Bastille Day, 2017

[Pogo]

Paris is not dangerous; that's hokum.

Tell that to the victims.

I lived in Paris for a while, never felt in danger. Not until I went to London, which was all on edge about bombings. They'd had quite a few recently.

Funny nobody thought to make up Association Fallacies about what religion the IRA followed though. Things that make ya go hmm.

That's because Western civilization wasn't threatened by the IRA. They wanted freedom from occupying Brits in North Ireland, not complete subjugation and the destruction of all Western culture. I know it's supposedly hard for you to make that distinction, you have to pretend you don't see the difference.

Doodle, I've seen the difference right from the start. "When they do it, it's their religion --- when we do it, religion is irrelevant".

That's why I coined the phrase -- "Having it both ways: Priceless".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

As assuredly anyone honest knows, 'right' and 'left' originated with kings, and especially in France. To the right were the king's 'supporters' (sycophants), to the left were those proposing the right to question the royal monopoly on power.

The Rule of Law Is the Rule of Lawyers

The elite want you to think that's what happened in France's fake revolution. Actually, it was the hereditary 2% flunkies revolting against their titled 1% bosses. The 98% were excluded, except to capture and guillotine the 1%.

The post was a statement of fact about political conditions well before 1789. The Protestants, for example, though eminently capitalist, were definitely 'left'.
The anxiousness to treat everything negative as entirely due to the 'right' or 'left' today clouds many minds here.

The Preppy Republic

Prep schools create our Communists, Birchers, and RINOs. The specious spectrum describes only the infighting within the HeirHead clique and is irrelevant to both the rest of us and to reality itself. Kept ignorant and ignored, we are under the illusion of being players, but we are really nothing but spectators at a prep-school spitball fight.

 

[basquebromance]

this is weird

 

[Eloy]

this is weird

Donald Trump is weird but what is weirder is that he got a majority of the electoral College vote.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Electoral College is 'weird'.

 

[montelatici]

I have never understood why the French are so enamored of that day when innocent people were slaughtered and initiated the Reign of Terror over their fellow countrymen.
The French Revolution has been the model of every leftwing bloody ascension to power ever since.

Funny, you identify with the royalty of that day.
Your life would have been miserable had you lived then.

Had I lived then I wouldnt have made it to my 40's, dude.

No, I dont identify with the royals, but I do identify with human beings of any class that are victimized by leftist lies and violence.

The abuse of the last heir to the French throne, a mere ten year old boy, is typical of you lefties hatred of those related to your opponents.

Louis XVII of France - Wikipedia

On 3 July, Louis-Charles was separated from his mother, and put in the care of Antoine Simon, a cobbler, who had been named his guardian by the Committee of Public Safety and tasked to transform the former young prince into a staunch republican citizen.

The tales told by royalist writers of the cruelty inflicted by Simon and his wife on the child are not proven. Louis Charles' sister, Marie Therese, wrote in her memoires, about the "monster Simon", as did Alcide Beauchesne. Antoine Simon's wife Marie-Jeanne, in fact, took great care of the child's person. Stories survive narrating how he was encouraged to eat and drink to excess, and learned the language of the gutter. The foreign secretaries of England and Spain also heard accounts from their spies that the boy was raped by prostitutes in order to infect him with venereal diseases to supply the Commune with manufactured "evidence" against the Queen.[6] However, the scenes related by Alcide de Beauchesne (fr) of the physical martyrdom of the child are not supported by any testimony, though he was at this time seen by a great number of people.

On 6 October, Pache, Chaumette, Jacques Hébert and others visited him and secured his signature to charges of sexual molestation against his mother and his aunt.[6] The next day he was confronted with his elder sister Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte for the last time.

1794: Illness[edit]
On 19 January 1794, the Simons left the Temple, after securing a receipt for the safe transfer of their ward, who was declared to be in good health. A large part of the Temple records from that time onward disappeared under the Bourbon Restoration,[citation needed] making knowledge of the facts impossible. Two days after the departure of the Simons, Louis-Charles is said by the Restoration historians to have been put in a dark room which was barricaded like the cage of a wild animal. The story runs that food was passed through the bars to the boy, who survived despite the accumulated filth of his surroundings.

Robespierre visited Marie-Thérèse on 11 May, but no one, according to the legend, entered the dauphin's room for six months until Barras visited the prison after the 9th Thermidor (27 July 1794). Barras's account of the visit describes the child as suffering from extreme neglect, but conveys no idea of the alleged walling in. It is nevertheless certain that during the first half of 1794 Louis-Charles was very strictly secluded; he had no special guardian, but was under the charge of guards who changed from day to day.

The boy made no complaint to Barras of any ill treatment. He was then cleaned and re-clothed. His room was cleaned, and during the day he was visited by his new attendant, Jean Jacques Christophe Laurent(1770–1807), a creole from Martinique. From 8 November onward, Laurent had assistance from a man named Gomin.

Louis-Charles was then taken out for fresh air and walks on the roof of the Tower. From about the time of Gomin's arrival, he was inspected, not by delegates of the Commune, but by representatives of the civil committee of the 48 sections of Paris. The rare recurrence of the same inspectors would obviously facilitate fraud, if any such was intended. From the end of October onward, the child maintained an obstinate silence, explained by Laurent as a determination taken on the day he made his deposition against his mother. On 19 December 1794 he was visited by three commissioners from the Committee of Public Safety — J. B. Harmand de la Meuse, J. B. C. Mathieu and J. Reverchon — who extracted no word from him.

On 31 March 1795, Étienne Lasne was appointed to be the child's guardian in replacement of Laurent. In May 1795, the boy was seriously ill, and a doctor, P. J. Desault, who had visited him seven months earlier, was summoned. However, on 1 June, Desault died suddenly, not without suspicion of poison, and it was some days before doctors Philippe-Jean Pelletan and Dumangin were called.

Louis-Charles died on 8 June 1795. The next day an autopsy was conducted by Pelletan, at which it was stated that a child apparently about ten years of age, "which the commissioners told us was the late Louis Capet's son", had died of a scrofulous infection of long standing. "Scrofula"[7] as it was previously known, is nowadays called Tuberculous cervical lymphadenitis referring to a lymphadenitis (chronic lymph node swelling or infection) of the neck (cervical lymph nodes) lymph nodes associated with tuberculosis.[8][citation needed]

During the autopsy, the physician Dr. Pelletan was shocked to see the countless scars which covered the body of Louis-Charles. The scars were the result of the physical abuse the child suffered while imprisoned in the Temple.[9]

Louis-Charles was buried on 10 June in the Sainte Marguerite cemetery, but no stone was erected to mark the spot.
​

This little boy was deliberately isolated, tormented and taught to hate his own family and according to neutral observers had been repeatedly raped and deliberately infected with disease. His corpse had the evidence for the veracity of these claims and then he was buried in an unmarked grave.

THAT is the French Revolution.

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

 

[montelatici]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

 

[irosie91]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

so true------stalin was an angel-----as was Baathist sadaam

 

[montelatici]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

so true------stalin was an angel-----as was Baathist sadaam

Stalinism was hardly leftist or communist, and Sadaam was just a dictator with no real ideology.

Read Bruno Rizzi to see what Stalinism was.

 

[irosie91]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

so true------stalin was an angel-----as was Baathist sadaam

Stalinism was hardly leftist or communist, and Sadaam was just a dictator with no real ideology.

Read Bruno Rizzi to see what Stalinism was.

Sadaam was BAATHIST I would not try to categorize either Stalin or
Pol Pot. They self-identified as COMMUNISTS just as your
saint adolf self-identified as "national socialist" along with
with sadaam and papa and baby Assad
Sadaam could be described as a LENIN of the
Baathist cause----a "father" thereof-----and an inspiration to Assad.
Your statement that Leftists "cannot be oligarchs" is delusionary.
lenin and stalin would have supported baathism-----from nasser--
to sadaam to papa and baby assad. Oligarchs, ALL

 

[irosie91]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

so true------stalin was an angel-----as was Baathist sadaam

Stalinism was hardly leftist or communist, and Sadaam was just a dictator with no real ideology.

Read Bruno Rizzi to see what Stalinism was.

monte has devolved into a "rizzi-ist"-------she has also repudiated both commonly and scholarly
accepted definitions-----as a sophist justifications of her filth

 

[montelatici]

Common people have always been oppressed by right-wing oligarchs. Every once in while the common people get pissed off and turn to violence for short period of time. The oligarchs practice violence centuries at a time.

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

so true------stalin was an angel-----as was Baathist sadaam

Stalinism was hardly leftist or communist, and Sadaam was just a dictator with no real ideology.

Read Bruno Rizzi to see what Stalinism was.

monte has devolved into a "rizzi-ist"-------she has also repudiated both commonly and scholarly
accepted definitions-----as a sophist justifications of her filth

You, my dear, have become unhinged.

 

[irosie91]

It is amusing how you pretend that there are no leftwing oligarchs.

By definition, left wingers can't be oligarchs.

so true------stalin was an angel-----as was Baathist sadaam

Stalinism was hardly leftist or communist, and Sadaam was just a dictator with no real ideology.

Read Bruno Rizzi to see what Stalinism was.

monte has devolved into a "rizzi-ist"-------she has also repudiated both commonly and scholarly
accepted definitions-----as a sophist justifications of her filth

You, my dear, have become unhinged.

"unhinged" ? <<< is that a technical Baathist term?