>>519069869
Fucking Kek. Learn about Puritanism and Calvinism. They literally slandered the King as anti-Christ and Popeish. Wanting to a bit of side dealing with sephardic bankers is a totally different register to creating a constitutional, secularist state of multiple faiths and ethnicities
Samuel Rawson Gardiner:
>>519069825
Your Commie Jew 'we the people' state is a consequence of this struggle. Totally hostile to the Stuarts, who then filled the Theatres with Roman iconography and Roman gods with himself depicted as a Sacred Augustus related to Alba Longa, as a counter to the Judeo-Puritans. So the wider theology is completely hostile.
4chan Search
6 results for "c4d49d1838c8c1d31a31a6e6c0ef7ae1"
>>518747954
>I agree with the assessment of HM Charles I, that the commons should have no involvement in politics whatsoever, so a critique against female autonomy and sovereignty extends naturally to vast swaths of men ('I think we should remove womens rights, well I think we should remove men's rights as well').
What were HM Charles I's thoughts on Parliament and democracy? Why was he the last ruler of his kind? Picrel. Something Americans are inoculated against understanding.
And indeed, his words have proven true. Without a just ruler and with the involvement of the commons in politics, indeed no one is happy, and all you have are chattering women not breeding, producing more brit flags who fear books and cannot read.
Samuel Rawson Gardiner said about his father's treasonous execution, to allow Jews to return after 360 years of exile, in The Constitutional Documents of the (Judaeo-)Puritan Revolution:
>All can perceive that with Charles's death the main obstacle to the establishment of a constitutional system was removed. Personal rulers might indeed reappear, and Parliament had not yet so displayed its superiority as a governing power to make Englishmen anxious to dispense with monarchy in some form or other. The monarchy, as Charles understood it, had disappeared for ever. Insecurity of tenure would make it impossible for future rulers long to set public opinion at naught, as Charles had done. The scaffold at Whitehall accomplished that which neither the eloquence of Eliot and Pym nor the Statutes and Ordinances of the Long Parliament had been capable of effecting.
https://archive.org/details/fallmonarchycha00gardgoog
https://archive.org/details/fallmonarchycha02gardgoog
>I agree with the assessment of HM Charles I, that the commons should have no involvement in politics whatsoever, so a critique against female autonomy and sovereignty extends naturally to vast swaths of men ('I think we should remove womens rights, well I think we should remove men's rights as well').
What were HM Charles I's thoughts on Parliament and democracy? Why was he the last ruler of his kind? Picrel. Something Americans are inoculated against understanding.
And indeed, his words have proven true. Without a just ruler and with the involvement of the commons in politics, indeed no one is happy, and all you have are chattering women not breeding, producing more brit flags who fear books and cannot read.
Samuel Rawson Gardiner said about his father's treasonous execution, to allow Jews to return after 360 years of exile, in The Constitutional Documents of the (Judaeo-)Puritan Revolution:
>All can perceive that with Charles's death the main obstacle to the establishment of a constitutional system was removed. Personal rulers might indeed reappear, and Parliament had not yet so displayed its superiority as a governing power to make Englishmen anxious to dispense with monarchy in some form or other. The monarchy, as Charles understood it, had disappeared for ever. Insecurity of tenure would make it impossible for future rulers long to set public opinion at naught, as Charles had done. The scaffold at Whitehall accomplished that which neither the eloquence of Eliot and Pym nor the Statutes and Ordinances of the Long Parliament had been capable of effecting.
https://archive.org/details/fallmonarchycha00gardgoog
https://archive.org/details/fallmonarchycha02gardgoog
>>518697311
What were HM Charles I's thoughts on Parliament and democracy? Why was he the last ruler of his kind? Picrel.
>retrieved from another 'weird book'
And indeed, his words have proven true. Without a just ruler and with the involvement of the commons in politics, indeed no one is happy, and all you have are chattering women not breeding, producing more brit flags who fear books and cannot read:
>>518693160
>>518693891
>t. last despatches from last super-100 IQ anon in Britannia.
I apologise for the occasional typos, I have taken to heavy drinking lately.
What were HM Charles I's thoughts on Parliament and democracy? Why was he the last ruler of his kind? Picrel.
>retrieved from another 'weird book'
And indeed, his words have proven true. Without a just ruler and with the involvement of the commons in politics, indeed no one is happy, and all you have are chattering women not breeding, producing more brit flags who fear books and cannot read:
>>518693160
>>518693891
>t. last despatches from last super-100 IQ anon in Britannia.
I apologise for the occasional typos, I have taken to heavy drinking lately.
>>509738173
>>509738114
Yes mob revolt was how they destroyed the Roman order. You live in a country are descedants of the puritans that executed our king. You think you know right and wrong, but it's all based on abrahamic ethics of the commune. Naturally the mob swallows any man who sticks out. I'm not talking about mob violence. The fact you are degenerated down to 'voting' shows your judaic conditioning. try a bit harder than these scare tactics that your mother obviously used on you as a child. Grow up nigger. You're not better than me. You're not better than Alexander the Great or Caesar. We are not mummy's little boys.
>>509738114
Yes mob revolt was how they destroyed the Roman order. You live in a country are descedants of the puritans that executed our king. You think you know right and wrong, but it's all based on abrahamic ethics of the commune. Naturally the mob swallows any man who sticks out. I'm not talking about mob violence. The fact you are degenerated down to 'voting' shows your judaic conditioning. try a bit harder than these scare tactics that your mother obviously used on you as a child. Grow up nigger. You're not better than me. You're not better than Alexander the Great or Caesar. We are not mummy's little boys.
>>508776828
I agree. But that's not kingship is the point.
They do so by hijacking gentile Kingships via Christianity.
The Christian usurpation of Rome was a soviet-esque takeover.
We only disagree in that you think kings are oppressive because you are jew poisoned
On the contrary, they defend people from tyranny. Otherwise why the hate?
Europe has 0 kings extant, only 'socialist' ideologies of 'the people'.
The last divine god-king is the japanese one. And he was cucked by the west too.
I agree. But that's not kingship is the point.
They do so by hijacking gentile Kingships via Christianity.
The Christian usurpation of Rome was a soviet-esque takeover.
We only disagree in that you think kings are oppressive because you are jew poisoned
On the contrary, they defend people from tyranny. Otherwise why the hate?
Europe has 0 kings extant, only 'socialist' ideologies of 'the people'.
The last divine god-king is the japanese one. And he was cucked by the west too.