquesnoy, Romme, Goujon, Bourbotte (in a declaration written shortly before his death he wrote: ”Virtuous Cato, no longer will it be your example alone that teaches free men how to escape the scaffold of tyranny”), Duroy and Soubrany who did the same thing on June 17 1795 (only the first three did however succeed with their suicide, the rest were executed the very same day).

To these 24 men must also be added other revolutionaries that weren’t Convention deputies, such as Jacques Roux who on February 10 1794 stabbed himself in prison, former girondin ministers Étienne Clavière who did the same thing on December 8 1793 (learning of his death, his wife killed herself as well) and Jean Marie Roland who on November 10 1793 ran a sword through his heart while in hiding, after having been informed of his wife’s execution, Gracchus Babeuf and Augustin Darthé who attempted to stab themselves on May 27 1797 after having been condemned in the so called ”conspiracy of equals,” but survived and were executed the next day, as well as two jacobins from Lyon — Hidins who killed himself in prison before the city got ”liberated,” and Gaillard who did the same thing shortly after the liberation, after having spent several weeks in jail.

With all that said, I think you could say taking your life was considered ”noble” in a way, if it allowed you to die with greater dignity than letting the imposition of revolutionary judgement take it instead did. It was at least certainly a step up compared to before 1789, when suicide (through the Criminal Ordinance of 1670) was considered a crime which could lead to confiscation of property, opprobium cast on the victim’s family and even subjection of the courpse to various outrages, like dragging it through the street. To nuance this a bit, it is however worth recalling that this was only in theory, and that in practise, most of these penalties had ceased to be carried out already in the decades before the revolution, a period during which suicide, in the Enlightenent’s spirit of questioning everything, had also started getting discussed more and more. The word ”suicide” itself entered the French dictionary in 1734. Most of the enlightenment philosophes reflected on suicide and the ethics behind it. There’s also the widely spread The Sorrows of Young Werther that was first released in 1774. Furthermore, most revolutionaries were also steeped in the culture of Antiquity, where suicide was seen as an admirable response to political defeat, perhaps most notably those of Brutus and Cato the younger, big heroes of the revolutionaries. Over the course of the revolution, we find several patriotic artists depicting famous suicides of Antiquity — such as Socrates (whose death is considered by some to have been a sort of suicide) (1791) by David, The Death of Cato of Utica (1795) by Guillaume Guillon-Lethière, and The death of Caius Gracchus (1798) by François Topino-Lebrun. According to historian Dominique Godineau, the 18th century saw ”the inscription [of suicide] in the social landscape, at least in large cities: it has become “public,” people talk about it, it is less hidden than at the beginning of the century,” and she therefore argues that the decision to decriminalize it in the reformed penal code (it didn’t state outright that suicide was now OK, but it no longer listed it as a crime) of 1791 wasn’t particulary controversial.

Furthermore, that committing suicide was more noble than facing execution was still far from an obvious, universal truth during the revolution. In his memoirs, Brissot does for example recall that, right after the insurrection of August 10, when he and other ”girondins” discussed what to do was an act of accusation to be issued against them, Buzot argued that ”the death on the scaffold was more courageous, more worthy for a patriot, and especially more useful for the cause of liberty” than committing suicide to avoid it. The feared news of their act of accusation did however arrive before the girondins had reached a definitive conclusion on what to do, leading to some fleeing (among them Buzot, who of course ironically ended up being one of the revolutionaries that ultimately chose suicide over the scaffold) and some calmly awaiting their fate. In her memoirs, Madame Roland did her too consider going to the scaffold with her head held high to be an act of virtue — ”Should I wait for when it pleases my executioners to choose the moment of my death and to augment their triumph by the insolent clamours of the mob to which I would be exposed? Certainly!” In his very last speech to the Convention, convinced that his enemies were rounding up on him, Robespierre exclaimed he would ”drink the hemlock,” a reference to the execution of Socrates. The girondin Vergniaud is also said to have carried poison on him but chosen to have go out with his friends on the scaffold, although I’ve not yet discovered what the source for this is. It can also be noted that the number of Convention deputies who let revolutionary justice have its course with them was still considerably higher than those who attempted to put an end to their days before the sentence could be carried out.

According to Patterns and prosecution of suicide in eighteenth-century Paris (1989) by Jeffrey Merrick, there was indeed tension regarding the rising amount of suicides in the decades leading up to the revolution. Merrick cites first and foremost the printer and bookseller Siméon Prosper Hardy, who in his journal Mes loisirs ou journal des evenements tels qu'ils parviennent a ma connaissance (1764-1789),  documented a total of 259 cases of Parisian suicides. Hardy saw these deaths as an unwelcome import from the English, who for their part were led to kill themselves due to ”the dismal climate, unwholesome diet, and excessive liberty.” He also blamed the suicides on "the decline of religion and morals," caused by the philosophes, who in their ”bad books” popularized English ways of thinking and undermined traditional values. He was not alone in drawing a connection between the suicides and the new ideas. According to Merrick, the clergy in general ”denounced the philosophes for legitimizing this unforgiveable crime against God and society, which they now associated with systematic unbelief more than the traditional diabolical temptation.” In practice, many parish priests did however still quietly bury the bodies of persons who killed themselves. The future revolutionary Louis Sébastien Mercier did on the other hand blame the government and its penchant for inflated prices and burdensome taxes for the alleged epidemic of suicides in his Tableau de Paris (1782-1783).

In La liberté ou la mort: mourir en député, 1792-1795 it is also established that there weren’t that many participants of the king that killed themselves once the wind started blowing in the wrong direction, but that is not to say they didn’t exist. As example is cited the case of a man who in April 1793 shot himself on the Place de la Révolution, before having written ”I die for you and your family” on a gravure representimg the head of Louis XVI. There’s also the case of Michel Peletier’s murderer Philippe Nicolas Marie de Pâris, royalist and former king’s guard, who, similar to Lidon, blew his brains out when the authorities had him cornered a week after the murder.

Sources:

Patterns and prosecution of suicide in eighteenth-century Paris (1989) by Jeffrey Merrick 

Pratiques du suicide à Paris pendant la Révolution française by Dominique Godineau

La liberté ou la mort: mourir en député, 1792-1795 (2015) by Michel Biard, chapter 5, ”Mourir en Romain,” le choix de suicide.

Choosing Terror (2014) by Marisa Linton, page 276-279, section titled ”Choosing how to die.”

[leparfumdesreves]

MA FRANCE ET MOI

"C’est celle de 1789, une FRANCE qui se lève, celle qui conteste, qui refuse !

La FRANCE qui proteste qui veut savoir, c’est la FRANCE joyeuse, curieuse et érudite, la FRANCE de Molière qui tant se battit contre l’hypocrisie, celle de La Fontaine celle de Stendhal, de Balzac, celle de Jaurès, celle de Victor Hugo et de Jules Vallès !

La FRANCE de l’invention, des chercheurs, celle de Pasteur, celle de Denis Papin et de Pierre et Marie Curie !

La FRANCE des Lettres, celle de Chateaubriand, de Montaigne, la FRANCE de la Poésie, celle de Musset, d’Eluard, de Baudelaire, de Verlaine et celle d’ Aimé Césaire !

La FRANCE qui combat tous les totalitarismes, tous les racismes, tous les intégrismes, l’obscurantisme et tout manichéisme !

La FRANCE qui aime les Mots, les Mots doux, les Mots d’Amour, et aussi la Liberté de dire des gros Mots !

La FRANCE qui n’en finira jamais de détester le mot "SOUMISSION" et de choyer le Mot RÉVOLTE !

Oui ma FRANCE à moi c’est celle des Poètes, des Musiciens, celle d’Armstrong, celle de l’Accordéon, celle des Chansons douces, des Chansons graves, des Espiègles, des Humoristiques, des Moqueuses ou celle truffée de Mots qui font rêver d’un Amour que l’on n’osera jamais déclarer à celle qu’on aime.

Ma FRANCE à moi c’est celle de Picasso, de Cézanne et celle de Soulages, celle d’Ingres, celle de Rodin !

La FRANCE des Calembours, des "Bidochons", celle de la Paillardise aussi bien que celle du "Chant des Partisans".

Ma FRANCE c’est celle de Daumier, celle de l’ "Assiette au beurre", du "Sapeur Camembert", celle de Chaval, celle de Cabu, de Gottlieb, de Siné, celle du "Canard", de "Fluide Glacial" et de "Charlie", drôles, insolents, LIBRES !

Ma FRANCE, c’est aussi celle des dictées de Pivot celle de Klarsfeld et celle de Léopold Sedar Senghor, la FRANCE des "Enfants du Paradis" et des "Enfants du Veld ’hiv", celle de la Mode libre, celle de la Danse, des flirts et des Câlins, celle de la Musique douce et des Rocks déjantés, celle de la Gourmandise !

Ma France à moi c’est une FRANCE capable de renvoyer dos à dos la Bible et le Coran s’il lui prend l’envie d’être Athée !

Eh oui ! Ma FRANCE est une FRANCE LIBRE, FRATERNELLE et éternellement INSOUMISE aux dictats de la "bien-pensance" !

Il n’est qu’en respectant toutes ces diversités qu’on arrive un jour à vivre la "DOUCE FRANCE" de Trenet.

Celle qui m’a toujours plu et que notre jeunesse lucide et combative fera perdurer par-delà les obscurantismes.

Figure révolutionnaire, emblématique, durant "La Commune", le "Père Duchêne" écrivait au frontispice du Journal qu’il publiait en 1793 ,

"LA RÉPUBLIQUE OU LA MORT !"

Son journal coûtait 1 sou… mais on en avait pour son argent !"

Pierre Perret

C'était aussi ma FRANCE...