Thread 17778447

>revolutionaries claimed to be fighting for liberty and equality
>imprison a beautiful, innocent young boy, depriving him of his liberty, which ultimately led to his premature death
How do you justify this?

>>17778447 (OP)
Is this the yearly French royal shota post?

>>17778447 (OP)
>How do you justify this?
You don't

>>17778447 (OP)
The nobility are hereditary reactionarys and must be removed

>>17779608
Name a single thing the nobility ever did that was wrong.

>>17778458
>beautiful, innocent young boy
I'm gonna say yes

>>17778458
For me its Alexei.

>>17779652
>young boy ritualistically murdered in cold blood by Jews
A story as old as time.

>>17778447 (OP)
But the peasant and working class boys who died starving while this brat's parent's partied and lived it up, who gives a shit right? They weren't beautiful, they weren't innocent, they weren't humans, they were just a grey blob of urchins.

>>17779655
The Romanovs were Orthodox Christians, therefore they're the real jews.

>>17779838
>brat
He was a child who was neglected and abused until he died

>>17779877
His parents are to blame for putting him in a dangerous situation. They were starving thousands of other people's children knowing this was dangerous, but chose to do it anyway.

>>17779891
They werent starving anybody stop being a retard.

>>17779896
Even our present oppressors - the capitalist, the most grossest and murderous class that has ever existed - saw that the feudal order, with its constant famines, was untenable. Yet here you are, 200 years later, defending it.

>>17779949
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933

>>17779954
This implies that the Stalinist regime - deeply flawed as it was - saw the famine and were like "nah, lets continue taxing people and practicing conspicuous consumption". They didn't, an there was no famine ever again. Not due to Stalin's "genius", but because by then mechanization had taken hold of the agricultural sector.

>>17779838
>But the peasant and working class boys who died starving while this brat's parent's partied and lived it up
Their society had less wealth inequality than we do today. What, do you think they were eating all the food that belonged to the peasants? Famines and food insecurity were an unavoidable fact of life up until recent times.

The only reason we now live in an unprecedented era free from famines is because the wealthy produced and sponsored innovators who came up with scientific inventions which revolutionized agriculture. The French revolution was a highly dysgenic event which demolished the birthrates of the upper classes, and is likely the reason why France fell into irrelevancy. The French are now on-track to be the first European ethnic group in modern times to go extinct, all because the denigration of their society was given a head start by the revolution.

>They weren't beautiful
He was a beautiful prince who would have become a great king, but he was robbed of that opportunity by the 18th century equivalent of resentful BLM rioters who just wanted free Jordans.

>>17779891
>muh aristocracy starved the peasants muhfugga
Literal propaganda.

>>17779949
The Capitalists/Communists are the exact same people, and they overthrew the aristocracy so that they could institute their oppressive regime, which has led to the irrevocable decline of each country they overtook.

>>17779977
No the Jews at the NKVD were just taking grain away from people and murdering them if they hid something for themselves or their children.

>>17778447 (OP)
>how do you justify this?
Enlightened Rationalism

>>17779983
>>17779989
I don't even have to answer you people, its just plain to everyone that you're simple bootlickers who will the rich and powerful no matter and will kill as many kids as necessary including your own to ensure this one rich kid isn't harmed. You think that's noble and I commend your sacrifice but fuck that.

>>17780013
Reddit tier analysis. Next you'll be talking about how the rich are actually Darth Vader.

>think of the children!
>but not this one!

>>17780036
People of aristocratic birth have lives with more value than people who come from the lower classes, on average. It might make some people uncomfortable to admit, but it's true.

>>17780019

If you're going to be an arrogant oppressor class, intent on the idea that you should hold an entire class at gunpoint to do slave labour, and bring your children along for the ride, I'm sorry, its you r fault when the children die.

