The crimson book of Royalty 5

My resposne to somebody who listed rubbish criticsms,s of crimson 1,

http://www.lonympics.co.uk/thecrimsonbookofroyalty.htm
Ignorance, ignorance, why if this is the sort of rude reply, your contrbutors give you shall be happy to know I shall never go on this site again, Anyhow, let us deal with this scandalous statement, by this attacker of what Lonympics and it's republican way states
This is my reply
To say Hitler was the reverse of a Royalist is meaningless, I was not saying Hitler was a king, but in reality it is true to say he was a royalist. Let us remember that the main reason Hitler chose to fight for Germany, and not Austria, was his love of the German Royal family. Lets us remember that when the Kaiser quit Hitler was devastated and cried, Let us remember that the Kaiser's sons DID join teh Nazi Party in large num,bers, and were made high up officials in the party, let us remember that the Kaiser's joined as they thought Hitler would usher in a new opportunity for their dynasty, They evn stated where Hitler goes their dynasty would fllow, And that established fact of history states it all. You may like to forget those facts, but all it shows is that you are comparable to Holocasut deniers, You deny that the Kaiser's family had allot of respect for the Nazis. And that Hitler wanted to be the chief mourner of the Kaiser's funeral, And lets faced it being forbidden to take part in millitary operations by Hitler, means that the Kaiser's kids WANTED to fight for Hitler's army. To say they wanted as little to do with eachother as possible TRULY disputes the truth. If you want to be chief mourner you can hardl;y claim you do not want to be associated with him, and if you join an army for him, ditto, added to this, if your son's join his party ditto, added to this nazi members often had relations with the kaiser, and the kaiser's wife is said to have seen Hitler as a route to power, Also Hitler loved the British Royal Family, saying edward the eight would be a good king, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

To say that the Kaiser, and Russian Tsar and Austrian emperor did not cause world war one, is a lie, too, without these world war one, COULD NEVER have happened, To blame Serbia for the war is crazy, Serbia was allowing it's people to fight a imperial occupation of Serbian lands, Surely if you occupy a foreign land, pruely for imkperial means, as Austria did too Bosnia, you should expect that if you are governor that people will strike against you, Austria was an unreasnoble partner, so lets face it you are trash, as you do not accept that that you are in the wrong, Everybody knew that if Austria invaded Serbia this would cause a world War, and teh only people who could stop or cause that were them to were at the top, of the political authority, Kaiser wilhelm, Tsar Nicholas, and the Emperor of Austria,

Serbian terrorists you can call them assasins of the archduke ferdinand, but they were just a small number of people, who comitted 1 isolated act, Nobody can deny that the terrorist act by Serbia was as Austria was oppressing Bosnia, I mean some Serbians in Bosnia were still serfs, Surely to act against that would be considered natural, Surely we can agree that it was Austria, Germany and Russia's leaders who were most unreasnoble in pushing for war, and that Serbian terrorists a few people, can not really be given the blame for such a massive war, when the Austrians could have done things such as not invade and so not cause the war, There is no doubt in my mind about that, and to dispute this is like saying that we should invade Saudi Arabia, as Bin Laden has large amounts of support there, even if it would cause a war as big as world war one, by involving the whole Muslim World,
Surely you would agree that to have invaded Serbia, caused World War One, you do it seems agree with teh reasonings of Austria, and so agree with the casuing and teh slaughter of world war one, but that is your choice, and as a royalist that is what you opt for, lets face it there is no doubt that if Asutria had not invaded Sernia, then World War One, would not have occurred, and millions of Austrian Subjects and many many Serbians would not have been killed by people of your persuasuion,
and the Austrian occupation of Bosnia, was highly unreasnoble, There is no doubt about that and to resort to some neo-con old hash that Serbia was a "terrorist state" takes no real understanding of the time, As lets face it in those days Austria had groups that wanted to expand east into Serbia, but that would not have given the Serbians the right to invade there, and added to this
And lets face it to say that diseases should not be counted as a form of death is an even bigger sign of how ignorant and callous you are, to compare a Flu epidemic that was undoubtably spread and caused by World War One, and so undoubtadly can be given the blame to the people who undoubtably caused the war,
Look at the facts, most wars to the Napoleonic war, and to a little time after in history saw most soldiers not die on teh battlefield, they died of disease caused by the effects of war, i.e far nore English sailors died of disease caused by bad sanitation, and bad care after the Armada, than before it,
It is the same here, with the flu epidemic of world war one, it was the social dislocation caused by the war which was fought for war aims, that you support, i.e the invasion of serbia even if it caused world war one, thyat caused teh flu ep[idemic, and in 90% of genocides it is the diseases caused by wars or famines, (i,e typhus in the kazakh famine of the 1930s under stalin), (or starvation and disease agianst the herero people in the Kaiser's invasion in the 1900s,), that saw most of teh daeths.
There is no doubt what so ever the men at the top the Kaiser, the tsar, and the Austrian emperor when fate dealt them the hands to not cause the wars came, chose war, they were the only people who really had power to do that, or not cause the war,
When it was the republican leadership of JFK and Khruschev the choice was a agreement and peace, when it was Mao v Eisonhawer in debates over whther the US should drop an a bomb on Red China, the choice by Ike was peace,
Lets face it, Austria invaded Serbia, over 1 death, surely as he was a king, if that happened today, nobody would see it as ok, I.E Britain did not bomb ireland into the ground in the 1970s, or the USA, when some IRA people against the Irish state's will and slightly against the USs' will were organising,. Lets face Israel, did invade Lebanon, in 2006, but it had a sense of perspective, it knew this war could be kept within a managable route,
The descsion to occupy Bosnia, by Austria, in the 19th Century was unreasonable, and for the king to go galavantying around teh capital was dumb, if it had been a Austrian solder, that was killed no war would have evented teh emperors would have said, we love peace, we must not have war war is wrong, but as it was a king, they invaded Serbia, a massive choice of war,
and the choice to invade Serbia, would be comparable to an Israeli invasion of Iran, as of arms supplies to Lebanaon, or Britain to invade Iran, and Saudi Arabia, as they let suicide bombers and arms reach Iraq, Lets face it if Israel chose to invade Iran, and call for war, instead of saying lets be sensible and just plan how to beat that problem another way, you could blame Israel, if that was spun out of control, but if Israel, found some way of beating Iran's nuke capabilituies by a air strike, then we may blame Isarel still, but say, well its hardly all that bad, and Israel lets face it has been more reasnoble, than Austria was in World War One, think about that, and be clever, try and understand what I am saying rather than saying it's ok to invade countries willy nilly, there is no doubt Austria was in Bosnia, unfairly, and that the arcduke was a occupier, who went around, badly defeneded, then when he was as many expected to happen tyo him, for occupying a foreign l;and, teh Austrians decided to ionvade, when if it had been the Austrian regime, ,killing a working class peasant or a austrian peasants killed austria would not have acted, so an extra reason for blamingmonarchy, if he was not a monarch who was shot, they would not have attacked austria,

3rd point the guy condeming me claimed social darwinism, caused colonialisism, I saidm, this social darwinism, crap, well that is like saying Hitler is not responsible for the Holocaust it was social darwinism, come on, they belived in it, so thats that, To say otherwise is as crazy as I would expect you to say,

4th point, and you say you can not avert famine, of course you can avert famine, by having a social and economic and political sysetm that aims for good farming, and equality, read Micheal White's Late Victorian Holocausts's and you will learn that there had been famine's in the past in China, and they were dealt with far better than these, top say famine's can not be averted is a classic outdated view, that is very much wrong, Added to this, in a better political system like China has today or Europe has today, famine has become imposible, So yes you can blame the Emperor and his system, Look at http://www.lonympics.co.uk/

Point of Aggreance: well if you say so, but lets face it the Emperor was the man at the top, and had the authority to do as he wished, and what he did, was act out war, that is that,

5th point of contension: Well the idea Russia was overpopulated reminds me of the sort of thing that the most lunatic colonial governors of India, said, when millions were starving, it is the sort of thing they said about Ireland, when we all know that when you start believing that, then you just stop caring about the people dying of famine, and just do very little, and one thinsg for sure, the scum who say famines is ok, as of overpopulation, would never say the king was a case of overpopulation, another sign of inequality to man, and not caring about some, and caring but some, so obvioulsy causing evil via that,
I think it is sure that all the royalists will never come round to the way I am thinking, They will cover up the crimes of royalism, and teh murders it comittedm, they will allways say the Kaiser, was just a poor man, who did not know what he was doingm, and that also he was right, even though he was a simpleton, who canm not be blamed for his own thoughts and actions, unlike every other person on the globe, and especially the systemm too, which they are sayuibng is the reason for the crimby sayibng that too, they will alwaays say that AS they support the royal or right wing regime of the time, that they will always say a famine, can not be averted, even though countless regimes have averted serious famines, by changing the agriclutural system and giving ouit aid, like 1870s Gladstone (who was hated by the useless queen victoria) in Ireland, unmlike 1840s Ireland,

PS I am not saying in this Bosnia, is Serb, it is just the east was, and the rest was not in any way Austrian, so they had no right to be there,

