#robespierre's parrot

[natandacat]

I wish “french revolution” fans (british and american) would be a little bit more fucking sensitive. And also realize that historical events are not a fandom. Anyway.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Élisabeth Lebas talking about Robespierre like he’s the Messiah or something compilation

[Edgar Degas] told me that, when he was a child, his mother one day took him to rue de Tournon to visit Madame Lebas, widow of the famous Convention deputy who, on 9 thermidor, killed himself with a pistol. When the visit was over, they withdrew with small steps, accompanied to the door by the old lady, when Madame Degas suddenly stopped, deeply overwhelmed. Letting go of her son's hand, she pointed at the portraits of Robespierre, of Couthon, of Saint-Just, that she had just noticed were hanging on the walls of the antechambre, and she couldn’t keep herself from crying out with horror: ”What! You still keep the faces of these monsters here!”  ”Be quiet, Célestine!” Madame Lebas cried out ardently, ”be quiet… They were saints!” Discours de l’Histoire prononcé à la distribution solennelle des prix du Lycée Jeanson-de-Sailly held by Paul Valéry on July 13 1932, cited in Robespierre ou les contradictions du jacobinisme (1978) by Albert Soboul.

I was able to converse, between 1838 and 1839, with a famous parrot who had been the friend of Robespierre. He belonged to Mme the widow Lebas, the wife of the famous Convention deputy who chose to die with Robespierre, and the mother of M. Lebas, Hellenist scholar, who died a few years ago. Mme widow Lebas, a very respectable woman, whom I had the honour of seeing often in her little house in Fontenay-aux-Roses, where she would make the sign of the cross when she pronounced the name Robespierre, adding these words: Saint Maximilien. As for her parrot, when one said "Robespierre", it replied Hats off! Hats off! It sang the Marseillaise with perfect diction and Ça ira like a Jacobin. It was — and perhaps, thanks to its diet of grain, still is — a sans-culotte parrot, the like of which can no longer be found. Mme Lebas recounted with great emotion how she had managed to save this precious psittacus  after Thermidor.  It had been seriously compromised.  After the arrest of Robespierre and Lebas, in the course of a long domiciliary inspection,  every time the name of Robespierre was pronouned the parrot would repeat its refrain, Hats off! Hats off! The government agents had grown impatient and were about to wring its neck, when Mme Lebas, as quick as lightning,  grabbed the bird, opened the window and set it free. The poor parrot flew from window to window, until it found a charitable person to open up for it; a few days later Madame Lebas was able to regain possession of this last friend left to her by Robespierre, the only one perhaps, besides his elderly mistress, who has remained faithful to his memory.  L’Union médicale: journal des intérêts scientifiques et pratiques, moraux et professionnels du corps médical (1861) volume 12, page 258-259.

Finally our providence, our good friend Robespierre, spoke to Saint-Just to engage him to let me depart with [him and Lebas], along with my sister-in-law Henriette. Élisabeth’s memoirs, cited in Le conventionnel Le Bas: d’après des documents inédits et les mémoires de sa veuve (1901), by Stéfane-Pol, page 131.

…If you had been informed of my residence, I would have been eager to tell you the truth. The good that you say of our martyrs is not too charged: they were the true friends of liberty; they lived only for the people, for their fatherland; but some monsters, in one day, destroyed everything; in one day they assassinated liberty. Yes, monsieur, a republican like you would have been happy to know those men, so virtuous on all accounts; they all died poor. Note written by Élisabeth a few years before her death regarding ”a work treating the revolution” (l’Histoire des Girondins?). Cited in Ibid, page 147.

[warsofasoiaf]

I kept wanting to post my ideas on what a full term gus hall presidency would look like and yet I never had the energy or time to do it. so basically I think the best description of him would be something like an american robespierre. Initially targeting groups genuinely hated and for some, justly so, by the general american public. like american fascists and nazi sympathizers as well as the cia and fbi for their roles in targetting the civil rights movement. Though using lies and manipulative tactics to get rid of threats and push forward radical policies and that are initially favored as well as putting supporters into power so he can rule by decree. like better rights for those historically discriminated. though as time goes on he then targets less "just" enemies like moderates on both sides, and those who while sympathetic to what he's trying to do, are opposed to his methods like harrington or labor unions until he's going full stalinist, killing even other leftists and anyone who isn't sufficiently loyal. If he succeeds in keeping power then his US is just an american USSR with all the implications that brings. if he fails and overplays his hands he gets removed and risks a civil war or opening up the US to a military dictatorship or a future demagogue.

While this is a lot better than what the Hall writers seem to have come up with, this doesn't really mesh with Gus Hall as he was in real life.

In our own history, Gus Hall was a dedicated vanguardist who offered his full-throated support for the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Domestically, he demanded the New Left fall in line and refused to even deign any of their criticism of the Soviet Union. He facilitated Soviet espionage through the CPUSA, laundered Soviet money, and was openly pro-authoritarian. The Hall writers, in this thread, largely ignored Hall's support of the Soviet invasions into Eastern Europe and Hall's own parroting of the Soviet line in favor of portraying him as a sort of well-meaning extremist and someone who regularly broke with the Soviets (ignoring that 90% of the time, he didn't). They portray his domestic policy using the CPUSA's policy from the 1990's after the Soviets fell, before that they were unflagging supporters of the Leninist model.

Hall in the TNO-verse would be uncompromising and brutal, regularly throwing any suspected counter-revolutionaries into prison. Hall (and one of the prominent people in his arc, Angela Davis) talked a big game criticizing the US's prison-industrial complex but issued glowing statements about the USSR's system of prison labor for dissidents - there's no reason to think that this wouldn't be the case in a Hall USA. Prison camps, extrajudicial violence, these would be as commonplace in a Hall USA as they would be in a Yockey USA.

Heck, given the TNO-verse, which has the Soviet Union collapse due to following Bukharinist thought, Hall should be even more extreme. The prevailing idea among TNO-verse Communists is that the Lenin NEP the reason that the Soviets failed against the Nazis, so they'd look to purge that sort of weakness from the nation that would cause it to collapse in the face of an ascendant Reich.

I don't know why the writers dropped the ball so spectacularly with Hall. The writers largely found the Hall they want to portray and worked backwards to justify it, ignoring all countervailing evidence, and it's honestly very disappointing. My theory is that there was pushback from his earlier portrayal, which definitely had its problems (the Lavender Scare) , which led them to overcorrect.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[robespapier]

Also he peels his one orange a meal single-handedly (someone has read Fréron and dismissed the "pyramid of oranges" 🍊🍊🍊), Maurice Duplay has the face of a pig, Eleonore teaches patriot songs to Robespierre's parrot (a gift from an admirer), Robespierre doesn't have one leg ulcer but multiples and it's awful, and he put wig powder everywhere then clean his face with a blade, and brush his teeth and spits on the ground (someone has read Fréron and liked that part)

And that's only the first few pages

I found a novel about young Napoleon's rise to power, and in the first few pages it's told me Robespierre had no lips and that he was losing sleep over the rumours about him and Eleonore Duplay being lovers, because she was so fucking ugly, he would never, how could people say that, how mean of them

[lanterne]

So um... themidorian propaganda 🤡

it must be very odd to run into people on tumblr defending Robespierre saying that calling him a mass murderer is "thermidorian propaganda". So let's unpack that.

Thermidorian propaganda is, long story short, a series of made up or distorted facts about the politics of year II (1793/94, like, the terror) and specially about Robespierre. We all know propaganda is supposed to push an agenda, it's usually financed by an entity. With thermidorian propaganda is hard to tell because the people who had anything to gain from painting Robespierre as a monster are long dead, but somehow it still gets parroted to this day by non-specialists and reproduced in fiction and pop culture. 

In this post I'm going to focus on the original thermidorian propaganda that came out immediately after Robespierre’s death. I hope, if real life allows me, this to be the first post of a series. I must clarify I’m not a historian so there will be inacuracies, this is just a casual, funny and quick intro to the subject, so if I succeed in picking your interest, I strongly encourage you to do your own research with real academic sources and draw your own conclusions. Also I’d like to thank @frevandrest​ and @tierseta​ for their corrections and suggestions! Also I relied a lot on @rbzpr​, specially this post that compiles a lot of primary sources about the propaganda.

Year II (1793-1794) speedrun

Robespierre's real role during the terror

To understand what even was the terror about, you need to know that there was an external war against all the monarchies of Europe and simultaneously, an internal war against counterrevolutionary forces like vendean revels and federalists. To even have a chance for the republic to survive, the national convention declared that the government would be “revolutionary until peace” which means that there would be a state of emergency, which suspended certain freedoms until peacetime. Some of the emergency measures were the suspension of the constitution of 1793, the infamous law of suspects and general maximum, the limitation of freedom of press and the institution of representatives on mission, deputies of the convention that were sent to the provinces to watch over military operations and had the authority to do whatever they wanted. 

Robespierre in 1793 was elected to the Committee of Public Safety. The CPS was the convention’s executive branch and pretty much a war cabinet with dictatorial powers (in theory, but in practice everything they did had to be approved by the convention). Its purpose was to take measures to win the war against all of Europe, keep everyone fed and crush counterrevolution. They didn’t have a “director” or anything like that, the twelve had equal authority. Besides, the CPS was full of deeply confrontational, clashing personalities that weren’t exactly fond of Robespierre, so it’s not like he could dominate over them. (Twelve who Ruled by R.R. Palmer gives you a good idea of their dynamic and boy did they hate each other)

Despite this, Robespierre was the most famous member; so he became the de facto face of the CPS and it was assumed outside of France that he had control over the republic, which was portrayed by the monarchies as a barbaric mess, and that impression lives on. 

I hope to make this very clear: Robespierre wasn’t as powerful and didn’t have as much control of the situation as bad school texts will make us believe. Nobody did, the situation during the terror really was that chaotic. By the summer of 1794, known today as the Great Terror, Robespierre’s popularity and influence on the goverment was weakened compared to that it was before (I’ll elaborate why soon).

The excesses of year II and who made them

The deputies that became the future thermidorians, for the most part, were ultra radicals from the mountain (the far left party that was most influential in the convention and Robespierre himself was a part of) who had been sent to the provinces as representatives in mission to crush counterrevolution or supervise the army. Some of them committed some atrocious war crimes, brutally executing thousands of people. Robespierre was appalled, had them recalled and spent the rest of his life antagonizing them because he didn’t have the authority to bring them to justice.

For example, Collot d’Herbois, fellow CPS member, who shot people with cannons full of shrapnel as a representative on mission in Lyons alongside Joseph Fouché, used his authority to counteract Robespierre’s attempts to hold him or the other representatives on mission accountable. Still Robespierre had them on his radar to punish them as soon as he had the opportunity and they had him on their radar fearing that he would use his popularity against them at any moment. Some of them tried to bootlick him and get on his good side, but their actions were so repulsive to him he refused any kind of compromise.

Other important details

The idea that Robespierre was aspiring for a dictatorship comes from way earlier. In November 1792, a girodin named Louvet accused him of such and wanting to form a triumvirate with Danton and Marat. Robespierre defended himself well and the idea was discredited, only to be recycled during thermidor when the surviving girondins came back to the convention (the girondins another long story lmao) 

The idea that Robespierre was some kind of blood drinking monster also started even before the man even did anything wrong. His radical ideals about giving voting rights to minorities like jews and protestants, to men that didn't own property, to free black people, him speaking out against slavery, against the inviolability of the king, the royal veto, etc… it genuinely pissed off a lot of people

This is a huge tangent but it’s relevant because it’s the origin of Robespierre’s supposed God-complex. So, if you have heard about the decristianization hysteria that was going on during the terror, Robespierre was hostile to it actually, and thought the state needed some kind of religion to hold it together, which is funny since a lot of people nowadays believe he was an atheist. To put a stop to it and reinforce the freedom of cults, he proposed that the French Republic must recognize the cult of “Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul” as a compromise between religion and secular patriotic worship. To clarify, this isn’t some religion Robespierre made up out of nowhere, it was influenced by Rousseau’s deist ideas and civic festivals (More on that in Mathiez essay about The Supreme Being in The Fall of Robespierre). The project was a success at the time, but his militant atheist coworkers couldn't forgive him for it and went out of their way to use it against him later. Thus the Committee of General Security put together a report (with fabricated evidence and all!) in which they tried to link him to a wacky but harmless and obscure cult that prophesied the coming of a messiah, implying that it was Robespierre, with the purpose to ridicule him.

The infamous Prairial law (here's a post explaining it better than I ever could). This law, which streamlined processes and executions and centralized them in Paris, removed the deputies immunity which would enable Robespierre to go after the aforementioned war criminals' heads. However, Robespierre cut ties with the CPS after a fight with the other members and disappeared from the government, leaving the law in the hands of people who abused it, like the Committee of General Security and public prosecutor Fouquier-Tinville (who also had beef with Robespierre). In fact you don't see many arrests signed by Robespierre during this time, that later became considered to be the Great Terror, while his coworkers, like Carnot or Barère, were very trigger happy using this law to say the least. 

Robespierre's fall

So, Robespierre goes rogue against the CPS and disappears from the government for more than a month. There was an attempt at reconciliation that Robespierre completely rejected when the 8th thermidor he returns and causes a commotion with an emotional and disjointed speech in which he expresses his despair about the gory state of the revolution and vagues the violent deputies, but refuses to give their names. The speech is definitely not his best and you can tell he’s not ok, but it has some raw, revealing lines like:

“Anyway, voilà within less than six weeks that my dictatorship is expired, and that I didn’t have any kind of influence on the government. Has patriotism been more protected? the factions more timid, the patrie happier? I would wish so” 

Or my personal favorite:

"They call me tyrant… If I would be one, they would crawl at my feet, I would stuff them with gold, I would ensure them the right to commit all the crimes, and they would be grateful.”

Fouché and others took advantage of his vagueness to convince half of the convention that he was targeting them and aspiring for a power grab.

Jean Lambert Tallien, a young deputy who had participated in bloody repressions in Bordeaux, conspired with his then girlfriend Thérese Cabarrus who was in prison, starts the reaction the next day by interrupting SJ's speech trying to mitigate the mess Robespierre caused the previous day. Later Tallien becomes instrumental in building the narrative to justify Robespierre’s murder and create the concept of the Reign of Terror.

The first batch of Thermidorian propaganda

The accusations against Robespierre were vague and contradictory… and calling them accusations is kind of generous because they were mostly people yelling vague grievances against him, nothing official or legal. The ultra radicals accused Robespierre of not being enough of a terrorist. The moderates of being too much of a terrorist. The funniest example of this dichotomy was when Billaud-Varenne (CPS member) accused him of, I shit you not, protesting against arresting Danton and another guy shouting "the blood of Danton chokes you" during the session. Anyway, Robespierre was declared an outlaw and executed with no trial and at least a hundred of his followers were dragged with him to the scaffold. Ironically, the day after Robespierre’s death saw the highest number of people guillotined in a single day in all of the terror. I need to empathize that he was guillotined without a trial, because while the revolutionary tribunal could be a kangaroo court sometimes, at least they kept registries of what someone was being accused of, Robespierre didn’t even go through it so his imputed crimes remained very vague and open to add shit later. So the next day Barére showed up with a report and fabricated evidence about how Robespierre was conspiring with his close supporters to crown himself king.

Some time later Tallien came up to the convention with a speech about how what had happened the past year had been a Reign Of Terror, that Robespierre bullied a congress of 700 something men into doing whatever he wanted, that every single bad thing that happened, all the unnecessary bloodshed was exclusively Robespierre’s fault. Boohoo, Robespierre poisoned our water supply, burned our crops and delivered a plague upon the republic and he did all himself.

The thermidorian convention, with the press of the time, made sure to run the robespierrists' names through the mud and scapegoat them of their own excesses. A massive amount of libelous pamphlets against Robespierre were circulating circa 1795-1799, portraying him as some kind of gangster-sultan-pimp tyrant monster with a secret castle and lots of money and chicks, which is hilarious in hindsight since all his stuff sold for like… 300 francs, but at the time people ate it up. 

Here's some of my personal favorites because original thermidorian propaganda was seriously wacky (and let’s make it fun by rating it)

✨highlights✨

Apparently, Robespierre wished to marry Louis' eldest child to crown himself king. I’d rate it higher for the creativity but she was a literal teenager ewww. 3/10

Courtois report: Courtois was in charge of going through the robespierrists papers and of course he suppressed and twisted a lot of evidence. He collected his "findings" in a report for the convention. Thanks to this guy most of Robespierre’s correspondence is lost. 🤡 -4563456435/10

La vie de Robespierre: I haven’t read this one so what I know comes from secondary sources, but it’s worth mentioning because it’s one of the first biographies of Robespierre ever written, by his own school teacher, the abbot Proyart, who became a royalist émigré during the revolution. It’s such a mess, he makes normal things children do sound malignant when little Maximilien did them. He’s also the source of the legend that Robespierre read a poem for Louis XVI as a kid, which Hervé Leuwers debunked in his Robespierre bio. 5/10 because apparently his beef with Robespierre (besides the whole revolution thing) was that he wouldn't say hi to him during vacations. Petty as hell.

Le chat-tigre: the description that Robespierre resembled a cat comes from a pamphlet published by Merlin de Thionville. This one is key because it deviates from the common view of the time of Robespierre as a morally corrupt orgy-frequenter, and portrays him as a dull, emotionless incel, which is closer to the way thermidorian propaganda reads like today. It also has this hysterical line: “History will say little about this monster”. Anyway Merlin called Robespierre a catboy unironically so I rate it meow/10 

La queue de Robespierre (Robespierre's tail). This pamphlet by Méhée de la Touché is interesting because it goes after certain thermidorians like Barère, Collot and Billaud, foreshadowing how the whole thing would soon backfire on them. Also the title is a dick joke, so, 10/10.

These two engravings. 760936/10

This whole-ass painting of Robespierre straight up ruling over hell

My absolute favorite: this one is from later when the whole mountain was purged from the convention (so there's lots of thermidorians here too). There’s so much happening here. The snakes, the bats, the be gay do crimes skeletons, and the whole gang is there, looking like smurfs. It’s beautiful. 1793/10

But why spread so many lies about a dead man? They had to do it, you see, they had to gaslight the entire nation as much as possible, the ultras to avoid accountability and the moderates to discredit the democratic ideals that he represented so they could pass shit like the constitution of year III. This has effects on historiography to this day (but let's not get ahead of ourselves).

Thermidor backfires

With some exceptions, who ended up becoming Napoleon’s ministers, they did not avoid accountability...

Some of the original thermidorians were radicals who believed in the jacobin ideals of year II and just thought, sincerely or not, that Robespierre was aspiring for dictatorship, and the ones who had done war crimes as representatives on mission seemed to genuinely believe they were justified to do so and had to defend themselves when they were used against them. 

Some of them weren’t expecting that after purging and persecuting Robespierre’s supporters, the mountain would be weakened and that the national convention would take a turn to the right when they brought back a bunch of girondins. What was left of the mountain wanted to keep the progress towards a more egalitarian society made in year II. Some of the right wingers like Boissy d’Anglas took credit for Robespierre’s fall and influenced the convention to become more reactionary. Some of the montagnards got guillotined for their crimes against humanity, like Carrier (the infamous dude who drowned thousands of people in the Loire - also a massive thermidorian, because of course he was), while most were exiled to Guyana.

Decades later during the Bourbon restoration, former Montagnards and members of the CPS like Billaud and Barère, came to regret bitterly what they did to Robespierre, his memory and the Republic, and admitted to having lied about him.

Conclusion

It’s not a secret to anyone that the French Revolution was extremely brutal and nobody is denying it (and that’s without counting what happened after Robespierre’s death). Donald Greer in The incidence of the terror during the french revolution estimates a death toll of 35.000-40.000, which includes not just people sentenced to death (which he estimates between 16.000-17.000), but people massacred without a trial by these representatives on mission I spoke about, people who died of disease in prisons, etc.

The executions by guillotine, that Robespierre came to represent, were just one aspect of it, an aspect that has become iconic in pop culture and exaggerated to death. The Jacobins weren’t executing people just for being nobles, in fact, there were some former nobles in the government and more commoners were executed than nobles. All those 17k death sentences weren’t signed or approved by Robespierre personally, and while Robespierre was powerful in theory as a member of the committee of public safety, he had very little control of the situation. And it's not like he was an innocent little angel, he had blood on his hands but so did everyone back then, and his reputation is very disproportionate to what he actually did.

