So you're saying that the population didn't (willingly) go along with the executions but Rousseau forcing them in order to terrorize the population into bending to "The General Will"?
If not how exactly did Rousseau manage to compel to population to go along with the mass executions? It's not really logical for a mob not to be bloodthirsty while cheering on executions.
Now your making up new claims for me, cool, but no.
Leftists of all stripes have always understood crowd control. Typically that involves terrorizing the the mob of social consequences for not participating (which is how you used to get lynch mobs of tens of thousands of people). You show your support, you get targeted next. The Left does this, right now, with cancel culture.
Look at the crowd control methods, they are all the same methods used today. You build a hyper-reality in people's minds; you set a social ordering around the hyper-reality; you send your explicit activists in who will preform the primary killings and organize the attacks; you get them to start the event and demand everyone in the community respond with presence; you use coercion, intimidation, persuasion, deception, or bribery to get a large sum of people to turn out; send your enforcers out to target those who don't show up with further coercion; carry out the attack; begin reprisal attacks and struggle sessions on those who didn't show up to the first attack.
During the French Revolution, it actually appears that the revolutionaries only really had support in Paris, and not much anywhere else in France. But when the Health and Safety Committee went on it's purges, it sent a handful of activists to towns and villages with a single guillotine. Less than a dozen men would be responsible for dozens or hundreds of public executions used by similar methods.
Lenin used similar tactics, but was also familiar with how to use them in a military capacity. He made it clear that seized "government centers, rail lines, and telegraph wires", you could take over a city of 100,000 with barely 100 men.
Every Leftist group does this to some degree. The most extreme gets you to something like the Khmer Rouge, and the most limited gets you to a discord server.
Okay, that clears it up for me what you meant with Rousseauianism. A bloodthirsty general population isn't needed in that case, just a passive one. But the average revolutionary who supports the killings or even take part in it is definitely motivated by bloodlust. I don't think you'd be capable of committing such atrocities if you aren't bloodthirsty. Especially if you start killing indiscriminately based on race.
But I will also admit that my knowledge of the French and Haitian revolutions are limited.
So you're saying that the population didn't (willingly) go along with the executions but Rousseau forcing them in order to terrorize the population into bending to "The General Will"?
If not how exactly did Rousseau manage to compel to population to go along with the mass executions? It's not really logical for a mob not to be bloodthirsty while cheering on executions.
Now your making up new claims for me, cool, but no.
Leftists of all stripes have always understood crowd control. Typically that involves terrorizing the the mob of social consequences for not participating (which is how you used to get lynch mobs of tens of thousands of people). You show your support, you get targeted next. The Left does this, right now, with cancel culture.
I'm not making up anything, I just want to know how Rousseau managed motivate the population for mass executions in your opinion.
Look at the crowd control methods, they are all the same methods used today. You build a hyper-reality in people's minds; you set a social ordering around the hyper-reality; you send your explicit activists in who will preform the primary killings and organize the attacks; you get them to start the event and demand everyone in the community respond with presence; you use coercion, intimidation, persuasion, deception, or bribery to get a large sum of people to turn out; send your enforcers out to target those who don't show up with further coercion; carry out the attack; begin reprisal attacks and struggle sessions on those who didn't show up to the first attack.
During the French Revolution, it actually appears that the revolutionaries only really had support in Paris, and not much anywhere else in France. But when the Health and Safety Committee went on it's purges, it sent a handful of activists to towns and villages with a single guillotine. Less than a dozen men would be responsible for dozens or hundreds of public executions used by similar methods.
Lenin used similar tactics, but was also familiar with how to use them in a military capacity. He made it clear that seized "government centers, rail lines, and telegraph wires", you could take over a city of 100,000 with barely 100 men.
Every Leftist group does this to some degree. The most extreme gets you to something like the Khmer Rouge, and the most limited gets you to a discord server.
Okay, that clears it up for me what you meant with Rousseauianism. A bloodthirsty general population isn't needed in that case, just a passive one. But the average revolutionary who supports the killings or even take part in it is definitely motivated by bloodlust. I don't think you'd be capable of committing such atrocities if you aren't bloodthirsty. Especially if you start killing indiscriminately based on race.
But I will also admit that my knowledge of the French and Haitian revolutions are limited.