boy, there really are a lot of try-hard, bloodthirsty, would-be revolutionaries who have convinced themselves that bloodthirst is revolutionary.

if your revolution demands the slaughter of children long after you've already won in order to solidify and secure it, i might suggest that you're not as revolutionary nor as different from your oppressors as you think you are.

"we have to eliminate the entire family line of the ruling party to prevent them from regaining power" is an idea that predates communism, capitalism, marxism, leninism and socialism, and is the same uncompetitive lust for domination that drove feudalism for thousands of years.

also, i genuinely don't know who i think is worse; a person who would publicly argue in favor of murdering children for revolutionary cred, or a person who would actually go through with it it, because i'm not sure the latter gets there without the former egging it on.