Can Jow Forums explain Oliver Cromwell?

In the west people are indoctrinated to think that dictator is synonimous with evil. This is mostly morronic boomer thinking.

I thought you guys hated cathoilics?

Even Churchill himself disowned Cromwell.

The speech he gave when he dissolved the Rump parliament was pretty cool.

>It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
>Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
>Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
>Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
>Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
>Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
>Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
>Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
>I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
>Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
>In the name of God, go!

Attached: 1476214623021.gif (383x204, 2.09M)

>a massive judiazer
>the worst type of obsessed puritan
You're either a jew or a retarded Bible thumper Zionist. No one else can like Cromwell.

Basically what Trump needs to do to congress?

He caused problems in Ireland which last to this day, and he invited Jews to England. He didn't do anything one could call good.
> the complete union of Wales and Scotland with England
Which was already a thing, but now Scotland bitches more.

Nope. Not a fan of them, but they're welcome to have their own areas (like the south of Ireland). Cromwell just harrowed Celts/Britons.

I don't "like" the dude. I'm just trying to figure out the real nature behind this dude's motives. That's why I set up this based thread lol

I mean, the king was sort of being a dick saying that had a divine right to do whatever the fuck he wanted and he didn't care what the law said

>had a divine right to do whatever the fuck
He never said that. Albeit, he was basically begging to be executed through non-compliance despite being given every opportunity to flea but he was always acting legally. Using Magna Carta, which was 500 years old, during Charles trial was literally the only thing they had against him, so much so their recent descendants had to draft up copies less than a generation later.

>In the west people are indoctrinated to think that dictator is synonimous with evil.
Dictators and populists have been seen as bad since the Roman Republic even though it was an official title.

>Using Magna Carta, which was 500 years old, during Charles trial was literally the only thing they had against him
You sound like one of those faggots who says the 2nd amendment isn't valid anymore because it was written so long ago

Two different things. Magna Carta wasn't legally binding in the same way the Bill of Rights 1689, for example, was.

>backbone of English common law
>not legally binding

Cromwell was in a bad spot

Like most English people he originally supported a monarchy + parliament but Charles was such a treasonous unlikable asshole he had to get beheaded. Ironically to save parliament from Charles, Cromwell basically had to let it be disbanded and then rule as a makeshift dictator.

After that no one even knew what to do. Cromwell did very little wrong aside from opening the door for kikes to come back.

>real nature behind this dude's motives
Ah right. Well he was a Biblical literalist, and a poor long term planner. He didn't like Charles I being king and putting parliament in it's place, so he led rebellion against his liege.
Because he was a puritard, he didn't like Catholics, so he scourged Ireland and parts of Britain. Similarly, he outlawed dancing and Christmas, as well as puddings, because to him, they were a gateway drug to Christmas.
He was also fool enough to fall for the "chosen people" bullshit, and thought it was Jews who made the Netherlands successful, so he brought them in to England to ruin the place.

Attached: 5cff7a36ba1a9651c59a849154a0d13c32d568f1_hq[1].gif (500x200, 476K)

This may be hard to comprehend but Magna Carta didn't have the reputation it does now back during Cromwell's era. In fact parliamentarians had to go searching through English law, both in the case of Charles and King James, to find so called violations they had committed as king. It's fame comes more from its influence on later English law, as Magna Carta its self is very much centered on the time period it was written in. Using your Second Amendment example, Magna Carta was never drafted to last over centuries in the way it did.

As for Charles and James, their only real downfall was existing in an era where any form of absolutism was becoming increasingly undesirable and things like liberalism and liberty were being pulled into existence.

There was way more than the Magna Carta. Just about everything in the 13th century limited the power of the Enlgish monarch from the provisions of Oxford and Westminster to the barons' Wars. Even when Edward Longshanks won the war he handed over unprecedented powers and representation to parliament.

Charles I committed multiple egregioous acts of treason against England he had to get beheaded

>Charles
>treasonous
Full retard.
And parliament needed burning, not saving.

Yeah the Provisions of Oxford and Westminister were used in the case of King James II. Someone on Brit/pol/ wrote up a massive list of these laws last year I'd have to find.

The Magna Carta is technically still binding in the United States. It's the basis of our system of law.

>Much based abolute monarch

Go back to France, froggy

Not even. Charles was acting well within His rights, and parliament deserved far worse. Still do.

That doesn't make it binding, unless it's recognised by government as such.

>That doesn't make it binding, unless it's recognised by government as such.
It's incorporated into the body of the Common Law. Our body of Common Law was hard forked from English Common Law when we split and evolved separately from that point on.
The root is still the English common law from that time.

Lol no it isn't

the US doesn't have a nobility or a monarchy anyway so even having a Magna Carta rule would be a pointless

wrong, faggot
heritage.org/report/the-role-magna-carta-america-2015

List... not quite sure what to do with this, but as you were.

Attached: list2.png (929x350, 305K)

>Which was already a thing, but now Scotland bitches more.
good one.

He let the kikes back into England.

S

Fair enough. I don't know enough about it in the USA, but I would be interested in seeing how it's woven through current common law and fits with stuff like the Bill of Rights.

It's not just about the monarch and the barons.
And you do have nobility. They're just not titled, which makes them dangerous.

>Well within his rights

The monarch can't ask foreign countries to invade England on his behalf which is literally what Charles's letters to France and Scotland show he did. That's treason.

Maybe in France the monarch could claim "I am the state" but in England they expected at least some loyalty to the nation.

From my understanding Edward I's expulsion of Jews was loosely enforced, if at all, by that point anyway.

That's what William and Mary did under a century later and they became co-regents.

>Fair enough. I don't know enough about it in the USA, but I would be interested in seeing how it's woven through current common law and fits with stuff like the Bill of Rights.
The text of the Ninth Amendment is:
>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So basically, we retained all of the liberties of English freemen of the pre-Revolutionary period.

If you don't have a title you aren't a noble.

You're just a bourgeois or a worker.

>The monarch can't ask foreign countries to invade England on his behalf
Then why could parliament? And that implies his actions weren't in the best interest of his nation.

>So basically, we retained all of the liberties
Fair enough, but are they referenced anywhere? Because in legalese, if they're not mentioned, they're not usable.

>If you don't have a title you aren't a noble.
Adorable.

James II would have drawn and quartered everyone who supported William and Mary for treason and would have been well within his rights to do so.

But he ran away and was deposed so he never got the chance.

>Fair enough, but are they referenced anywhere? Because in legalese, if they're not mentioned, they're not usable.
It's incorporated into common law, which is previous decisions and judicial opinions from England up until our independence, and the decisions that were made after.

I know the U.S. Supreme Court in one case I can find the name of has listed the Bill of Rights of 1689 as the origin for some of said laws, I don't know how important that is to your point though.

Haven’t you all played Crusader Kings?

Letting the Jews back in is free money.

The Revolution of 1688 messed up a lot of things, probably most importantly the monarchy its self.

I'm getting that, and precedent is one helluva drug, but still sounds like an ambiguous area if it has explicitly been filled.
But again, i'm not a constitutional lawyer, so i might be way off the mark.

>I don't know how important that is to your point though.
Eh, it's all interesting, and i don't have a point. Just learning.

>Just learning.
Same more or less.

When was parliament secretly writing to the French and asking them to invade England? Charles did that, not parliament.

And yeah if you don't have a title you aren't a noble by definition.

America has a bourgeois financial elite, not an official landed aristocrcy. Although as the elite become richer and more despotic we may transition back to feudalism soon.

