Monarchy versus Government

The concept of absolute monarchy was always a bad idea in my opinion, how can one person make all those decisions for everyone? Same as dictator governments I suppose, those are definitely not good for the world either.

Completely right as history has proven, that's why the constitutional monarchy came in place, instead of a President to be elected as in the USA and other Republics, a Queen or King are in Charge, with exception of Japan where an Emperor is the head of State. In principle the function of head of state is symbolic and doesn't carry (much) power, contrary to the President in the USA.

The moneylenders (now called bankers) still rule European monarchies.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who, by 1820, had established a firm grip on the Bank of England stated: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."

Indeed Thomas true words, that highlights the flaws of both Republic and Monarchy. For many years I have thought about the less evil of the two, but as with many other things it depends on the person in charge. Elected or by heritage both can be a bad choice, and in both cases public influence is very limited if not zero. Likely the future will be more like the Swiss Canton system. Smaller will become more beautiful, or more practical. Probably every society with its own management and currency after the US Dollar has collapsed.

Anyhow the Fed is on course with their total destruction of the US Dollar.

Fears of Globalization will be of the past in the foreseeable future.

Thomas amazingly correct and to the point, I wonder you do have a special nose to sense the hot issues that should be kept under cover. Of course they play a game with the unknowing populace and try to pursue their own agenda. Somewhere, but not knowing yet precisely how, they may not succeed. The IMF is the wrong partner in their plan. More likely the globalization is finished and small communities with their own capable governments and currencies will emerge. It is done with the parasite mentality, to keep people on a leash. History looks like to repeat itself.

The American Revolution And The Bank of England

Great Britain is firmly under the control of the banking dynasties.

In 1694, the Bank of England was formed as a private central bank, which would issue the currency of the nation, lending it to the government and industry at interest, which would be paid back to the Bank of England's shareholders, made up of these private banking dynasties. The 16th to the 19th centuries was the period in which both the nation-state and capitalism emerged, soon followed by central banking in the late 1600s. This is when the origins of what was known as a "world economy" took place. Mercantilist economic theory dominated this period, in which the economy was secondary and submissive to the political structure of nations.

Liberal theorists rose in opposition to this. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the same year that the American colonies revolted against the British imperial forces in the country, and ultimately gained independence from the British Empire. Among many of the primary motivating factors for the American Revolution were the British military presence in the American colonies, acting above the law; a heavy imposition of colonial taxes, particularly on tea and other imports from foreign nations such as France, in an effort to promote the mercantilist assumptions that the colony should only survive and trade with the metropole (imperial hegemony) - which extracts the resources of the nation in trade for material goods to that nation, creating a dependence upon the colonial power.

Arguably one of the primary motivations for the American Revolution was the control of currency by a foreign imperial power, with the ability to control inflation and devaluation, essentially controlling the entire economic conditions of the colony from abroad. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the necessity of controlling one's own currency if one was to preserve sovereignty and independence. Following Britain's humiliating defeat, which was aided by the French who supported the American revolt, European banking interests suffered a significant blow against their mercantilist expansion.

Central banking functions in that it constantly needs to expand and consume more although much more dubious manner, in which it needs to expand its control over industry, nations and people through the expansion of debt, continually needing to bring more individuals, nations and industries under debt bondage.

Debt is the source of all power and wealth for the central banking system - as they do not actually produce any tradable good, such as industry; nor do they provide any necessary service, such as government. Interest on debt is the source of income and authority for the central banking system, and thus, it needs to continually advance credit and expand debt. Thus, the loss of the American colonies as a source of expansionary credit and debt was a massive blow to their entrenched interests.

The European banking interests quickly learned their lesson regarding not falling under the imperial hubris of believing people of a given region or nation could never defeat imperial might and armies. Revolution had become a great threat to their banking interests.