And yet, we’re taught in schools and in media that he was single-handely the supreme authority who did whatever he wanted and we never hear about the people that got him killed, what they were up to during the terror and how they straight up scapegoated this man to escape accountability for their crimes against humanity. But why though? Shouldn’t that be common knowledge by now, more than two centuries later?

Next part, if I can do it, I hope I can cover how thermidorian propaganda evolved to what it is today. Still this is a subject I only have general notions about and haven’t read about extensively so I’ll take a while to write the post, but it should be fun to research as it was fun (and infuriating) to research this.

Salut & fraternité and... happy birthday Robespierre!!! :-) My present is posting about how you got murdered and slandered I guess lmao.

[sprawa-przybyszewskiej]

I cannot claim to know about this play more than some others (Ewa Graczyk, Jagoda Hernik-Spalińska, Kazimiera Ingdahl and Maria Janion, in alphabetical order, are the official Horsewomen of the Apocalypse in this topic), with a lot to bring to the table, and so I will sometimes discuss parts of it which are - at the very least at the first glance - absolutely and doubtlessly simple; but  by discussing them I hope to be able to bring into the discussion some new material, new evidence, perhaps - for the contrary of the popular belief.

I remember when I first read the scene between Danton and Robespierre, I was completely mystified, just as Maxime. To somebody who at that point knew nothing about the historical events, the exchange between them was very logical (and everyone knows how hard it is to obtain, especially in a piece of media where the author blatantly favours one of the characters over another). I am very glad then, to be able to say that while Przybyszewska did everything she could to humiliate and belittle Danton in the more visual aspects of the scene - his gestures, movements, actions, mimicry, even the sound of his voice etc.  - she didn't bother making him out to be a complete clown. His arguments are populistic, but that's not necessarily a bad thing when you're n politician aspiring to be even more than that. Perhaps she thought that painting him out to be a weakling would somehow diminish Robespierre's awesomeness, which is a valid concern. For Robepsierre has little left to do in this scene - it is made out to ba a confrontation between them, of sorts, but is it one, really? I don't think so, not for the large part of it. Robespierre comes in, dishes out few sarcastic lines, looks at Danton with disgust and contempt and then crushes him in a yet another sarcastic line and then leaves. There isn't that much he can do not only to participate in the exchange, but to be visually and audially appealing to the audience as a character in a play. And even though we all know staging The Danton Case is a secondary affair, the main thing you can do with it is to read it and ponder over it, when you do stage it, a lot of responsibility rests on the actors recreating the part. Which is why choosing a good actor can, potentially, make all the difference, sometimes going as far as completely changing the way you view the very same scene you read earlier.

I have always assumed by "the same man" they meant Robespierre. It makes some sense in the light of the conversation, altough I have to admit it makes little sense in the light of Robespierre's reaction. The question thus presented to us is: do we go by what is written, do we percieve a play as a piece of fiction in a real world, OR do we immerse ourselves in the fictional world, suspend our disbelief and for a moment treat it as an alternate reality of sorts?

Polish director Jan Klata has managed to put on stage a compelling retelling of The Danton Case and I would like to present to you a scene from his version, which we're lucky enough to have on YT, with translation courtesy of @that-one-revolutionary​. I've seen the play in its entirety: some metaphors were heavy-handed to say the least, some aspects I wish he'd done differently, but all in all, when choosing the main protagonist, the director casted in the role a truly splendid actor (please note that Marcin Czarnik was young. Young! It made all of the difference and it's worth watching if only for that), who brought home some of the points of character of Robespierre's which could have easily been brushed aside in order to highlight some other aspects of the conversation (the most famous example of this would be the very same scene from Wajda's movie, where the appealing and in all aspects imposing Gerard Depardieu dominantes the scene, thus presentign it in a very different ligt). While it can be read as a political statement, or a match of two great personalities, or a display of cunning on either part, Klata (or Czarnik; it's hard for me to say what the director tried to do with it, a lot of Robespierre's quirks, mimicry, gestures etc. seemed to come directly from the actor, which I can only say because I've seen him in other things and that's sort of his style of acting; all in all, I'll try to treat this not as a discussion over this particular staging, because for that I lack needed data, but it's unavoidable in the long run at least at some points, so please bear that in mind) treats the conversation itself as a minor thing in comparision to what is going on in Maxime's mind at the moment.  Just look at this: there is no significance brought into their meeting, no change of the scenery, nothing indicates this meeting is special in any way. The logical conclusion is, then:  it's not special. Both Danton and Robespierre seem to treat this as a step which cannot be avoided, but which bears no great weight either. The only reason they agreed to make this step altogether is - for "the same man". For Camille.

I do think Przybyszewska's intention was actually to disguise Maxime under this vague title. If this is a play about love - as I will always state it is - she wanted to underline the fact some people will be hatefully loved by those who are beneath them, who have nothing whatsoever in common with the object of their affection simply because the loved one is so great, so genius, so shining and bright it is impossible not to love them. I think this is the relationship between Danton and Robespierre (that is, on Danton's part) up until this point in the play. Danton idolizes Robespierre against his will (against both of their wills, really), because Robespierre is truly made out to be a demi-god at the very least. If you could team up with a hero like this, you should. So Danton goes through a humiliating process of trying to reconcile with Maxime, because humiliation, if everything paid off in the end, would be worth it. That Robespierre doesn't reciprocate the affection is simply a further proof that he is above Danton in every way.

Klata-Czarnik duo seems to have gone into another, subtler direction though. The man that both politicians make an exception for seems to be Camille, moreso because Robespierre loves him than because Danton has any special feelings for him. What is his relationship with Camille, anyway? They are cordial enough, but always a bit on the edge, and we know that Danton doesn't know everything that Camille thinks and feels in regards to Robespierre, mostly because he doesn't care that much, but also because he is characterised as a brute, and this simply goes above his head, it's too subtle, too delicate of a feeling for him to know it. It is also clear he knows Camille pretty well, but he doesn't know his soul, so to say. Therefore, he cannot actually love him, not to the point to make him the one and only excpetion from his otherwise coldly and precisley calculated plans.

Is there, however, a scenario in which Camille could be Danton's exception? Yes, when it becomes more about Robepierre than about Camille. When Camille is sort of offered as a mean to lure Robepierre in. Danton could make this exception only if it meant getting what he wanted (which is later mirrored by his blatant admission that the only reason he lets Camille take the fall with him is to deny Robespierre any joy in life after this point).

Robespierre, however, doesn't see it this way. He actually makes the exception for Camille and I think Danton's words – whatever he means by them, whichever interpretation we think is correct – put him on alert, for the fear of having his secret discovered. In the video linked above it is even more than that – once Robespierre hears Danton indirectly name "the same man", he gets aggressively defensive. For him to have someone like Danton talk almost openly about what he treats as his personal secret (a secret that Danton, being in great familiarity with Camille, could potentially know for certain) is equal with defiling it. I have violated your secret. Do you know what he says in the original? I have raped your secret. It really brings into the focus how much “the secret” needs to be protected, and how much it will hurt Maxime once it’s uncovered and destroyed.This is what he fears pretty much for the entirety of the conversation, his suspiscion somewhat confirmed when Danton says: No catchphrases, Robespierre. I know you.

As I mentioned earlier, the shift in my reading of the scene was prompted by the video. It is worth observing what exactly does Robespierre do when mentioing Camille by surname – he gets visibly more upset, he ponders for a split second for the best way to talk about him. His choice of words is interesting as well:

Both translations here are poor and I quite like what that-one-revolutionary did with it. "Katarynka" is a music-box, so "an instrument" fits much better (not to mention the obvious English connection to the phrase "play like a fiddle", which is adequate here). A parrots is after all a living being, something with a will of its own, if steered by more powerful handlers. But admitting that Camille, from his own free will decided to go against Maxime and everything that Maxime believes in is much harder for Robespierre than calling him an inanimate object, which can be unwittingly used by people with their own agenda. That leaves Camille almost blameless, perhaps careless and foolish, but not responsible fo anything that has transpired.Calling him names serves another purpose as well, which is to steer away the suspiscion that Robespierre protects Camille becuase he cares about him in a special way. He knows there are Danton's accomplices turning ears by the door, so he doesn't want to give himself away with his care and concern.

Ultimately, what do you believe, whom do you think they were referring to I think says a lot about what you think about Maxime's state of mind at the time. Danton's too, though, it can be used as a litmus test whater or not you believe he was honest in idolising Robespierre and offering him his adoration and obedience. In some stagings it will be presented as true, in some as a lie, and that's the beauty of adapting a piece of literature, there are so many options, all blooming from the same roots.

[sparvverius]

tbh i think it's bc thermidorian propaganda focuses on it and portrays it as an overreach on robespierre's part that happened soon before his death and thus can be seized on as an excuse for thermidor. and then people just unthinkingly parrot it because it fits with their preconceived notions of like. robespierre wanted to be god/robespierre was an atheist/french people are just crazy

but youre totally right that its weird cause if you do the smallest amount of research you realize it was just a big unfortunately timed party. with a cool burning statue

Looking at the infamous French Revolution comic reminded me once again how weird it is that the Festival of Supreme Being gets such a negative rep in both history books and popular media.

I mean, if you want to talk about the darker aspects of the era linked to the push back against traditional religion... you know that Republican Baptisms were a thing in the provinces, right?

But no, there's no better example than *checks notes* a public celebration with lots of flowers and a bit of campy pageantry

[otnesse]

Rebel Rose and Belle’s Role in the French Revolution

So, I learned a few days ago that Disney made a book called “Rebel Rose” which involved Belle and the French Revolution. From what I heard, it goes into depth toward the French Revolution, and Belle at least had some sympathies towards the Jacobin cause (though that said, she also seemed to at least be smart enough to realize the violence was not good from what I heard).

I had a similar idea regarding a Beauty and the Beast sequel that dealt specifically with the French Revolution. However, I would have ultimately made Belle more into a villain, largely because I can’t help but get the nagging feeling that she ultimately would buy into Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and Sade’s various books, drink the kool aid, and basically backstab Adam and... well, let’s just say she probably would end up doing essentially the same thing to her village that Sephiroth did upon reading research books into his origins at Nibelheim in Final Fantasy VII:

The main reason I think, actually, no, not even think or know this, I outright FEAR this is because that’s exactly what people of Belle’s intellectual caliber and even her outlook in life ended up doing during that time. Robespierre, before helming the Jacobin Club, was a lawyer, a man who was very well read, and most certainly had to have read the likes of Voltaire and Diderot, not to mention D’Alembert and especially Rousseau, and the last of whom was cited as his biggest influence. Jean Paul Marat likewise was an aspiring doctor, also read Voltaire and Rousseau, was primarily influenced by the latter, and he became a demagogue and orchestrating up and out lynch mobs via his pamphlets before being stabbed to death inside his own bathtub. And then we get into Jean-Baptiste Carrier, aka the guy responsible for the drownings and republican marriages. He was trained at a Jesuit school (before the Jesuits were expelled from France largely thanks to the Philosophes’ radical anti-Christian agendas), and became a clerk and lawyer, and eventually became enamored enough with Sade’s writings that he specifically referred to his republican marriage executions as being the torch of philosophy, a key phrase by Sade (and Sade, unlike Voltaire and the other Enlightenment philosophes, was very much active during the revolution. In fact, he arguably helped jumpstart it by inciting a mob via a makeshift megaphone at the Bastille). There’s also Joseph Le Bon, well known for his massacre at Arras, who taught rhetoric, literally, being a professor in the subject, and thus most certainly was well-read, and he also ended up drinking the kool-aid regarding the Philosophes. In particular Sade, whom his grisly murders at Arras were in fact partly modeled after Sade’s infamous book “120 Nights of Sodom”. Even stripped the freshly guillotined corpses of his victims naked and put them in poses mirroring that of Sade’s illustrations in that book. That’s just a few examples that come to mind right now. What’s worse? There’s sufficient evidence put forth by Timothy Dwight and Augustin de Barruel that the Philosophes, in particular Voltaire, D’Alembert, and Diderot, specifically counted on France’s huge amount of literacy specifically to engineer this horror, which they succeeded in post mortem. Even took over the French Academy during their lifetime. And don’t get me started on the Vendee massacres. Belle I fear will ultimately succumb to the exact same path ultimately, especially going by some of her behavior in the original film. Doesn’t help either that we don’t get an actual indication that she practiced discernment of literature (yes, she might be a huge bibliophile, but there’s a huge difference between being well-read and actually being able to discern what’s a good book and what’s bad), not to mention the villagers, who are compared unflatteringly to her throughout the film, are depicted as Christians based on some of their statements, which creates the implication that she’s an atheist and she’s better in that regard (well, at least in the original film and certain extension media. The remake fortunately fixed that bit by having her get books from a church, with the implication that she might have some respect for the church for that reason, plus her being born during the 1731 plague, meaning she’s probably dead by the time the revolution actually occurs). It doesn’t merely end there either. Marx admits he was directly inspired by the Philosophes and the Jacobins when creating Communism. And even Vladimir Lenin, aside from obviously basing his actions on Marx’s ideology, made it VERY clear he was inspired by the French Revolutionaries, the Jacobins in particular.

On that note, another reason I fear her future of becoming a Jacobin or at least buying wholesale the propaganda and parroting it is also related to her intellectual caliber in a different sort. Sartre, for example was praised as a very intelligent man in France, a philosophical giant, and he ended up spending his time singing praises for mass murderers and tyrants, including infamously stating that Che Guevara was the most complete human being of the century. And on that note, might as well cite Big Boss and Kazuhira Miller in Peace Walker and that game’s rather shameful praising of that monster as if he were the second coming of Christ (I’ll do a topic on THAT at another time, probably closer to his death day, or at least the anniversary of Peace Walker’s release): 

Bear in mind, Big Boss already encountered someone like him in person, Colonel Volgin, didn’t like him at all, and was implied to not be fond of Communism at all in the games. Yet he sang praises who, given his CIA background, would have at least known about his more inhumane and evil nature, including his role in the CMC. If Big Boss could fall for that tripe, I don��t think Belle can stand any chance on that front.

I’ll give Emma Theriault credit in that she at least seemed to imply she didn’t support the Jacobin’s actual murderous actions, but on the other hand, I’m not sure if that’s what Linda Woolverton and/or Paige O’Hara thought either. For all I know, they probably support her becoming a mass murdering Jacobin. I would have asked Paige O’Hara during Comic Con Atlanta a couple of years back had her appearance been an actual meet and greet (settled for Jasmine’s voice actor instead as I mentioned in a prior post). As far as Linda Woolverton, I actually planned on tracking her down in California last year, using my cousin’s wedding as an opportunity to do so (as well as visit the Screenwriter’s Guild Association archives to research the BATB materials and to an extent Star Wars), but the COVID19 pandemic (or as I’d call it, scamdemic) killed those plans, and I suspect I probably won’t be able to do it this year either with what Biden’s pretty much doing in office. Until I actually verify it from them whether my view of Belle or Emma’s view of Belle is correct, I’m keeping Belle at arms length. If anything, I’d argue the triplets are more trustworthy than her at this point since they’re at least Christian and don’t show much signs of being swayed by the mob based on their absence in the climax of the original film (and incidentally, said fanfic would have had them as the main protagonists).

[lesamis]

what are some underrated frev things people should yell about more?

well! i’m not sure i’m a great person to ask because i’ve not gone down an frev-related rabbit hole in some time, anon, but some things off the top of my head that probably always deserve a moment in the spotlight are: 

the session of the convention from 4 feb 1794, which first abolished slavery throughout france and its colonies, as well as this list of the then present “députés de couleur” - seeing the french revolution as a wholly white endeavour is still an oddly prevalent idea that could (especially in light of the entire haitian revolution that immediately followed) stand to be dispensed with 

the story about how boilly, a painter especially fond of scenes capturing parisian city life, was reported to the committee of public safety bc his paintings were too sexy (warning for exposed ankles and stockings), and how he wormed his way out by speed-painting the triumph of marat as proof of his republican allegiances 

any anecdote about robespierre interacting with dogs

elizabeth lebas protecting & keeping robespierre’s parrot after his death! (source here) 

somewhat obvious, okay, but like. the metric system. it’s so taken for granted by most who use it and met with such weird hostility by those who don’t that i don’t think it’s often appreciated as a revolutionary measure (hah), which is what choosing to adopt it really was. 

[margridarnauds]

2, 8, 9, 20, 30, 31, 32, 40, 51 (for the abominaton)

Thanks!

2. Favorite part of writing.

I love the feeling that comes with putting the thoughts that I’ve been visualizing in my mind on the page, I love getting to work with characters that I love dearly and putting them where normal circumstances wouldn’t, I love dealing with a wide cast of characters that help me learn more about myself.

8. Favorite trope to write.

In general, I like to write emotionally constipated characters dealing with their gay emotions for the first time. Also, I tend to work with straight-up fix-its or dealing with post-canon events (and, when I say “post canon” I mean “post my very, very specific version of canon).

9. Least favorite trope to write.

This is probably surprising, but I tend to not be fond of actually writing depressing endings. Like, even in the universes where I kill characters off, I like to at least give them some closure, even if it’s an afterlife AU. (Which…the Afterlife AU for Pour la Peine is going to be fun if I ever get around to it).

Also, I don’t like Modern AUs all that much, even though I have numerous ones for 1789. It’s probably mostly a matter of translating 18th century politics to the modern age. That and I hate writing anything set in the modern age on principle.

20. Post a snippet of a WIP you’re working on.

Tw: References to animal abuse, bullying, and Lazare being a 13 year old with slightly homicidal tendencies (BUT HE’S STILL VALID)

Lazare didn’t know how he got involved. One moment he was gritting his teeth in anger at them, his rage reaching a boiling point after one of the punches caused Ronan to cry out, the next one of the bullies was on the ground crying, Ronan was putting another one on the ground nearby him, and he had his hand wrapped around  Denis’ throat, feeling his fingernails tighten around skin that had never been bruised before. All those military exercises his grandfather had made him run had their uses, he thought, as a strange thrill ran through him. Thibault Denis couldn’t do anything now, couldn’t hurt anyone; he was completely under his control. No matter how much he tried, flailed, choked, the little pretend tyrant was weak. So this was what authority meant. All that time when his grandfather had tried to explain it to him, and he’d never fully understood it.

“Lazare!” He was vaguely aware of Ronan shouting, and that was enough for him to release his grip. The boy fell to the ground, looking at him like he was Death incarnate, all widened eyes and quick breathing before he ran as fast as he could, his legs barely supporting him. The others followed suit, and it was just him, Ronan, and the cat. He flexed his hands, remembering the touch, looking at Ronan, wondering how he would look at him now that Lazare had hurt one of his own, but if he’d seen anything unusual, he hadn’t noticed, lavishing attention to the cat instead.

“Why would someone do something like that, huh? It’s just a cat, it wasn’t harming anybody.” Ronan held the wretched thing in his arms, petting it, with its torn ear and matted, faded fur and bony spine. “It probably just wanted to make friends.”

“The world can be cruel.” It had been the first thing he’d been told, when he was left on the steps of the Chateau de Peyrol and greeted by a stern, sharp man who introduced himself as his grandfather, and it had been something that he’d made sure he’d remember. The world had been cruel since time began, it would remain cruel. All that was important was ensuring that he himself did the best he could in the role he was given and to support the Crown in its efforts to keep order amidst the destructive forces that would bathe the world in fire otherwise.

Ronan shook his head. “It doesn’t have to be.” He held the cat a little closer, letting it burrow its face into his chest weakly, its pink tongue flicking over his fingers slowly. “It doesn’t have to be.”

30. Favorite line you’ve ever written.

There was a sadness in du Puget’s eyes, and Peyrol felt like he was a schoolboy again, missing some obvious point that he had just explained to him in vivid detail. Only instead of the immediate reprisals, he got this. A beating he could deal with, scorn he could deal with, pity he could not. “We are all human beings, Monsieur de Peyrol. We are all human beings with a child’s longing for the companionship and love of our fellow man. If you cannot do that basic amount for him, then you will never deserve his trust or his love, no matter how many livres you pour into it.” 

31. Hardest character to write.

In general, any of the kid characters. I HATE writing children in general, and in the first part of the Abomination in particular SO MUCH rests on selling the kid versions of Ronan and Lazare and their relationship because literally the rest of this universe depends on them. I consider having to type “How do children make friends” and “What do children do with friends” to be on par with me trying to think about how long it’d take me to bang the man who (hypothetically) killed my father as far as Signature Abomination Moments.

For the non-historical characters of 1789, I’ve talked repeatedly how hard Solene is to write because of how little we get on her and how downright contradictory a lot of it is (see: her talking about how ambition and bloodlust have blinded Ronan…while she and the girls lynch a baker and march to Versailles. You go girl?) And you want to do a solid job with her, especially since her storyline touches on subjects that are STILL pretty damn sensitive, but you also don’t want to accidentally put her into any of the contemporary stereotypes of The Fallen Woman, The Victim, The Fury, etc, or any of our modern stereotypes when it comes to what a sex worker should look like and behave. That and trying to develop her relationship with Olympe is going to be slightly harder than usual, given that I still…need to figure out how they’re going to meet. With Pour la Peine, it was easier, since they had an easy way to meet up (Ronan’s funeral, RIP bro), but here, this is taking place in the canon era.

On a larger level, writing ANY of the historical figures that we have a decent amount of documentation for is hard, since these are people who are still highly controversial to this day and who can kind of….shift between different sources. Not necessarily the ones they wrote themselves, but, like, if you ask ten different people about Robespierre, you’ll get ten different responses. You’ll think you’ve caught onto him, and then he slips away. Likewise for Antoinette or Fersen or De Launay. Even Papa du Puget is rather hard for me to grasp, not the least because I know that the sources I need are locked behind an archive in France, untranslated and mostly obscure. (Funnily enough, the easiest for me to grasp is the Marquis de Sade, because the man’s just a dick. I will proudly proclaim the man’s a dick. He deserved to spend the rest of his life rotting away and I consider it an eternal tragedy that far better men than him in every way died during the course of the Frev while he managed, despite himself, to survive.) With some characters, like Danton and Desmoulins, I sense that my interpretation of them is going to be much different than the normal interpretation of them.

Basically, there’s a lot of pressure with them that isn’t necessarily there with the canon OCs, I don’t have as much freedom, and it can be damn hard to put them into a given situation to see how they’d react. (Incidentally, I’m going to put a tentative guess that they won’t react well to L/R. Just a guess. Though I’m sure Lazare can win them over with his A+ social skills, charm, and tact.) 

32. Easiest character to write.

Laz and I get along very well at this point, even as I torture him.

40. Original Fiction or Fanfiction, and why?

Fanfiction, actually.

With original fiction, there’s a lot of pressure when it comes to constructing the world you’re working with and the characters and how they interact with it. And, believe me, it’s a lot of fun, but it’s also damned hard to visualize it. Like, I fucking specialize in Early Irish Lit, and yet my retelling of CMT is hard to write 90% of the time because I have a hard time working with this world and how it works (which…given that the rules themselves weren’t concrete in the original lit, I don’t feel all that bad, but still). To tell you the truth, even after looking at tons of pictures of longhouses and hillforts and costumes from the Book of Kells, I still can’t get a decent idea for this stuff. It’s even harder for the main WIP, where I have to do a lot more construction, working with inspirations from multiple time periods, and it’s a real mess because I’ve never entirely gotten those inspirations under control and the characters keep shifting out from under me.

With fanfic, on the other hand, you have characters, you have a setting, and you have a decent idea with how the world works. Now, you can always do what I do and completely throw canon out anyway, BUT you still have some basics. No matter what, I have some baseline for the characters and some baseline for how the world works and I can build my research off of that.

51. Describe the aesthetic of your story _______ in 5 sentences or words.

Doing this for the first part because it’d be literally impossible to do it otherwise.

A gloved hand on a black walking stick, a slightly bent, silver wolf’s head gleaming from the top.

A sea of golden wheat over flat land as far as the eye can see, a sharp blue sky hanging over it.

An old, faded book with a decrepit spine.

A blue parrot locked in a gilded cage.

Two boys against a tree on a slightly chilly summer night, looking at the stars, unaware of what they hold for them.

[robespapier]

My money is on the story being fake, but hugely inspired by/written as a miror to the real story of Jacot, the parrot of Arras who got his royalist owners guillotined because he kept shouting counter-revolutionnary things like “"Vive l’empereur ! Vive le roi ! Vive nos prêtres ! Vivent les nobles !”

A “perroquet jaco” is a grey parrot in French, and by extension a “jacquot”= a pet parrot (either spelt as jacquot, jacot or jaco). “Jacquot/Jacot” is also a popular name for a parrot because it evokes the verb “jacter/ jaqueter”= to talk a lot, to jabber on, or the verb “jacasser”= to chatter, jabber. A “Jacot” sounds like “the one who chatters”.  Also it’s a nickname for the given name “Jacques”, which gives it some legitimity as a “proper” name, I guess. 

Anyway, according to deputy Armand Guffroy, Jacot the royalist parrot of Arras was entrusted to the care of a Republican woman named  Marie-Élisabeth Régniez (the wife of the deputy Joseph Lebon),  so she could teach him to say more republican things like “Vive la Nation!”. This happened in late April 1794, which seems to rule out any probability that Robespierre adopted the bird himself later on, but it would have made for a wild story!  

I was today years old when i learned Robespierre had a parrot named Jacquot apparently? the only source i've found about it is this blog rodama1789(.)blogspot(.)com/2017/10/robespierre-bird-lover(.)html which cites a medical journal. i can't find any info about it anywhere but it sparks so much joy i want to believe it

Hey, that's an excellent question! To which... I have no answer. I was also intrigued by the parrot story but I could not find any additional sources that it a) existed and b) was rescued by Elisabeth and lived with her. It is kind of dubious, because Elisabeth and the other Duplays were arrested after Thermidor, so who would care for the parrot in the meantime? Don't get me started on Brount.

[needsmoreresearch]

Danton, Marat, Robespierre, Camille Desmoulins, Saint-Just: 8, 14

Oooh.

8: Wake up handcuffed to.

First choice is Marat.  I feel like there would be an exciting story behind the whole thing and he’d either engineer a cool escape or lead us into a very exciting martyrdom.  I mean, my vote would be cool escape, and then we could get coffee, but like.  Hey.

Second choice is Robespierre.  Kind of a neutral, inasmuch as I don’t think he’d be very useful in an escape, but he’d also be an acceptable person to be confined in close space with.  And I’d really like to meet Robespierre.

Third choice is Desmoulins.  Super annoying and he’d absolutely talk us into an even worse situation, but I bet there would be some really funny lines along the way.

Fourth choice is Saint-Just.  I dunno.  He’d probably get us out of the situation in some dashing way, but it’s equally possible that he’d just sit there in stoic silence and passively make me feel bad about complaining.

Danton comes in last, sorry Danton.  I enjoy learning about Danton but I have no desire to be trapped in close proximity to him.  Handsy.

14. Leave in charge of my home while I’m away.

First, obviously, is Robespierre.  He’d take good care of the pets, he’s a perfect houseguest, the soul of responsibility.  And he’d probably pay attention to my rather neglected parrot.

Second, Marat.  Okay so my house would probably end up getting raided by the police and my whole family would be arrested when we got back, but I feel like he wouldn’t judge me on my lousy housekeeping.

Third, Saint-Just.  He would absolutely judge me on my lousy housekeeping.  (Robespierre might, but odds are good he’d just absent-mindedly overlook it in favor of trying to teach my parrot to say things.)

Tied for last, Danton and Desmoulins.  Heck, why not put them both in charge.  Maybe the house would burn down and I’d never have to clean it again.

[forsoothsayer]

Bolivár by Nikos Engonopoulos

A Greek Poem        THEY SAW AN APPARITION OF THESEUS IN ARMS, RUSHING        ON AT THE HEAD OF THEM AGAINST THE BARBARIANS Le cuer d’un home vaut tout l’or d’un pais For the great, the free, the brave, the strong, The fitting words are great and free and brave and strong, For them, the total subjection of every element, silence, for    them tears, for them beacons, and olive branches, and    the lanterns That bob up and down with the swaying of the ships and scrawl    on the harbours’ dark horizons, For them are the empty barrels piled up in the narrowest lane,    again of the harbor, For them the coils of white rope, the chains, the anchors, the    other manometers, Amidst the irritating smell of petroleum, That they might fit out a ship, put to sea and depart, Like a tram setting off, empty and ablaze with light, in the    nocturnal serenity of the gardens, With one purpose behind the voyage: ad astra. For them I’ll speak fine words, dictated to me by Inspiration’s    Muse, As she nestled deep in my mind full of emotion For the figures, austere and magnificent, of Odysseus    Androutsos and Simon Bolivár. But for now I’ll sing only of Simon, leaving the other for an    appropriate time, Leaving him that I might dedicate, when the time comes,    perhaps the finest song that I’ve ever sung, Perhaps the finest song that’s ever been sung in the whole    world. And this not for what they both were for their countries, their    nations, their people, and other such like that fail to    inspire, But because they remained throughout the ages, both of them,    alone always, and free, great, brave and strong. And shall I now despair that to this very day no one has    understood, has wanted, has been able to understand    what I say? Shall the fate then be the same for what I say now of Bolivar,    that I’ll say tomorrow of Androutsos? Besides, it’s no easy thing for figures of the importance of    Androutsos and Bolivar to be so quickly understood, Symbols of a like. But let’s move on quickly: for Heaven’s sake, no emotion,    exaggeration or despair. Of no concern, my voice was destined for the ages alone. (In the future, the near, the distant, in years to come, a few,    many, perhaps from the day after tomorrow or the day    after that, Until the time that, empty and useless and dead, the Earth    begins to drift in the firmament, The young, with mathematical precision, will awake in their      beds on wild nights, Moistening their pillows with tears, wondering at who I was,    reflecting That once I existed, what words I said, what songs I sang. And the gigantic waves that every evening break on Hydra’s    seven shores, And the savage rocks, and the high mountain that brings down    the blizzards, Will eternally and untiringly thunder my name.) But let’s get back to Simon Bolivár. Bolivár! A name of metal and wood, you were a flower in    the gardens of South America. You had all the gentleness of flowers in your heart, in your    hair, in your gaze. Your hand was huge like your heart, and scattered both good    and evil. You swept through the mountains and the stars trembled, you    came down to the plains, with your gold finery, your    epaulets, all the insignia of your rank, With a rifle hanging on your shoulder, with chest bared, with    your body covered in wounds, And stark naked you sat on a low rock, at the sea’s edge, And they came and painted you in the ways of Indian braves, With wash, half white, half blue, so you’d appear like a lonely    chapel on one of Attica’s shores, Like a church in the districts of Tatavla, like a palace in a    deserted Macedonian town. Bolivár! You were reality, and you are, even now, you are    no dream. When the wild hunters nail the wild eagles, and the other wild    birds and animals, Over their wooden doors in the wild forests, You live again, and shout, and grieve, And you are yourself the hammer, nail and eagle. If on the isles of coral, winds blow and the empty fishing boats    overturn, And the parrots are a riot of voices when the day ends and    the gardens grow quiet drowned in humidity, And in the tall trees the crows perch, Consider, beside the waves, the iron tables of the cafeneion, How the damp eats at them in the gloom, and far off the light    that flashes on, off, on again, turning back and forth. And day breaks – what frightful anguish – after a night without    sleep, And the water reveals nothing of its secrets. Such is life. And the sun comes, and the houses on the wharf, with their    island-style arches, Painted pink, and green, with white sills (Naxos, Chios), How they live! How they shine like translucent fairies! Such is    Bolivár! Bolivár! I cry out your name, reclining on the peak of    Mount Ere, The highest peak on the isle of Hydra. From here the view, enchanting, extends as far as the Saronic    isles, Thebes, Beyond Monemvasia, far below, to august Egypt, And as far as Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti,    San Domingo, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela,    Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uraguay, Paraguay, Ecuador, As far even as Mexico. With hard stone I carve your name in rock, that afterwards men    may come in pilgrimage. As I carve sparks fly – such, they say, was Bolivár – and I    watch my hand as it writes, gleaming in the sun. You saw the light for the first time in Caracas. Your light, Bolivár, for before you came the whole of South America    was plunged in bitter darkness. Now your name is a blazing torch, lighting America, North and    South, and all the world! The Amazon and Orinoco rivers spring from your eyes. The high mountains are rooted in your breast, The Andes range is your backbone. On the crown of your head, brave palikar, run unbroken    stallions and wild cattle, The wealth of Argentina. On your belly sprawl vast coffee plantations. When you speak, terrible earthquakes spread devastation, From Patagonia’s formidable deserts as far as the colourful    islands, Volcanoes erupt in Peru and vomit their wrath in the heavens, Everywhere the earth trembles and the icons creak in Kastoria, The silent town beside the lake. Bolivár, you have the beauty of a Greek. I first encountered you, as a child, in one of Phanar’s steep    cobbled streets, A lighted lamp in Mouchlio illumined your noble face. Are you, I wonder, one of the myriad forms assumed, and    successively discarded by Constantine Palaeologus? Boyaca, Ayacucho. Ideas both illustrious and eternal. I was    there. We’d already left the old frontiers far behind: Back in the distance, fires were burning in Leskovik. And in the night, the army moved up towards the battle, its    familiar sounds could already be heard. Opposite, a grim Convoy of endless trucks returned with the    wounded. Don’t anyone be alarmed. Down there, see, the lake. This is the way they'll come, beyond the rushes. The roads have been mined: the work and repute of that    Hormovo man, renowned, unrivalled in such matters.    Everyone to their stations. The whistle’s sounding! Come on, come on. Get the cannons uncoupled and set up,    clean the barrels with the swabs, fuses lit and held    ready, Cannon-balls to the right. Vrass! Vrass, Albanian for fire: Bolivár! Every pineapple that was hurled and exploded, Was a rose to the glory of the great general, As he stood, stern and unshaken, amid the dust and tumult, Gazing on high, his forehead in the clouds, And the sight of him caused dread: fount of awe, path of    justice, gate of salvation. Yet, how many conspired against you, Bolivár, How many traps did they not set for you to fall into and vanish, One man, above all, a rogue, a snake, a native of    Philippoupolis. But what was that to you, like a tower you stood firm, upright,    before Acongagua’s terror, Holding a mighty cudgel and wielding it above your head. The bald-headed condors, unafraid of the carnage and smoke of    battle, took fright and flew up in terrified flocks, And the llamas hurled themselves down the mountain slopes,    dragging, as they fell, a cloud of earth and rocks. And into the dark of Tartarus your enemies disappeared, lay    low. (When the marble arrives, the best from Alabanda, I’ll sprinkle    my brow with Blachernae’s holy water, I’ll use all my craft to hew your stance, to erect the statue of a    new Kouros in Sikynos’ mountains, Not forgetting, of course, to engrave on its base that famous    “Hail, passer-by”.) And here it should above all be stressed that Bolivar was never    afraid, never, as they say, “lost his nerve”, Not even at the most murderous hour of battle, nor in the bitter    gloom of unavoidable treachery. They say he knew beforehand, with unimaginable precision, the    day, the hour, even the second: the moment, Of the Great Battle that was for him alone, In which he himself would be army and enemy, both    vanquished and victor, triumphant hero and sacrificial    victim. (And the lofty spirit of such as Cyril Loukaris reared within    him, How he calmly eluded the despicable plots of the Jesuits and    that wretched man from Philippoupolis!) And if he was lost, if ever lost is such a one as Bolivar! who    like Apollonius vanished into the heavens, Resplendent like the sun he disappeared, in unimaginable glory,    behind the gentle mountains of Attica and the Morea. invocation Bolivár! You are a son of Rigas Ferraios, Of Antonios Economou – so unjustly slain – and brother to    Pasvantzoglou, The dream of the great Maximilien de Robespierre lives again    on your brow, You are the liberator of South America. I don’t know how you were related, if one of your descendants    was that other great American, the one from    Montivideo, One thing alone is sure, that I am your son. CHORUS strophe            (entrée des guitares) If the night, slow in passing, Sends moons of old to console us, If in the wide plain phantom shades Burden flowing-haired maidens with chains, The hour of victory, of triumph has come. On hollow skeletons of field marshal generals Cocked hats soaked in blood will be placed, And the red that was theirs before the sacrifice Will cover with rays the flag's lustre. antistrophe    (the love of liberty brought us here) the ploughs at the palms’ roots and the sun that rises resplendent amid trophies and birds and spears will announce as far as a tear rolls carried by the breeze to the sea’s depths the most terrible oath the more terrible darkness the terrible tale: Libertad epode            (freemasons’ dance) Away with you curses, come near us no more, corazón, From the cradle to the stars, from the womb to the eyes,    corazón, Where precipitous rocks, where volcanoes and seals, corazón, Where swarthy faces, thick lips and gleaming white teeth,    corazón, Let the phallus be raised, the revels begin, with human    sacrifice, dance, corazón, In a carnival of flesh, to our ancestors’ glory, corazón, That the seed of the new generation be sown, corazón.        CONCLUSION: Following the success of the South-American revolution, a bronze statue of Bolivár was erected in Nauplion and Monemvasia, on a deserted hill overlooking the town. However, the fierce wind that blew at night caused the hero’s frock-coat to flap furiously, creating a noise so great, so deafening, that it was impossible for anyone to get a moment’s rest, sleep was now out of the question. So the inhabitants complained and, through the appropriate steps, succeeded in having the monument torn down.    SONG OF FAREWELL TO BOLIVÁR (Here the sound of a distant band is heard, with incomparable melancholy playing popular nostalgic songs and dances from South America, preferably in sardane time)       general       what were you doing in Larissa       you       from       Hydra?

[mayacatmaster]

Why Do You Doubt Yourself?

Don't You Know How Godly You Are?

How Beautiful You Are？

You Radiate Source-like-Energy.

You’re A Prayer In The Flesh.

*** *** ***

There is so much love for you, and from you, and to you, and through you.

The Source within you adores you and is walking every step with you.

~Abraham-Hicks

*** *** ***

Questioner Asks About Geniuses Like Mozart And Einstein.

Bashar: They Are Simply Beings That Have Chosen To Allow Themselves To Be More Of Who They Are. They Represent What All Of You Are Capable Of, If You Would Only Give Yourself The Opportunity To Know That.

They Simply Knew That. They Didn't Choose To Have Any Kind Of Belief System That Would Prevent Them From Knowing That, That's All... So,1f You Allow Yourself To Let Go Of Any Belief That Prevents You From Knowing That, Each Of You Will Find Your Particular Expression Of Genius.

~Bashar (AN Evening At Learning Light)

*** *** ***

The Secret Of Freedom Lies In Educating People, Whereas The Secret Of Tyranny Is In Keeping Them Ignorant.

- Maximilien Robespierre

*** *** ***

Vain are the beliefs and teachings that make man miserable, and false is the goodness that leads him into sorrow and despair -- for it is man's purpose to be happy on this earth and lead the way to felicity and preach it's gospel wherever he goes. He who does not see the kingdom of heaven in this life will never see it in the coming life. We came not into this life by exile, but we came as innocent creatures of God, to learn how to worship the holy and eternal spirit and seek the hidden secrets within ourselves from the beauty of life. ~ Kahlil Gibran *** *** *** Most of our lives, most of us live in realities determined by others, imprinted in our brains by education, by religion, by politics, by the authorities. -Tim Leary *** *** *** We seldom realize, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society. ~Alan Watts  *** *** *** The Matrix Is Real It Exists Inside The Minds Of The Masses Through Social Cultural Political, Educational & Religious/morality-belief-system Indoctrination ** *** *** Mindset.  It's all about mindset.  From the moment you wake up, to the moment you rest your head at night. Everything is up to you.  Your emotions, your thoughts, your perceptions, your reactions.  Every moment.  ** *** *** When you recognize that there is a voice in your head that pretends to be you and never stop speaking you are awakening out of your unconscious identification with the stream of thinking. Where you notice that voice, you realize that who you are is not the voice. the thinker, but the aware. *** *** *** "The beginning of freedom is the realization that you are not "the thinker." The moment you start watching the thinker, a higher level of consciousness becomes activated. You then begin to realize that there is a vast realm of intelligence beyond thought, that thought is only a tiny aspect of that intelligence. You also  realize that all the things that truly matter - beauty, love, creativity, Joy, inner peace - arise from beyond the mind. You begin to awaken." !ECKHART TOLLE

*** *** *** To awaken means to awaken out of the self-talk in the head because the self-talk is a form of hypnosis ---- self-hypnosis. ~Eckhart Tolle *** *** *** You Have Been Lied to about Everything!!! The Illiterate Of The 21st Century Will Not Be Those Who Cannot Read Or Write, But Those Who Cannot Unlearn The Many Lies They've Been Taught To Believe. *** *** ** So…: How does one discover Truth?  Question everything ever taught to you.  Start there.  *** *** ** The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. 愚蒙人是話都信，智慧通達者步步審慎。 ～Proverbs 14:15 King James Bible *** *** *** And…: The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass)God is  waiting for you. - Werner Heisenberg (father or Quantum Physics),  *** *** *** The Truth Can Walk Naked But A Lie Always Need To Be Dressed. *** *** *** The World Knows Many Religions,  But Nature Has But One Truth. ~MANLY P. Hall  *** *** *** The World Knows Many Religions/Moral/Education/Country-Social-Family-Person-Belief-System,  But Nature Has But One Cosmic-Principle-Truth.  *** *** *** It is through watching the "Cycles" of Nature that we more fully understand the cycles of our own lives. *** *** *** Four things cannot be long hidden; the sun, the moon, the Big-Dipper and the “Truth”(True Self; Tao; Logos; Ma-at; Dharma; Source).  *** *** *** Because…: A lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good, just because it's accepted by a majority. *** *** *** The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. *** *** *** So…: I'm at that stage of my life where I keep myself out of arguments  even if you tell me 1+1=5;  You’re absolutely correct, enjoy.  *** *** *** Because First…: If It Doesn't Bring You Income, Inspiration, Or Orgasms, It Doesn't Belong In Your Life. *** *** *** Some of you walked into my life and made it better, others walked out and made  it fucking fantastic. It’s same to me. *** *** *** Second: Parrots may repeat valuable sentences, but they lack understanding.  *** *** *** One of the most important things I've learned in life is to ignore most of what people say, preach, teach.  I watch what they do instead. *** *** *** Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. ~Qscar Wilde *** *** ** And….: If you look at the people in your circle and do not become “inspired”(help you beautiful dream come true or at least help you cease bad-bitter-life-fruits-Vicious circle ,  And they just only teach/preach you how to kiss as by blind-obey/blind follow, No matter of it’s use what kind of name, God/holy books/religion/moral/country-social-education-family-belief-system. Then you don't have a circle, you have a cage.  *** *** *** So...make sure what your morality/saints/gurus/government/holy books/religion/political/education/country-social-family-belief-system not AGAINST FREEDOM.  *** *** *** AGAINST you to be free, THEY just WANT YOU TO BE SLAVES. Their whole vested interest is in your being always a slave. *** *** *** So…: When someone tries to tell me that I need to be a certain way in order to be spiritual  Noooo the fuck I don't !!! *** *** *** Because….: The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living. -Socrates  *** *** *** A man lives in slavery without self inquire because he lives unconsciously He lives like a robot.  *** *** *** And…: No matter of use what kind of name… God/holy books/religion/moral/country-social-family-belief-system. *** *** How you got caught up in a particular kiss-dark-tyrant-ruler’s-ass-belief system is a long and perhaps currently irrelevant story.  You're caught in its net.  To get free, take out your mental scissors and snip away at everything that's not freedom. *** *** *** Because…: So many kiss-dark-tyrant-ruler’s-ass-broken parents are building kiss-dark-tyrant-ruler’s-ass-broken children.  Don't let your mess become the foundation of your child's life.  Break the particular kiss-dark-tyrant-ruler’s-ass-belief-system-cycle.  *** *** *** Mindset is everything!!! Mindset is everything!!! *** *** *** So….: If you use your conscious mind properly, then, you examine those beliefs that  come to you.  You do not accept them willy-nilly. -Seth  *** *** ***

And….:

The perfect man relax and empty his mind as if it’s a mirror.  Mirror grasps nothing,  Mirror refuses nothing;  Mirror reflect what happen in front,  Let what come just come, let what gone just gone in their way, But Mirror never take it as “me; mine; myself” and “real; true”. ~Chuang Tzu  *** *** *** So...: Observe Don't Absorb….: Let the mind come as it wants; just you don’t go with it.  The greatest salesman in the world  cannot sell you if you don t buy . ~Mooji  *** *** *** The perfect man relax and empty his mind as if it’s a mirror.  Mirror the most simplest “Cosmic Principle”(Tao; Source; Ma at; Brahma) in every area …..: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Tao De Jing Ch54 by Lao-Tzu *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Those who alignment with "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos), and those who observation (of its effects)) *** *** *** What (Tao's) skilful planter plants Can never be separate oneself from "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos); Can help oneself alignment with "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos), always. Who is skilful arms enfold with Tao, From him can never be imprisoned by the society, culture, religion, morality, family or government mold he into became not-True Self. 善建不拔，善抱者不脫， Sons shall bring in lengthening line, Sacrifices to his shrine. 子孫以祭祀不輟。 "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos) when nursed within one's self, His vigour will make true; 修之於身，其德乃真； And where the family can ruled by alignment with "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos),  What riches will accrue! 修之於家，其德乃餘； The neighbourhood where it prevails by alignment with "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos),  In thriving will abound; 修之於鄉，其德乃長； And when it is seen throughout the state can ruled by alignment with "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos), Good fortune will be found. 修之於國，其德乃豐； Employ it the kingdom can ruled by alignment with "Tao"(God; True Self ; Source ; Logos), And men thrive all around. 修之於天下，其德乃普。 *** *** *** In this way the effect will be seen in the person, by the observation of different cases; in the family; in the neighbourhood; in the state; and in the kingdom. 故以身觀身，以家觀家，以鄉觀鄉，以國觀國，以天下觀天下。 How do I know that this effect is sure to hold thus all under the sky? By this (method of observation). 吾何以知天下然哉？以此。 *** *** ***

[lacommunarde]

12. Would you take part in reenactment? In what era and as whom?, 27. What's your favourite historical "What if..." scenario?

12. Yes, I have before: a little French Revolution one in which we got a five foot tall guillotine with a wooden blade (there is a story behind this: apparently the police ofthe town where we were doing it hated the guy who made this, because of various reasons. They took one look at the guillotine with its original metal blade (the thing the guillotine blade went through was solid so there was no way any of us would actually get injured) and said ‘that’s a weapon and made him take out the blade, so he went and replaced it with a wooden one instead) dropped off by somebody local. And then we read all the major speeches as they were reported or fictionalized. I was Saint-Just (I literally have hair that acts like his did in term of color and if I cut it it does things like his is shown doing, and I can tell you, it sucks). 

If doing any in the future, I prefer that they are city-based and not focus on warfare. I am not into warfare, unless it’s like a siege, in which case, cool. Like I’d love to do the musical 1776 at some point with period appropriate attire and I love running around the city in various historical costumes and taking pictures. I would also love beyond love to take part in a movie or reenactment of the Paris Commune (maybe a little better than the La Commune movie). 

27. My favorite historical what if is what if the French Revolution instead of being about to punish Fouche publically (Robespierre was about to announce Fouche was guilty of overenthusiasm and ask the Convention and Committee of General Security to arrest him, whereupon he would like be guillotined - and he was guilty of overenthusiasm, not nearly as bad as Carrier, which nobody was as bad as Carrier, but still Fouche WTF?), determined he could be useful being put in charge of a Committee of Police and told him to raise the funds through whichever means he thought necessary (short of raiding churches, no churches, Fouche), which is basically what Napoleon did, thereby giving Fouche the ability to create the modern police and the best spy network - the rumor was one in three people belonged to Fouche, as in were in his network), which allowed him to use his conspiracies for the greater good, instead of well, Thermidor, which he admitted in his memoires was the one thing he regretted most. So basically, if the Committee of Public Safety determined his punishment would be to be put in charge of the police so it could keep an eye on him and keep him away from being sent on mission anymore, his powers of spy network would be used for the French Revolution’s benefit, he would stay an undeniable republicain (which he still was actually! As he told Napoleon on a fairly regular basis!). 

With that, I think Thermidor would not have happened. Furthermore, Robespierre and St. Just, Couthon, and Fouche would likely meet to discuss how to pull back the Terror, which was put in place by the Enrages, and which Robespierre was trying to pull back on and sort through the cases of overenthusiasm, which is comparable in use to an early version of war crimes). And Fouche would have helped, provided Robespierre agreed to put his signature on a bill stating that atheism was alright. And then, they would have given Fouche the career he enjoyed most and he would be helping the Revolution stop being an ongoing Revolution and settling into the Republic, complete with actually implementing the Constitution of Year 1 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of Year 1 as well, which Fouche was all in favor of, given that Fouche supported economic reforms very strongly - he was the first to come up with Equality Bread so that people would get actual nutrients from the bread they consumed; he supported veterans benefits and widowhood benefits; and I believe he would have also supposed women’s enfranchisement. 

Furthermore, after the Terror was done, Robespierre could retire and be a human rights lawyer, and probably head a human rights investigative committee, which he would have enjoyed so much more than being on the Committee of Public Safety. St. Just and Le Bas and Carnot could have been in charge of the Armies, and have brought Napoleon into it when he was old enough, which St. Just and him would have gotten along I think, and there wouldn’t have been the power vacuum for Napoleon to fill (or the conspiracy to put Napoleon in power run by, you guessed it, Fouche, Sieyes (yes, the Sieyes who wrote What is the Third Estate?) and Talleyrand (who historically would become Minister of the Exterior to match Fouche’s Minister of the Interior and be, alongside Fouche, one of the two people Napoleon feared most)). And Romme and Lakanal could focus on making food and education universal and decent. (And Collot d’Herbois and Billaud Varennes could retire to go raise the foulest mouthed parrots together - as they actually did in history after they were exiled) 

France would have likely become the human rights capital of Europe. And other countries would have adopted the human rights aspects to not lose their kingdoms. 

They would likely have come up with a Human Rights Treaty across all European countries and all of their colonies. All the UN departments, like the World Food Programme, UNESCO, UN Development Program, UN Economic and Social, UN Human Rights Council, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights would have been developed a century and a half before they were actually developed. The Irish Potato Famine would not have happened, because (a) research being done by the Equality Bread program would not have let them grow only one food crop they were allowed to keep, otherwise Britain would have been up against an angry Fouche and Romme and (b) if it did happen, because the potato blight would have still lessened the amount of food they had, France would have sent them food, because that’s one of the things the Equality Bread program was establishing (grain storage facilities so if a bad harvest happens, there is still grain so nobody starves, and this was actually working, they found village a century later that were still following this to much success!). Slavery would have been outlawed in Britain as well, and with a boycott likely put on all slavery in the supply chain. Haiti would have been free. New Orleans would have been a trading partner with New Orleans. The middle of the US would likely still have been sold to the US, with control being maintained over New Orleans. The Bourbons would have likely eventually been invited back as celebrities, provided they stayed out of politics. And Robespierre could have married Eleanore and adopted Horace Desmoulins and stopped the kid from getting into the slave trade (which, wtf Horace???) and had his owns kids. And have statues built to him for his dedication to human rights, which he would be very embarrassed about. 

And it all starts with Robespierre and St. Just meeting with Fouche and explaining that he was not going to ask the Convention to bring him up on charges, but instead is going to recommend he be kept in Paris under the Committee’s eye and what punishment does Fouche think would be best for his actions in Lyons and elsewhere on mission. 

[evilelitest2]

100 Days of Trump Day 60: 1984

     Welcome back to 100 Days of Trump, where we try to sum up WTF happened in 2016 in 100 recommendations.  Today we are going to talk to the ganddaddy of them all, 1984....and let me just get this out of the way.  Orwell was a Socialist, he was extremely left wing, his criticism of communism (and it is more than just communism he is critical of) wasn’t coming from a right wing place.  Now one of Orwells main theory was actually disproved, if you don’t have a word for something it doesn't keep you from articulating it, usually by making a new word via language drift.  When Mao Zedong created Simplified Chinese he deliberately tried to remove certain phases and concepts from the language...but very quickly that failed, the Chinese just used new terms or loan words.  But what I do want to talk about with 1984 is the co-option of language, yes I am banging that drum again.  

    See the regime Ingoc is specifically said to lack any real ideology, its most defining traits is its inconsistency, “We have always been at war with east asia”  But a political regime must have ideological rhetoric, even if it has no ideology itself, and so lacking any core beliefs, they instead latch upon other ideas and concepts and co-opt them for their own purpose.  And the Far Right (though not necessarily the more ‘moderate’ right) doesn’t really have a coherent political ideology beyond vague “I oppose these things” when you leave them alone to make their own theories it just turns into absolute shit.  And the greatest irony is that if you look at their writings, not only do they all sound like each other with no discernible difference, they all use the same phases over and over again, like cuck.  But the thing I find interesting is...almost all of those phases are leftist terms they just stop (not cuck obviously).  Here let me give a list of their mindlessly parroted phases that the Neoreactionary Right just can’t get enough of

Politically Correct

This was originally a socialist/communist term used by people like Orwell and Troskey against Stalinist style communists, politically correct mean that they followed the party line mindlessly without questioning.  If you used the word in its originally meaning, then you’d be using it against republicans who put aside previous objections in order to work with Trump.  Then it came to mean basically “Corporate works trying to pretend to be progressive without actually being progressive” a decidedly left wing charge.  But the right got it so not it just kinda means “Giving a shit about social justice”   Speaking of which

Social Justice Warrior 

This was actually a left wing term, I’m serious, I remember when it was first spreading around left wing internet and I was like “god damn this is a useful term”  And holy crap did that get co-opted fast.  SJW originally was a word to use for leftists who advocated a much more militant and “Us vs. them” mentality, basically for the modern day Marat or Robespierre.  This time of liberal disagreement goes back for quite a long way, the question of reform vs. revolution, and its not necessarily an ideological difference as it is a practical one, and it was nice to have a term to those people who fetishize the idea of violent revolution utterly ignorant of its results (spoiler warning, it doesn’t end well).  But not it is just a blanket term to mean “people I don’t like”

White Knight

Man i remember when this was a feminist term, it was a great term, it basically referred to men who try to defend women out of a desire for sex, which is a creepy thing that happens all the time.  Problem now is that any man who like...doesn’t think that Anita Sarkeesian is trying to take over the world is a white knight by default.  

Virtue Signalling

Basically this is when somebody obstains from doing something horrible and then calls attention to it so that everybody will value and respect them, social justices entirely for the praise.  Good term, we have all met that one guy who does that.  Problem is now that anybody who is like “Man, it is really awful the way women are consistently harassed on the internet” and the immediate response is “well you are just virtue signalling”.  

MLK

MLK’s entire existence has become one giant use of Rightists misusing him to support their argument, and then in response leftist pretending he was somehow  a violent revolutionary cause that makes sense. 

Regressive Leftist 

This one originally means to people who are supposedly left wing but actually seem to hold really non left wing views 

Ethics in Game Journalism

This might shock you but long before Gamergate was the glimmer in Ejoni’s empty souless eyes there were a lot of people talking about how corrupt games journalism is, because it fucking is but guess what? Most of them didn’t join up with GG, in fact many like Jim Sterling actually opposed GG and none of them were talking about indie devs interacting with games journalist for good reviews, they were instead talking about giant corporations buying adds on gaming journalist sites to get good reviews, the giant corporations that GG didn’t spend its time talking about in favor of how an indie game developer and a youtube feminist are somehow responsible for everything wrong in a multi billion dollar industry.  

Orwell himself

And of course, Orwell himself suffered this, despite being, I will say this again, a socialist, you see the term orwellian used to refer to the very same ideology Orwell held, its fucking maddening.  You have folks online like RedbloodedAmerican who literally say “Socialism has never produced anything of value ever” and then use the term Orwellian without any bat of irony.  

Part of this is that when these terms of defined, they are usually only defined in what they are, not what they aren’t, which makes them very easy to co-opt, after all the original definition didn’t not mean this right? Good hint for future leftist term makings, when you make something up, very specifically say what it isn’t.  Orwell would have done better I feel if he had very specifically made it clear what his regime was not as much as what it was.  

but we don’t just see this in a political context, I mean take the term 

Mary Sue

It is suppose to mean a character who is way too powerful for the narrative and around whom the narrative revolves because they are always correct, and now kinda means “thing I don’t like” 

But the right doesn’t just always co-opt the left, they have lots of neat little terms that instead exist to sort of hide to themselves and others how utterly abhorrent the whole lot of them are.  I mean when you say 

Family Values

When being homophobic or anti feminist, it basically doesn’t mean anything, I mean....what do families as a collective unit produce universal values?  All of them?  I mean the Judeo Claudians were a family should I take advice from them?  What defines a family? What if a family disagrees?  How does that mean anything at all?

Intelligent Design

This literally exists to make creationism sound less stupid than creationism, but of course every single person who believes in Intelligent Design is of course a creationist. 

White Nationalist 

Rather than just saying ‘I’m a nazi” they use this cute little term instead, because their beliefs are basically the same as the nazis except Pan European rather than just German.  

Spengler

This one honestly confuses me, because Spengler was right wing I mean did any of them actually read Decline of the West

The point is that we just see words used not for a method of communication, but instead as a way to create a larger point 

    The list goes on and on but I want to get to my main point, I want to talk about the psychology going on with this constant revisionist of language, it isn’t because they are stupid (I mean it is but that isn’t the main point) its about keeping people angry, about creating a constant sense of anger and embittered paranoia.  Because here is the dirty little secret of the Far Right, if you actually calm them the fuck down and don’t have an enemy to oppose....they don’t really have all that much in common.  IN fact a lot of them have beliefs that are actually really left wing.  Again and again we have found that if you poll Americans based on specific issues like “Should healthcare be affordable”and “Does this country have too much of a wealth gap” and “Do the rich not pay enough in taxes” and a lot of hardcore republican suddenly sound like socialists.  CGP Grey noted that if you abstract enough and talk to people about the electoral college they will almost uniformly come out and say “Wow, that is awful” but the moment they realize that they benefit from it, they will instantly start to change their tune.  Because to a lot of Republican voters, it isn’t actually about the issues, its about fucking over “The enemy” which in this case is the democrats, and as long as people are fucking pissed, they don’t really fully listen to the whole platform of the guy they supported.  I had this issue with Obama/Clinton supporters where their supporters just stopped listening when they got to things they didn't’ like about the candidate, because it isn’t actually about the core issues, its about fear and hatred of the other side.  But maintaining that level of hatred is actually pretty difficult, because the moment people calm down a tad and go home, watch TV and find out the world hasn’t ended, they start to realize that you are kinda hyperbolic and most importantly, might become vulnerable to leftists pointing out that they actually agree on most issues.  So you need to keep them mad, constantly perpetually mad, just endlessly angry, so that they never really have that moment of calming the fuck down and actually thinking about the issues.  And Angry people aren’t famous for rational decisions

Yet again reminder of why Hitchens is an utterly worthless pseudo intellectual who reminds me a lot of Alex Jones, who is basically the result of a human being who has been angry for decades and has never calmed down.

  This is also why these buzzwords are so important, they distract from the issue as a whole, because family values...I has family, and I don’t wants family to change gah.  Rather than sitting them down and talking to them about what a changing modern society actually means for a family they just kind of vaguely panic because they aren’t in a head-space where they are ready to reason (This is worse for single issue voters).  Like i’ve spoken to people about the Iraq War and once I get to “So how do you win a war on terror” they suddenly kinda stop and go “Huh....wait”  or “How do you win a war on drugs” if they aren’t viewing in from the lenses of a culture war, they  become more receptive.  So the point of the right (who i remind you, have interests which most of the country doesn’t like, as Trump’s supporters are finding out right now).  I mean literally at this moment, we are seeing people go “Well I like the ACA I just don’t like Obamacare” when they are the SAME FUCKING THING  

And that is where the Right wing Media empire comes in and by that I mean the two min of hate, where you can take all of your collective insecurities anger and frustrations in life and everything around you and blame it on one nebulous force of “Them”.  Huh where have I seen that before?

If you watch folks like THunderfoot, Sargon or other anti feminists, they fixate a fucking tone of attention on this extremely standard video series, it is notably shocking how much time they spend talking about really basic theory level stuff and then you realize....Anita, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu and Hillary Clinton are literally the whole feminists they know.  Like they haven’t read any of the material, they don’t know any of these people, they don’t even know what feminism is other than a vague “bad thing” that that they don’t like and blame for all their problems.  This is why so called “Free speech” advocates” are totally ok with GSM folks having videos put down, why devout Christians vote for a man who admitted to sexual assault, why people who hate the Eastern Elites are always getting in bed with Goldman sachs or why the working class voted for Trump, it isn’t actually about the issues, its about screwing the other guy.  

It is into this environment that Trump thrives, because pointing to a vague, undefinable, conspiratorial other is where he thrives and he serves as the culminate conductor of rage (that should be a title of a book on this subject honestly)