View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

What happened to all the monarchies worldwide?

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

What happened to all the monarchies worldwide?

Postby Scepcop » 18 Sep 2014, 19:45

I have a question:

In the past every country was ran by a monarchy. Why are no countries run by monarchs today? What happened? Did America bring them all down?

How was the monarchy in every country overthrown? Even in Britain.

I have a theory:

Since Freemason symbols are all over Washington DC, and most of the founding fathers, including George Washington, then maybe the Freemasons and the Illuminati had something to do with it?

Supposedly, the Freemasons originated from the Knights of Templar during the Crusades. When the French king tried to have all the Templars all killed, they fled to Scotland right? That's where they established the secret order of Freemasonry.

Perhaps they could not survive in Europe because they were a threat to the monarchs there, and maybe the Catholic Church too. So they fled to America. There, they engineered the American Revolution and made sure that the Continental Army won. That's why they won when they should have lost easily since they were outmatched in every way.

Plus, George Washington was a Freemason. So you gotta wonder if maybe the reason he wasn't captured or killed by the British is because they were ordered not to harm him, since he was a Freemason?

You also gotta wonder why George Washington would volunteer to be general of the Continental Army. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. He didn't even receive pay for serving as general. Instead, he went through the grueling years of the American Revolution, which he said were like hell, even though there was nothing in it for him.

So you gotta wonder, did Washington become general because the Freemasons told him to, and as one of them, he had to obey them?

Anyhow, maybe the Freemasons and Illuminati came to America to establish their new headquarters, so that monarchs in Europe could not persecute them anymore. That way, they could enact whatever grand scheme they wanted without persecution like they were subject to in Europe.

What do you think? Does that add up and make sense?

Remember that the Bavarian Illuminati by Adam Weishaupt was also established in 1776, the same year that the Declaration of Independence was created. What an amazing coincidence, or is it? So when their secret society officially ended, perhaps they went underground to America.

After America won its war for independence, perhaps these Freemasons and Illuminati then began infiltrating governments all over the world, to begin working to overthrow all monarchs so they could control the world?

If their goal is to create a New World Order or one world government, then monarchies would naturally stand in the way. Monarchs inspire people to be passionately loyal to them. You can't have monarchies around if you are going to create a world government. So this secret cabal worked with secret societies and international banking cartels to infiltrate many countries all over the world and depose of all the monarchies.

What do you think? How else would you explain all this? Is it just a coincidence that monarchies began falling right after America became a nation?

The thing is, this secret elite in America can work behind the scenes, behind the facade of puppet politicians and the voting system charade, without any accountability. That's probably why they prefer the facade of "democracy" because it allows them a cover so they can get away with anything and aren't accountable to anyone. Isn't that why they push for "democracy" all over the world?

What do you all think?

Anyhow, I think in some ways a monarchy is better than the "fake democracy" that we have in America, because such a rulership is open and public. That makes the monarchs ACCOUNTABLE to the people. If they get too evil or corrupt, they will be overthrown or assassinated. So that keeps them accountable.

But what we have in America is a ruling elite with NO ACCOUNTABILITY because they hide in the shadows behind the facade of puppet politicians and the staged election system. So they can do whatever they want and get away with it, as long as they change the politicians every few years. This kind of rulership is all LIES and DECEPTION, with no accountability. When things go wrong, there is no one to blame but puppet politicians, which will be replaced by other puppet politicians. It's a stupid charade.

There will always be a ruling elite. Napoleon said that, "There will always be kings, even if we don't call them that." Society cannot function without some kind of authority or rulership. So we might as well have an OPEN PUBLIC ruling elite, one that is accountable and can be overthrown if they get out of hand.

The most evil Roman Emperors, such as Caligula or Nero for example, got way out of hand and therefore got assassinated or deposed. It served them right. But we can't do that in America because there is no accountability. The ruling elite, or oligarchy, can do whatever they want and get away with it.

That's why there is no honor in serving in the American military. You are not serving your country in the US military, you are serving corporate elites who hide from you and lie to you. Why would anyone want to serve people who hide and lie? That's stupid.

