Oliver Cromwell

did nothing wrong.

Are Cromwell supporters the liberal version of ☭TANKIE☭s?

Attached: A2AD3EEF-808F-4C8A-B2C0-68C912910DA4.jpeg (400x265, 94.22K)

Mostly this, he was in effect the standard-bearer of the bourgeois democratic revolution. while the real power of the english aristocracy was never fully eliminated (in fact it persists to this day although the aristocracy has been increasingly embourgeoisfied since the late 1500s) it was set into terminal decline in part thanks to Cromwell. The primary achievement however was the consolidation of the bourgeois state, which while it had been developing since Henry VII, was fully consolidated with Cromwell saying goodbye to any notion of royal absolutism and the interests of the gentry. Naturally the monarchy was restored after his death, but the so called 'glorious revolution' which followed entrenched Parliament and the House of Commons as the de facto sovereign and executor of the political interests of the bourgeois class.

He was a cunt, but dialectical and firmly established bourgeois rule in England.

wrong. absolutism and the gentry were mostly in opposition to each other. gentry class is not the same as the aristocracy. Cromwell was the epitome of gentry interests as many gentry were devout protestants.

also landowners dominated parliament until the early 20th century, so all the talk here of "bourgeois" parliaments is also nonsense and anachronistic, even though parliament and local institutions did have the ability to accomodate bourgeois interests.

i'll add that the reason a huge proportion of early industrialists and entrepreneurs were dissenting protestants was because the anglican church
establishment and the landed interests in parliament that upheld it (gentry became the bastion of anglicanism despite their earlier affiliation with puritanism) discouraged their incorporation into the political classes of the realm.

You really believe that shit. The parliament didn't become the real power, the masonic secret societies did. Cromwell was financed by the Jews, who had been expelled from the country until Cromwell allowed them back in (Freemasonry is just talmudism for gentiles). When feudalism was eclipsed by classic liberal republics, the ruling bloodlines just began to rule in secret and we've been under that secret rule ever since. You don't really think pic related is just a coincidence, do you?

Attached: Screenshot_2018-07-12 Is ruling in the genes All presidents bar one are directly descended from a medieval English king.png (916x768, 488.42K)

Wrong, they realized that niggers were easier to enslave than whites. Whites will struggle to be free and niggers won't. All the niggers living generation after generation on welfare is a good example. They live in worse conditions than slavery and are unable to change it by their own devices. Living naturally in Africa the earliest reports of those that encountered them (the arabs) commnented that it was easier to teach apes than niggers. When they found africa, the niggers had never built any city or road, they hadn't domesticated a crop or an animal, niglets didn't know who their parents were and they frequently lapsed into cannibalism. Slavery is a prison for white people but it's welfare for niggers.

You mean the fact that you're an anti-Semitic idiot and read the Daily Mail? No, I believe the two things are related somehow.

Everyone with half a brain hates the jews. You hate the Jews too, you just call them "the 1%" to ease your conscience.

anyone with half a brain doesn't make appeals to authority or appeals to popularity as an argument

t. the authority

He has his own Grover Furr btw… and thats a good thing; Hibernian lies are at last exposed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Reilly_(author)

Wasn't he the one who started the transition from feudalism to mercantilism and capitalism? He did kill the diggers so I'm don't think Ï would support him.

Uh, user I think you are on the wrong board. >>>Zig Forums is that way.

Attached: 9015f2f441e5f073d11c4aadd4fd22e0da93139ed96c102e070b89a46bea32b6.png (500x375, 220.95K)

He had balls to overthrow the British monarchy.

Classical Machiavellian Republican through and through. His power was only undermined by the by the gentry, which overthrew his son and reinstated the monarchy. He was the last time England was ruled by Anglo blood and not a Norman strumpet. Puritanism is also, comparably, a far better religion than Anglicanism, as it carries some sense of communalism while Anglicanism firmly establishes the Monarch as its head. As well, it promoted widespread education, and the religion as a whole would have probably deradicalized as it did in New England, so in the long term the extreme Calvinist doctrine wouldn't be a major issue. Only major flaw is that it does promote a sense of class collaboration, which is bad for the proletariat.

The Irish slaves were mainly captured soldiers of religious nobility. It's literally standard fare as far as Renaissance Europe was considered, and was a practice begun by the Monarchy. Hell, it wans't even chattel slavery like Africans faced, and most of the slaves were eventually freed during their lifetimes.

Attached: Comrade Corbyn.jpg (674x473, 62.04K)

He was a genocidal Machiavellian maniac. He wasn't a republican either, he was just a manarchist but he wanted himself on the throne so he bullshitted his way into "fighting" for 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Parliament🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 and just crowned himself under a different title.

Attached: 1529422378333.png (429x410, 22.92K)

we don't hate the 1%, we hate the social relationship of capital which gave rise to the 1%, you project onto the left as if we are as autistic as the right, the difference is the right hates particular groups, the left hates particular social relationships

Blacks have been cultivating grains and livestock for millenia, fucking retard. Take this shit to pol where it belongs