Not only does it glorify the (((French revolution))) but it also tries to paint criminal behaviour such as thievery as being justified if one is poor.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
4
Breadpilled on scored.co
1 year ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
Honestly, I've always *loved* the play, haven't read the book. I scrutinized it heavily after the redpill since it was made by two jews last I checked, but to this day haven't found anything explicitly degenerate in it.
In fact, some things about it are kinda based, at least relative to the shit you see made today.
* Fantine is essentially a parable against promiscuity. Her life is destroyed after she engages in pre-marital sex with a deadbeat. This forces her to become a literal whore to provide for her child, and she dies as a direct result.
* The scummy, jewy couple, the Thernardiers, are acknowledged to ultimately burn in hell for their wicked greed despite being the only characters who get an unambiguous "happy ending" in the earthly context.
* All of the larger moral themes hinge on an understanding of authentic Christian principles, and never resort to subverting or mocking them. Christianity itself is integral to the story, and is shown in an explicitly positive light.
> Not only does it glorify the (((French revolution)))
You could be right on this being pozzed for all I know; I know nothing about the French Revolution. But with how the play presents the revolt at the barricade as merely a vessel for delivering the other dramatic, interpersonal aspects of the story, I didn't even realize it was a real historical event until well afterwards.
> it also tries to paint criminal behaviour such as thievery as being justified if one is poor.
Again, speaking just for the play versus the book here, but I definitely disagree with this insofar as they are the same. Nothing in the story suggests that Valjean is justified in his thievery, even if it elicits sympathy for him. To the contrary, his Call to Action is when the bishop's compassion makes him realize the weight of his wrongdoing. Even though he runs from it for a time, largely due to his station in the care of Cosette, he ultimately repents, turning himself in to Javert to finish his sentence.
All you need to know is that the French revolutionaries were proto-communists (the revolution predates Marx by 50 years). Communists point to the French revolution for inspiration even today. And the revolution went about as predictably as you can guess.
>I scrutinized it heavily after the redpill since it was made by two jews last I checked
The play was done by two jews. The book was written by Victor Hugo, an actual Frenchman. Jews love to attach themselves to the artistic achievements of white men. You see it all the time in classical music too, with the likes of Leonard Bernstein and Schenker, for example.
In fact, some things about it are kinda based, at least relative to the shit you see made today.
* Fantine is essentially a parable against promiscuity. Her life is destroyed after she engages in pre-marital sex with a deadbeat. This forces her to become a literal whore to provide for her child, and she dies as a direct result.
* The scummy, jewy couple, the Thernardiers, are acknowledged to ultimately burn in hell for their wicked greed despite being the only characters who get an unambiguous "happy ending" in the earthly context.
* All of the larger moral themes hinge on an understanding of authentic Christian principles, and never resort to subverting or mocking them. Christianity itself is integral to the story, and is shown in an explicitly positive light.
> Not only does it glorify the (((French revolution)))
You could be right on this being pozzed for all I know; I know nothing about the French Revolution. But with how the play presents the revolt at the barricade as merely a vessel for delivering the other dramatic, interpersonal aspects of the story, I didn't even realize it was a real historical event until well afterwards.
> it also tries to paint criminal behaviour such as thievery as being justified if one is poor.
Again, speaking just for the play versus the book here, but I definitely disagree with this insofar as they are the same. Nothing in the story suggests that Valjean is justified in his thievery, even if it elicits sympathy for him. To the contrary, his Call to Action is when the bishop's compassion makes him realize the weight of his wrongdoing. Even though he runs from it for a time, largely due to his station in the care of Cosette, he ultimately repents, turning himself in to Javert to finish his sentence.
All you need to know is that the French revolutionaries were proto-communists (the revolution predates Marx by 50 years). Communists point to the French revolution for inspiration even today. And the revolution went about as predictably as you can guess.
The play was done by two jews. The book was written by Victor Hugo, an actual Frenchman. Jews love to attach themselves to the artistic achievements of white men. You see it all the time in classical music too, with the likes of Leonard Bernstein and Schenker, for example.
>The scummy, jewy couple, the Thernardiers
Literally played by jews in the 2012 film, lol.