Was he a bad ruler?

>I retarded France industrialization and progress because scientist said mean things about me

wut

But he did got a lot of hate from his contemporaries, didn't he?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

But it's a demonstrated forgery, user...

He was a degenerate Freemason who undermined the legitimate Catholic identity of France in the name of "progress".

>It's a mystification

It's pretty well documented. If anything, people romanticize the Revolution because "muh democracy".

Or was it Condorcet ? Or pretty much any progressist of that day ?

bibnumcermtri.fr/IMG/pdf/P_Chronique_Lavoisier_8_.pdf

>James Guillaume

Why would I trust an anarchist?

I studied chemistry instead of French History in college, and I can remember feeling shocked and upset when learning that Lavoisier had been executed during the Terror.

Because the citations needed are provided ?

The Soviet propaganda ministry can find citations. He's a communist trying to justify revolution to obscuring the facts.

Robespierre was a paranoid Freemason who attacked Catholics and anyone perceived as a threat, murdering thousands.

The Catholic church had pretty much degenerated into Aristocratic Deference Force, so purging reactionary elements from it was justified.

Yeah, killing country priests sure is sticking it to the aristocrats.

This is Marxist revisionism.

The Catholic Church has always defended it's host monarchs in each countries, they were and are a remnant of feudalism. Even during Civil War Spain they sided with fascism in order to save the monarchs standing.

As they should to remain order. Better to stand with the Fascists and tradition than to become another cog in the communist machine.

>throwing out Marxism where it doesn't apply
*tips*

You should study the wars of Vendée : they are particularly rich of teachings on the collusion between the Church and the Ancient Regime.
that's also why this subject is a hot theme among the adversaries of the Revolution still nowadays.

Man you are dumb, fascism is not traditionalism, but a high modern autocracy. The King did not posses any power, that was all Franco, but retarded Catholics sided with him to save their untaxed lands and their privileges that the Kings existence assured them.

Marxists whitewash the atrocities of the Revolution all this time to justify their own ideology and ambitions.

You act like merely supporting the aristocracy is enough to justify mass slaughter of clergy and lay people. The Vendee war was a popular Catholic resistance to the excesses of the Revolution.

Franco was not a doctrinaire fascist, and he had always intended to restore the monarchy, but there were competing legitimist factions and Franco had to hold on to power to protect Spain from the threat of communism.

>You act like merely supporting the aristocracy is enough to justify mass slaughter of clergy and lay people.
But supporting the aristocracy had a concrete meaning : it was justifying and PRACTICING the slaughter of the most advanced part of the French people, and planning the return into servitude of the crushing majority of this same people. The Church played a central role in the manipulation of the most arrierated parts of the people, but even there, if you compare the weight of the royalist peasant forces to the rural population who spontaneously created communes during the summer 1789, you see that the royalists are minorities concentrated in the poorest regions and mobilized by foreign/exiled powers, whenever the constitution of independant municipalities is a massive and nation-wide move.

Name one thing Robespierre specifically did that was wrong, with citations and primary source evidence.

Well, there is one thing...
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-René_Hébert

>it was justifying and PRACTICING the slaughter of the most advanced part of the French people,

That's an awful lot of rhetoric, especially compared to the actual slaughter perpetrated by the Revolutionaries.

Furthermore, the Revolution was not some popular revolt, but a English-backed coup sponsored through the masonic lodges:

>English guineas were found on the rioters, and Englishmen were seen min-
gling with the mobs during the first days of the revolution. Seditious pamphlets
were printed in London, and there had been a heavy traffic in money, messages,
and letters between England and the revolutionary leaders in France. Many of
those same leaders "were constantly in England both before and during the Revo-
lution; Marat lived for years in Soho, whilst Danton, Brissot, Petion, St. Hururge,
Theroigne de Mericourt and the ruffian Rotondo were all habitues of London.
These facts admit of no denial. ..

E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, pg. 534

>Only the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794 hindered further leveling plans, which Babeuf in all probability would have realized. So Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buidlings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing. (In Strassburg, preparations were already underway for the barbaric mutilation of the cathedral there.) Another problem that needed to be solved was the language of the Alsatians, qui ne parlent pas la Iangue républicaine, otherwise known as French. Someone suggested taking the children away from those in Alsace-Lorraine or resettling the entire German-speaking population throughout out all of France. Those were costly plans and as a result a more practical solution was worked out, namely, the complete extermination of the germanophone population. As one can see, the French Revolution was not only interested in the good Doctor Guillotin's deployment of mechanical mass murder, it was also interested in genocide and not only in Alsace but also in other regions of the République Une et Indivisible.

culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

Have you been snorting solvents?

The Brits were terrified of the Revolution.
They spent millions of pounds over 20 years to defeat the Revolutionary French.

Just another jew-hater, aren't you?

...

Not that user. Do you have a better counterargument? He's got documentary evidence.

He wanted a universal egalitarian republic.
You think the fucking church and aristocracy were gonna let go of power just because the people wanted power for themselves?

Long live the Jacobins!!

Yes I do, moron.
His reference is a controversial anti-jewish anti-catholic book with dubious evidence.

Try reading George Rude, Georges Lefebvre, David Andress, Albert Soboul, R.R. Palmer.
Actual specialists in French Revolution history.

After that, read any of the dozens of Napoleon bios, and hundreds of Napoleonic Wars titles.

Don't bother with KKK racist bullshit.

Thanks ;0)

Fucked up killing himself. Bad aim.

The British sponsored the Revolution, then opposed it when it got out of their control.

>jew-hater

Playing the race card, I see.

>anti-catholic

E. Michael Jones is a Catholic historian.

Prove the Brits "financed" the revolution.
Parliamentary records?
Record of money dispersal?

Jones IS a known anti-semite.
He is one of those catholics who does not recognize the pope, rejects Vatican II as heresey.

He is not a respected scholar.
Since he filters everything through his "jews are evil" lens, his views are suspect at best.

Why is French wikipedia in English?

Hell, I'm not even a frog but I'm feeling some form of second-hand disgust..

Are you ok user ?

Saint Just is my husbando

Which bad things did he did?