Here's an example I found from googling "magna carta supreme court decisions":
jstor.org/stable/25699355
It's a book called "The Legacy of the Magna Carta in Recent Supreme Court Decisions on Detainees' Rights"

He is a retard that thinks a document that was signed under coercion and annulled by the Pope that was only dug up to justify the treasonous acts they had already committed should be the basis of law. Then they decided to murder their king because they were a bunch of Puritan proto commies that hated fun and destroyed centuries old religious art because "muh idolatry." Fuck these people and the SJWs descended from them. If only Charles had one and put these scum and their families to the sword.

Attached: 1524205556072.jpg (800x450, 152K)

Holly shit, he is literally a modern day americhristcuck retard. Did he consider muslim rapists based?

Here's an interesting one:
Raisins Takings Case Goes Back to Magna Carta
nationalreview.com/corner/raisins-takings-case-goes-back-magna-carta-iain-murray/

The difference between the French Revolution and Cromwell is that the English monarchy had more restraining its power in the 13th century than the French had in the 18th century.

>When was parliament secretly writing to the Dutch and asking them to invade England?
In 1688.
>And yeah if you don't have a title you aren't a noble by definition.
Noble can still mean belonging to the aristocracy. Churchill was a noble, though he didn't inherit a title from his forebears.

Neat. Cheers bro.

No, there were very few to no Jews in England until William brought them from the Netherlands after 1688.

Which is ironic because the first Jews in England were brought by William the Conqueror from France so they could tax farm the Anglo saxon peasantry and count up his loot. There's something about Kings named William and Jews.

And they got a Prince William who's basically in line to the English throne right now...FUCK!

>asking a fellow monarch to aid you in putting down the revolutionary cancer that is liberalism somehow makes you illegitimate.

I'll bet money that this fag is descended from these people and from the north east.

The funny thing about learning about these ancient liberties than all of us in common law countries have is some people go off the deep end with it.
See:
Sovereign Citizen Movement
Freemen on the Land

But you know what? All those crazy guys have a point.

Not surprising.
I have always said that the British are one of the most unfortunate peoples who has become an outsiders on his own land.
The Normans reduced the Saxon aristocracy to the level of bigmen, and it is logical that the British and their Yankee descendants sought salvation in a bourgeois way of life.
In America, virtually all of the old Saxon aristocracy has become a bourgeois and politicians. The fact that George Washington is a descendant of repressed aristocrats is a recognized fact. On this earth, they wanted to create a truly free Saxon state, but alas. The English have been outsiders in their own land for too long ...

>Pope
>Legal jurisdiction over anything

Lol. Someone should have told France about that before they had the pope murded in the 1310s for threatening to excommunicate Phillip and moved the Vatican from Rome to Avignon.

Like I said the British constitution is unwritten and based on "precedent" and there was plenty of legal precedent for limiting the powers of the monarch especially in the 13th century

>All those crazy guys have a point.
Yea, i've seen them. And they ALMOST seem to have a point, but they ignore more recent laws and precedents, or the context is off. Like the ones who claim to not need a driving license ignore laws surrounding public roads and vehicles.

That's the funny thing: Laws only apply if you have someone to enforce them upon you.

Limitations on their powers by this point should be lifted or it should be abolished. The entire point of balanced constitutionalism is having a parliament which has an oversight, which hasn't been the case for over two centuries.

Yeah, but just think of how absurd the idea of need to register a vehicle and get a license to move it around on the public roads would have been to our forefathers
they have a point

In 1688 the new monarchs gladly supported parliament's actions because they were protestant allies.

In 1642 Charles and parliament were at odds due to the last 5 years of war caused by Charles trying to arrest the leaders of parliament for not being "obedient" enough and Charles was secretly trying to get the French Catholics to invade.

Alec guiness steals the show in Cromwell movie

>More loyal to foreigners than your own nation

And that's why globalism and feudalism go hand in hand

"Muh common law" is just an excuse to let your nation be ruled by judges engaging in ritualistic Talmudic arguments and whatever the law is comes down to what some guy who is definitely not a priest says it is. And a lot of good those unwritten rights are doing the people living on cuck island now.

youtube.com/watch?v=wDsAn_u70tw

What is it with people called Charles dissolving parliament?

Backed by Jew money.Nuf sed

I'm sure they'd understand when it was explained to them that the road was government funded, and as such they had a duty of care to make sure people were capable of using it safely (yea, i know in practice that rarely works out).
After all, toll roads were common back then. It's like that on a national scale.

>the new monarchs gladly supported parliament's actions
Because it made them the new monarchs.
I'm totally an Orangeman, but you have to see that there is a double standard here.

>And a lot of good those unwritten rights are doing the people living on cuck island now.
If the point of them were the limitations on the power of the monarchy, they've worked a treat. I don't know about that other stuff.

TRAITOR TO THE NATION AND KING

And turn your shithole island into an Orwellian state. Your nothing but a race of slaves that will do the bidding of whatever elite rules over you. They are going to replace you and you will do nothing about it.

>A King who was willing to have his head cut off to make a point,

>A treasonous king

pick one

Another thing that we have that goes way back to old English common law is tenant's rights. So if you rent an apartment a lot of the contract law between you and the landlord goes way, way back to very old English common law governing tenant's rights

Kek okay. Enjoy being 13.

Lol, the liberal social order has done such a good job on the anti globalism front hasn't it?

Attached: 1526438784647.jpg (459x278, 29K)

Charles' "point" was that he had infallible supreme authority in England that couldn't be questioned by anyone.

The fact that he lost the war and his trial was proof enough to the opposite.

Do Americans see English pre-USA history as theirs?

It's funny you post a nationalist leader like Assad as you whine about nationalism. Why don't you support the globalist hordes trying to destroyed him? Saudi Arabia is a precious monarchy after all.

Nationalism is largely what prevented the elites from replacing white workers with low water non whites for so many years. Had the nobility held total power into the industrial revolution they would have replaced every white worker with non-whites slaves by 1800. In the same way they sold out the white workers to Jewish tax farmers during feudalism.

I can only speak for myself.
My ancestry is most English, so I do.
But when we're taught US history it starts with Columbus and the discovery of the New World

>getting arrested for carrying a potato peeler
>getting arrested for teaching your dog a trick
>having to beg your government to take your child to another country for medical treatment
>get flooded with shit skins so you complain about Polish plumbers
>even UKIP wants to flood you with shit skins just from India this time.
>outlaw nationalist groups over forum shitposts
>Islamist allowed to preach the overthrow of your government
>thousands of girls raped all over the country by these shit skins.
>send people to jail for complaining
>can't stop knife crime but they can employ people to arrest you for having the wrong opinions.
At least Sweden has the NRM, you cucks can't even manage to vote for kosher nationalists.

Or at least, that's how they taught it when I was in school, i'm 35

This is the best summary of Cromwell I've ever read. Fuck that guy, all he did was pave the way for failure.

What has that got to do with limitations on the power of the monarchy?

this PIECE OF SHIT is the root of all evil.
With him started the libtardization of British monarchy. Fucking piece of shit commie! All liberals need to DIE!

I'm sure these days US history class begins with the Holocaust and ends with lectures about Iran wanting to cause another Holocaust which is why the dumb goyim must invade.

I'd like to see polling of what percentage of Americans think we fought WWII to stop the Holocaust, and break it down by age
I guarantee it's over 90% for kids born after let's say 1990

Pretty soon it'll be the same answer for WW1 as well.

who would profit from a civil war?
Cromwell was clearly a paid agent to destabilise Britain.

>ohlookit'sretarded.jpg
>importing dumb and violent shit skins is a good idea for my children
Several monarchies existed into the early 20th century and did not do this, nor was there any attempt to do this in the 19th century.

Attached: 1517986998396.png (160x160, 45K)

He repealed the laws banning jews from England and let them back in, thats why there is a statue of him outside parliment, paid for by some zionist shill, Lord Rosebury whose wife was a Rothschild.