• darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      As Miz notes, the fact that they don't get movies and fantasy books and groups of people sobbing over the possibility of one of them escaping and being alive somewhere is telling. There is this fantasy, this slave/subject mentality towards royalty even still among the Anglos.

      And these are the same people by the way who will look at citizens of the DPRK sobbing about the death of one of the Kim's (as is tradition there in Korea) en mass and think "wow so brainwashed, imagine caring about a leader that doesn't care about you and starved lots of people" without an ounce of understanding of the comedy of this given their own sympathies. Just outrageous double-think.

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Occupational hazards of hereditary monarchy (and historically such hazard was super low chance). Note they don't cry about children dying from hunger because their parents died in Bloody Nicky wars or got murdered by Bloody Nicky cossacks, or in pogroms insipred by Bloody Nicky and so on and on and on.

    • Anarcho-Bolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      The best response that you’ll get from anticommunists is the same one when somebody reminds them of Imperial America’s horrific atrocities: the most half‐assed condemnation possible. ‘Huh? Oh, um, yeah, that’s, uh… bad… too… I guess…’

    • miz@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      so strange that none of those starved kids ever got a feature film made about them by Don Bluth eighty years later

  • propter_hog [any, any]
    ·
    2 months ago

    The kids were already fucked up, and they'd have staged a coup. So yeah, and I'll go one better: they deserved to die first.

  • Vertraumir@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    2 months ago

    The youngest of this "kids" was old enough to serve in tsarist army, but liberals won't cry about all the real kids conscripted and killed in ww1 or Russo-Japanese wars