Furthermore, monarchs love their country and treat it like their own body and soul. But the ruling elite in America that hide in the shadows do not treat America like their own body and soul. They have no loyalty to the country. All they care about is greed, power, control and their own secret nefarious plans that they hide from the public. They have no honor themselves, so who would want to serve them? There is no honor in serving such scum.

At least Roman Emperors, and Kings and Queens, announce their plans to their people and state their reasons for invading other countries. The American elite does not. All it does is lie and deceive.

What do you think?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: What happened to all the monarchies worldwide?

Postby SydneyPSIder » 18 Sep 2014, 21:48

I've kind of skimmed some of that, but it's not very historically or factually correct on a number of fronts. A large number of countries still have monarchies, or have become so-called 'constitutional monarchies', vs so-called democratic republics or similar. e.g. quite a few European countries remain as monarchies, including the UK, Sweden, Norway, then there's Thailand, Brunei, Jordan, etc etc.

To take the UK as an example, you need to look at the evolutionary political history of that country, as that is what this is all about. Charles I lost his head for asserting the 'divine right of kings to rule absolutely', for instance. What you had was Oliver Cromwell and some other pissed off nobles and the 'Parliamentary system' overtaking the idea of a single absolute monarch -- Parliament was held to be more democratic and participative etc, and was a direct challenge and an alternative to the notion of a perfectly hierarchical monarchy. The Parliament from that time on held greater and greater sway, 2 houses were formed, the house of commons (for commoners) and the house of lords for nobility as a balance, etc, attempting to represent everyone's interests. Parliament increasingly over the decades and centuries became the lawmaking and decision making body for the country, meaning the role of the monarch shrank and became more token and figurehead while ministers did all the real work of govt. The notion of divine right dwindled ever further. HOWEVER, the Queen of England still has to sign and agree to every piece of legislation passed in Westminster for it to become law. The Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia, and several other Commonwealth countries -- Australia, regrettably, has actually remained as a sort of colony rather than a republic -- it has its own Parliament, but a Governor-General of the colonies is appointed as the Queen's representative, and they similarly have to vet and approve and sign every piece of legislation on behalf of the Queen. They also have absolute power to control the appointment of the government and Prime Minister, can dissolve Parliament at any time, etc. The Queen could directly interfere also, but chooses not to, and would probably not dare to at risk of triggering a republican referendum or even a revolution. However, most of the complacent sheeple passively accept the current arrangement and are in fact barely aware of it or its implications, as they're a pretty stupid and complacent lot by and large. There was a constitutional crisis in 1975 that saw the GG sack the PM and replaced them with the opposition leader, who promptly called a double dissolution election of both houses and seized control of the Parliament.

One of the reasons certain monarchies remain is that they are less odious and get on with the commoners reasonably well, their legitimacy is accepted, etc. This is how the English aristocracy survived. The French aristocrats did not fare so well, as they were pretty obnoxious and indifferent to the suffering of the poor etc, hence the French Revolution where they were guillotined and many nobles had to disguise themselves etc. The political replacement was the new French Republic. The US system fashioned itself on many of the ideals of the French Republic. Hence, we see a slowly developing 'political evolution' or evolution of ideas about what made good govt, what democracy should be like, etc. I guess a bunch of European monarchs were finally overthrown in the 20th century, e.g. the Russian tsars, the German emperor, and so on. There was the demise of the Hapsburgs and so on. Basically people were fed up with being told what to do by a bunch of over-privileged nobs who just seemed good at getting them into more wars of attempted acquisition and enrichment. However, you might argue that is what has happened to present systems of govt -- it seems from a psychobiological perspective too many people need an 'alpha' to look up to and they end up delegating all power to a small cabal of characters who do not act in their best interests, psychopaths are drawn to power, etc. Similarly the first French republics were not particularly good forms of govt and simply replaced the king with another hereditary emperor in the form of Napoleon and his successors.

The US system also borrowed an adapted Westminster style bicameral system of govt, as a notion of how best to govern. These systems tend to gravitate towards a 2 party outcome, however, and are often not very representative, participative or democratic in the final outcome -- better forms of democracy could be devised, but it has become expedient to do it this way. Australian parliament and many others are also modelled on Westminster.

I believe it's possible to critique the entire system of US electors and plenty of other things in a similar vein in terms of transparency, true proportional representation, etc, apart from other better models like direct democracy.

But we are seeing a kind of evolution and shift of political system from capricious monarchs to systems of representative democracy and parliamentary debate, although of course these processes can in turn be corrupted and are corrupted via a number of means -- personal bribes, blocs of influence, gerrymandering, etc.

Anthropologists talk about a succession of forms of govt as a kind of 'evolution of political systems' -- 'stateless' societies, such as simple tribes and big men societies, then kingdoms and monarchies ('single ruler'), then empires, then countries under parliaments and/or vestigial constitutional monarchies, etc. clearly there are other wrinkles such as the German Federation of princedoms and so on. but the Greek notions of democracy eventually permeated through Europe a couple of thousand years later...

All the other stuff about knights Templar and masons and illuminati is pretty well just so much crap and just historically wrong. There is no evidence knights Templar became masons, masons were an early medieval guild, being the guys who did stone work, a big deal at the time. they disappeared by the middle ages, and the movement was symbolically and artificially recreated a couple of centuries ago as a boys club, end of story. the second incarnation has no particular connection to the first. the illuminati stuff etc is just so much crap and cannot be proven or demonstrated. the people who are in charge are the people who are in charge, via family dynasties, power, money, ownership of capital and the means of production, charismatic influence, etc.

we can do pol sci 'til the cows come home...

The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") in the Kingdom of England over, principally, the manner of its government. The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–51) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The war ended with the Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651.

The overall outcome of the war was threefold: the trial and execution of Charles I; the exile of his son, Charles II; and the replacement of English monarchy with, at first, the Commonwealth of England (1649–53) and then the Protectorate (1653–59) under Oliver Cromwell's personal rule. The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England ended with the victors consolidating the established Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland. Constitutionally, the wars established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without Parliament's consent, although this concept was legally established only as part of the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Parliament in the English constitutional framework

Before the fighting, the Parliament of England did not have a large permanent role in the English system of government. Instead, Parliament functioned as a temporary advisory committee. Parliament was only summoned if and when the monarch saw fit to summon it. Once summoned a parliament's continued existence was at the King's pleasure, since it was subject to dissolution by him at any time.

Yet in spite of this limited role, Parliament had, over the preceding centuries, acquired de facto powers of enough significance that monarchs could not simply ignore them indefinitely. Without question, for a monarch, Parliament's most indispensable power was its ability to raise tax revenues far in excess of all other sources of revenue at the Crown's disposal. By the seventeenth century, Parliament's tax-raising powers had come to be derived from the fact that the gentry was the only stratum of society with the ability and authority to actually collect and remit the most meaningful forms of taxation then available at the local level. This meant that if the King wanted to ensure a smooth collection of revenue, he needed the co-operation of the gentry. For all of the Crown's legal authority, by any modern standard, its resources were limited to the extent that if and when the gentry refused to collect the King's taxes on a national scale, the Crown lacked any practical means with which to compel them.

Therefore, in order to secure their co-operation, monarchs permitted the gentry (and only the gentry) to elect representatives to sit in the House of Commons. When assembled along with the House of Lords, these elected representatives formed a Parliament. Parliaments therefore allowed representatives of the gentry to meet, primarily (at least in the opinion of the monarch) so that they could give their sanction to whatever taxes the monarch expected their electorate to collect. In the process, the representatives could also confer and send policy proposals to the king in the form of bills. However, Parliament lacked any legal means of forcing its will upon the monarch: its only leverage with the King was the threat of its withholding of the financial means required to execute his plans.[4]
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: What happened to all the monarchies worldwide?

Postby Reberkka » 26 May 2015, 11:32

Read more enjoyable content And useful.
User avatar
Posts: 2
Joined: 26 May 2015, 11:18

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest