Let them eat cake!

Many believe that Marie Antoinette, wife of King Louis XVI, said 'Let them eat cake!' when told the people of France were só poor that they couldn't even afford bread. 

The remark was considered evidence that the elite had no clue about actual life and may have fueled the French Revolution.

It's a good story and since many people rather believe in a good story than in actual facts, it became 'historic fact'.

But is it true? I'll give away one detail for free: the original quote said 'brioche'. Which wrongly got translated into 'cake'. Factually brioche is a type of sweet bread. More expensive than regular bread.

Of course you refuse to take anything you hear or read for granted. Not even when everyone in your tiny bubble as well as your favourite populist state it's true. Right? So you want to think for yourself if it's true or not and do your own research. Right?

How to start your research? Type into your favourite search engine (mine is startpage. Like Google but without the saved cookies. And no ads) something like: "Is it true that Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake?"

Links will show up to reputable sources like Britannica, Wikipedia and History. Click on such a link and read the article. Do your best to comprehend what it says. Now change your opinion on the matter.

You see, 'doing your own research!' is actually quite simple and really doesn't take up a lot of time. As a matter of fact: actually researching a topic is less time consuming than watching three conspiracy videos and calling their preconceived conclusion 'my own opinion!'.

Do you do your own research or do you prefer sticking to what populists tell you to think?

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

A donation (click) is much appreciated:

What do we want?

What do you actually want? No, not what 'society' tells you you want. So, I'm not talking about money, a good job, a well deserved vacation, a flashy car or even a loving life partner.

If you really think about it, what is it that deep down you actually want?

==============================

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

A donation (click) is much appreciated:

====================================

Recently I got to talk to someone who at one point said: "I could sit in my study and think deep thoughts. Or I could be with my 'normal' partner, watch some Netflix together and occassionally have sex. What would you choose?"

There are a few things to take into consideration concerning this Big Thought:

without thinkers and creatives society will come to a grinding halt;

even thinkers and creatives need to relax every once in a while.

Basically: spending your time only on Big Thoughts isn't very helpful to society

but nor is only spending your time working for a boss and watching Netflix.

If you are one of those people in doubt of what they want: to think Deep Thoughts or be numbed down by Netflix...perhaps consider this:

Generally speaking the most content people have found connection. With family, people with shared interests, friends...It explains our deep sense of beloning and people actually dressing the same like others in the group they long to belong to. It's why social media influencers have such power over people. What politicians and other marketeers are well aware off.

Turns out: what deep down most people really want is to be seen, to be heard, to be wanted. A need to be needed.

Having read all of the above (thank you for that, by the way. It's why I write), I have a final question for you and give you a minute to think about it...

What is it that you really want?

Reply in the comment section.

"People used to have values!"

"People don't have values anymore. We need to go back to the old days!"

People who say that, don't have a lot of knowledge about the old days.

"Yeah, but look at Erroll Flynn for example: a fine and true gentleman!"

Nah, not really. Erroll Flynn was often late on set, came in drunk and had sex with minors, was openly bisexual (which isn't bad of course. Except for those hypocritical defenders of 'true Christian values!'), threw wild parties at his Hollywood mansion and actively fought the political establishment. 

But there was no social media at the time so a lot of people saw him as the handsome gentlemen he usually portrayed on the silver screen.

In this picture he is seen with his last girfriend in whose arms he died on his yacht at just 50:

She was 15 when they started dating.

============================

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

A donation (click) is much appreciated:

=============================

So, did people have higher moral standards 'back in the day'? Of course not. People are people, have always been and always will be.

"In the old days, people didn't cheat, never lied and knew the meaning of respect." Not really. And that doesn't only go for Hollywood stars. Those 'people with high morals in the old days' at times even resorted to murder.

Why do you think some believe people were 'better' in the old days?

In Putin's pocket

In this picture: Geert Wilders, leader of Dutch far right 'Party for Freedom' and proud friend of Russia in talks with Volodomyr Zelenskyy, leader of a country under attack from a dictator. One whose 'three day plan' to conquer a sovereign nation is underway for three years now. 

Best caption wins eternal fame for a day!

For those who adore 'strong man' Putin and his Russia, read this piece (https://buff.ly/4fytijj) on life in Russia and you may want to reconsider how great that country really is. 

What I find interesting: how come modern day Republicans would fight with those under Reagan on communism: a few decades ago, conservatives hated communism, now they adore Russia, the communist nation per excellence.  

Russia has an interesting relationship with the USA. And especially with the new president, Donald Trump: Vladimir Putin found out Donald Trump is an untrustworthy business partner (no one told him, apparently) and did not congratulate the new president of the US personally. Perhaps Putin is crying for his mommy because the USA (Democrats as well as Republicans) openly supports Israel? While - as this piece was written - a Russian warship is at the coast of Iran, threatening to attack Israel. 

Wappies who supported both Russia and Israel three years ago, now Putin and Netanyahu threaten to attack eachother, which side do you support?

Both Netanyahu and Putin support Donald Trump. Because he will make sure the billions of dollars in weapons trade will make both Netanyahu as well as Putin personally richer than they already are. 

Do you think it's okay if a country's leader profits from the wars that country is waging at the cost of the lives of millions of civilians?

====================

Want to read (more of) my short stories? My author page: Terrence Weijnschenk at Amazon

A donation (click) is much appreciated: