Search results for query: *

1.First Russian revolution happened,becouse tsar was loyal ally and not only do not agrred to peace,but also continued attacking germans to help France. And soviets later win thanks to Wall Street and german moneys. 2.But China as Empire survived 3000 years. 3.Only stupid autocratic monarchs...

1.Corrupted democracy is no democracy but oligarchy,and there are no any real checks.And Oligarchies are no genociders,too - but they weak and aesy pray for any stronger country.Without possibility of any change from within which could save them. Only oligarchy which lasted long was Venetia.All...

You did not read my post.I had nothing against real Republic - problem is,both old Poland and modern USA showed that it always end ruled by oligarchs. So,i prefer Kings.Medieval Kings would be ideal,but absolute are still lesser evil then oligarchs.. And tell me,when exactly Louis 14 genocided...

1.As Murray Rothbard in his book "Wall street,banks and american foreign policy" proved,USA is controlled by Wall Street from 1895.Which mean,that politicain failed long ago. And you again mistaken Absolute Kings with commies or masons. Tell me,when exactly Kings genocided anybody? answer is...

1.And now we have Will of the banks.Becouse if people stand to banks in court,banks win.If Charles break London City before it spawned Wall Street,world would be far better place. 2.If King must focuse on Scotland,then he would have no much time to doing anything elsywhere,including England...

1.Autocratic rule was replaced by bankers rule ,and as a result people are as f***** as under Kings,but taxes are bigger and military is weaker.If we could have working Republic i would gladly choose it - but when all possibilities are bankers or Kings, i would always choose Kings,no matter how...

1.If Cromwell was really that nice,then Ulster would still belong to its catholic rightfull owners. And since Parliament was supported by money from London City and Holland,Charles could not become true autocrat without conqering Holland first. 2.Charles would do anything to retake Scotland -...

Better Charles then Cromwell - who not only was egomaniac,but also genocider.Nobody could accuse Charles of that. Not mention trying to turn England into old testament kingdom. And except genocide,he also destroyed Parliament - so if Charles do that,nothing would change. And would be it really...