The most famous example is Haiti. The French slave owners held an entire people in bondage through force that they knew would

... explode into voilence, since no human likes being forced into slavery, but the slave owners brought their own children into this tinder box through their own negligence and stupidity. So it is really the oppressor class' fault when their children die. They choose to bring them into the class battlefield and then cry when a stray bullet hits them. In fact, I would argue, its even sicker, the ruling classes use their children as human shields, like Elon Musk does.

>>17780119
>intent on the idea that you should hold an entire class at gunpoint to do slave labour
When did this happen? Serfdom was nothing like slavery proper, and slavery isn't even a bad thing.

>The French slave owners held an entire people in bondage through force that they knew would
The Negro slaves in Saint-Domingue had better living conditions under slavery than they had in either Africa, or Haiti post-revolution. The idea that slaves in Saint-Domingue were mistreated is a myth, just like the idea that North American slaves were. If they were actually being mistreated, their population wouldn't have exploded like it did. They revolted due to resentment. They felt envious that their masters had more wealth than they did.

By revolting against their masters and rejecting the paternalistic, mutually beneficial slave-master relationship which gave them, frankly, undeservedly high living standards, they only became slaves without masters. The brutality which the former negro slaves treated the French with, including the lower class ones, just goes to show how undeserving they were of their freedom. Describing the condition they attained as "freedom" isn't even correct, they are still slaves to their own animalistic impulses, slaves to this uncaring reality which they are incapable of navigating without guidance.

Saint-Domingue went from being the pearl of the Antilles, to being a shithole on par with every other country ruled over by Africans, and the French revolution and its consequences has ensured that this fate will eventually reach France itself.

It's funny that you believe children under the guardianship of their parents deserve what their parents get them into, yet you don't apply this principle to slaves. The French revolution is totally without justification.

>>17780367
>If they were actually being mistreated, their population wouldn't have exploded like it did.
Autism - the post

>>17780790
The European peasantry throughout history struggled to replace themselves because of poverty. Generally, only the upper classes were fecund, and would replace the lower classes through downwards social mobility.

Negro slaves in the Americas on the other hand got gibsmedat and preferential treatment which resulted in extremely high birthrates. If they were being mistreated, they would have never been as fecund as they were. Economic analyses on the transatlantic slave trade prove that slavery wasn't even monetarily beneficial for slaveholders. It was literally just welfare for blacks, they barely even worked.

If you want to see what an exploitative and barbaric slave trade looks like, look at the Arab slave trade, which Jewish and Arab slavers subjected White Europeans to throughout history. The Arab slave trade didn't result in the enslaved population experiencing a massive population explosion, they were often worked to death or even castrated.

>>17780799
>The European peasantry throughout history struggled to replace themselves
Source - anons schizoid fantasies
Didn't read the rest kek back up your bullshit claim with a source and then go kys if you think slaves were treated well and not force-bred for their marker value when in their prime years

>>17780799
>subjected White Europeans to
And there it is. The tell-tale sign that you're nothing but a neo-tranny nazi larper
Your board is that way, >>>/pol/tranny

>>17780804
>not force-bred for their marker value when in their prime years
You think Negroids have to be forced to have sex with each other and reproduce?

>>17780809
>sex with each other
I was referring to their white owners and overseers, retard.
>inb4 you deny white men ever raped Mammy

>>17780813
Why did the black slaves, of which there were a massive amount, retain relative racial purity? Why was there a substantial population of free mulattoes in Saint-Domingue? Why would White slave owners want their own children to be slaves?

This is unfounded and fantastical.

>>17780821
>This is unfounded and fantastical.
Andrew Johnson, the US president, was an indentured slave white boy in his youth along with his sister.
>"look mom, I capitalized the 'w' again!"
The 'one drop' rule existed for a reason retard

>>17780837
>Andrew Johnson, the US president, was an indentured slave white boy in his youth along with his sister.
And?

>The 'one drop' rule existed for a reason retard
Okay? What does that have to do with anything?