And also a response to another crackpot royalist,

A royalist wrote Belgium and China are only on teh list as I am a UK based anti royalist site, that may be true, 9some crazy people think the term anti royalist is a insult, a do not think so, thats like saying anti-nazi, or anti- crime is a insult, or anti-virul)but they are only on teh list as their regimes killed 10s of millions of people, I am fed up of the way every drama about the Russian or French Revolution is propaganda against them, or for the Royals, when the French Revolution did good, against many evil oppressors. And the Russian Revolution ousted a dictators who I see is never demonised, despite brutal racist beliefs, and how loads of programmes arre so royalist. I,.E wikipedia, opposes Mussolini corectly , but then claims Victoru Emannuel, was good for appointing him on grounds Mussoloini would dio, I,.E they are biased to dictaorships .ie royalism, and some scumbags would even pretend royalism, is not dictatorship when it is more so, as it seems so natural, and easy to brain wash people to accept it, it id hyper dictatorship,

Well if yopu love monarchy so much, why don't you fuck off weirdo, and live in a country ruled by your royal; heroes, hey sicko, if youy love monarchy so much why don't you go and kneal to your horrible saudi king, to ghenghis khan, to vlad the impaler, you sick shit head, you make me sick, if you love monarchy so much, by the way, monarchists Britain is NOT your country, the m,onarchy is an annoying pain, which supported by utter scum like you, if we were still ruled by this monarchy, that you love so much, we would still have serfdom, sex slaves, concubines, and you would have died of famine, like the french people were i9n 1770, before they ended monarchym we would have been taken over by the nazis, as edward the eight wanted, so fuck wit, if you love monarchy so much, why don't, you just accept that and kill yourself, as that is what would happen if were still ruled be monarchyy we would be all dead, we need a republic, as it shall make our democracy and society even better and more equal, you horrible lump of shite

1:05 PM

Anonymous said...
Monarchist scum, caused world war one, the deaths in Congo, ghenghis khan, vlad the impaler, i bet that monarchist who said that sicko crap, would love licking Vald the Impaler's impaling devices as he is a sicko, why does he not just jump off a bridge why was edward the eight not punished fgor supporting hitler, i hate monarchists they are horrible and evil, and think this is their land, when if it was their's, we would be ruled by edward the eight's son, and the nazi party and all have died os slave labour,. long live socialism, long live the republic, long live the socialist conquest of berlin in 1945, long live the french resistance, which defeated teh royalist action francaise, and petain, and hitler, Hitler the famous lover of the kaiser, long live the republic of france which defeated the kaiser who killed 10s of millions of people via world war one,

1:09 PM

Anonymous said...
Lloyd George did not like the royals, either did Woodrow Wilson, or Clemencau,

All kings claim to be semi divine, then when fouind out claim they never said they were, it was just the peasants, who oppose them,

Myy anxswer to Glenn, is that his point, would allow and actually encourage every land in the world to invade eachother. Today Russia is angry that Britain allows what many would call either Chechen freedom fighters ot terroroiusts in Britain. Russia has begged Britain to give it the Chechen leaders, But nobody surely not even my worst detractors (I hope) would claim that Russia has a right to nuke Britain. Similarilly, in 2006, the US allows opposition to Chavez, a democraticly elected leader there, but if Chavez attacked America, we would all have to say that Chavez had made his first and only blunder, likewise if Bush bombed Venezuela, we would have to blame Bush fopr that crisis. There is no doubt the actions of The 3 monarchs caused the crisis of WW1, they had the power to start or stop stop it, to deny that is just fantasy.

My answer, to the sad and rude rambling of CJ, are these, fiorst of all, he wants to change the debate, I can only assume, he admits he has lost the debate,
About Hitler being a royalist, the fact is he was a royalist I have stated this al;ready, in the 1910s, he consciously went to fight with Germany as he loved the German royals so much, and put them up on pedestals as heroes, once in power, as he was a rightist he did not want to install them but time and time agains the German dynasty showed that it wanted to deal with him, and he showed that he wished to deal with them, as is shown by how the next in line for the German throne joined the Nazis, and how the Kaiser’s wife begged Hitler to make her husband king, but the fact was, Hitler was a royal;ist that is that, but he was also a classic “there must be action” “and I must do it” right wing facist, not that wanting action is always facist, at all, but with all that, he had no intention what so ever to giving somebody else power, even symbolic power, as that would be lunacy, he shows what happens if royalists get power, he was a royalist and the German dynasty liked thye nazis, that is beyond doubt, the other things talked about by CJ, do not matter, as of course they are all explainable away by the Kaiser’s and Hitkler’s egos

Ass of all the next statements about dual monarchy, the fact is the AUSTRIAN ROYALS WERE RESPONSIBLE,, they could have taken the choice not to fight, but they decided to, and everything else, just shows how monarchy can be used to support bad, and evil, and all the 3 sides depended entirely on monarchy, the sides were monarchies, The Serb monarchy was a monarchy, and was the real power, but the fact is, that whatever anybody says abouyt what Sebia, did, the fact is that that is another problem with monarchy, evil handsa behind the throne, this is something that always happens, and in reality it is a myth, it is like when rebels, against Henry VIII said they liked him, but not Thomas Cromwell, as it is so common to love the stronger guy, or monarchy, and not blame it for any of the bad, when of course Henry VIII was reposnsible for much of the things the people opposed to the reformation were opposing, as he wsas the power, and was the leading figure, the fact is, he could not rule everything, it is the same for Serbia, the monarch had power, and had the power to crush his black hand, and if not it showed that monarchy was a bad form of government, the fact is that Russia, Austria, and Germany can be vlamed fro WW1, entirely, And the comments by this fellow from Sacremento, show a rudeness, and nasty nature, that we always find in royalists, a psychopathic feeling that they never did wrong, and that they canm just fly insults at people who say they werwe wrong, at people, Every point I have made is right, and to deny this, shows a terrible lack of manners, which I can only expect from such right wingers, who have such psycho royalist beliefs,

It seems to me, the aim, of my critic, is to claime that Serbia was reponsible for WW1. I know, absolutely for sure, that this can be said,
In such a time of nationalism, (the 1900s) a nationalism, it has to be said used and fermented by royals, far more than most people recognise, why on Earth would Serbia reduce itself rto doing whatever Austria wanted it to, do. why does not doing what a foreign land says, neccessarilly mean you have a right to be invaded by it, (i,e even the 4 home nations of Britain have in modern days started haveing history books which are biased in favour of their own historical perspectivesm, but that does not mean Scotland has a right to invade England, or Wales, Ulster) and in such a time, this occured.
The Serbian individuals who did this, had no real intention to start WW1, and would not have known this would occur, they were killing the leader of an occupying oppressive imperial army, which we may say was unfair, but surely understandable,

The Republican cORGIES express support for the republic,

Rubbish paintings by Queen Victoria, showing they are not superior to everybody else

The US constitution says it should encourage republics in the USA. so no land in the US can have monarchy happily

The Hawaiian monarchy saw in 1800-1900 the population fall massively Hawaiian republicanism and democracry and socialism, is needed to monarchy,

The Aztec Empire was essentially Royal, as allmost all the emperors were very related as uncles and sons, and such of prioer emperors, ie the last who was a great grandson of a other emperor, and they sacrificed in huge numbers,

So monarchy is all very bad

Some Evil Quotes by Edward VIII
If it had been the deat of anybody except a royal war would not have erupted,
The fact a royal was kiklled caused Austria, and Germany to support a war, and then Russia.
The alternative viwew, is just one stated by people who want to claim Versailess was to harsh, and there way of doing this is to say Germany and Austria share none of the blame for starting WW1, when they actually started it, and it would have been impossible for it to have started as of France, or Britain, or US policies in 1914, or any other year, Russia/s actions also heightened and caused the war to go crazy, and for that these 3 sides share the blame,

http://www.lonympics.co.uk/thecrimsonbookofroyalty6.htm The second last of this selection,

nepal & suffering under royalty too many scum, think a royal dictatorship is ok, & then condemn other froms, they are the worst kinmd onm may ways http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2005/1064 http://www.nepaldemocracy.org/

saudi coupn attem,pts intresing, i added my own mad views hehehheeh
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/01/a_saudi_coup.html

The monarchy is the ideal of the baddies Lord of the flies, and Battlefield Earth

I am annoyed at pro Royalism, like sometimes right wing media, say oh every thing is perfect as the Royals are around, and then claim everything is terrible nothing is good we are going down the drain, as we have socialists in power, actually if you look at history when teh left were in power, treating people with GOOD equality of resepct, opposing bullies, and snobs of every class, especially bullies, saw better, while monarchy like in past saw low life expenctacies and a worse world,

Here are some more sites, there are books and articles on the subjects in many internet places, or internet book shops, bookstores, at the bottom, are lists of which were the worst regimes of the past few centuries.

The Evil of 21st Century Monarchies, good for after reading the 7 pages of this great book

A site stating which ideal killed the most in the 20th Century, the answer is royalism, and Fascism, and that the left saved a billion people in the 20th Century

A site on the El Nino Famines that killed 10s of millions of Indians, and Chinese and others in the 19th Century

The Crimson book of Royalty page 1

The Highland Clearances how many died, in this,

A site on the 10 oldest and newest republics

A part definition, part history of serfdom

An Index for our sites, with links to 100s of our greatest sites.

Which regimes killed the most people in the 19th Century, find out here,

A site on the Belgian Congo, and how the king of that land killed 10s of millions of Congolese

Why the French Revolution was good

The most evil regimes of the 19th century