Redpill me on Oliver Cromwell, what did he do? Did he do anything that affects politics today?

Redpill me on Oliver Cromwell, what did he do? Did he do anything that affects politics today?

I dont know much about him other than his serving as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell
youtube.com/watch?v=V-LyUCV80d8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It depends a lot on what you make of parliamentary democracy. He was still a greater man than most living today, but you could make the case that he was part of the revolutionary tradition in a sense (from luther to lenin?) even though he often chided parliament. Some quotes might help, though he's a politician so salt is required. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell

I don't like parliamentary democracy. Ill have a read through some of the quotes, thank you for the link.

In that case he was a king slayer, with some remedial Victorian BASEDness to recognize the dangers of free democracy and demagoguery. He's the darling of the Whigs more than the Tories, even though the latter were sometimes grateful to him for putting the breaks on liberalism.

Dig him up and hang him again.

I have no problem with king slaying, I'm just distrustful of democracy and don't see it as a virtue necessarily . I can get on board with him recognizing the dangers of free democracy and demagoguery. Why do the whigs hold him in high regard? How did he put the breaks on liberalism?

Sorry if all the questions are bothersome, Im just interested in what you have to say since you seem to have a grasp of the topic.

What do you propose straddles a middle road between royalty and parliament? Constitutions like the magna carta? He was the darling of the Whigs because he campaigned for parliament, and put the breaks on liberalism because he was critical of parliamentary retardation. So in my view he was trying to maintain standards in parliament, which as we all know didn't work. Moreover he occasionally voted against liberal (progressive, Whig) plans. I'm not sure how to characterize those but they tend to be of the kind you should be familiar with. He was a creature of the enlightenment through and through, a Lockean. Anyway going to war against the oppressive superstitious royalists and favoring the protestants everywhere is enough to make you a Whig darling. Personally I'm with though.

Yes I'd agree constitutions like the magna carta are the middle road. I'm not sure where I stand, on the one hand he was critical of parliamentary retardation however I'm not a fan of parliament in any form, so his campaigning for it irks me. What do you specifically dislike about him? Thanks for answering my questions by the way, I appreciate it.

The problem with that view is that parliaments defeat constitutions historically everywhere. You say you are not a fan of parliament in any form, but there needs to be a sovereign that decides on laws and interpretation of your constitution (or delegating such power). I know that enlightenment liberals are a big fan of separations of powers and immortalizing principles in constitutional law, but with all their supposed awareness of the dangers of parliament and suffrage they seemed really quite blind to the universal tendency. Monarchies conceded constitutions everywhere but that wasn't enough, anywhere. America is a great example, because they were so proud of their democracy and parliament, but their constitution was taken whole cloth from Victorian england and all their nasty aristocrats. Fast forward a couple hundred years and even the most hardened liberals have been forced to admit the tendency of democracy.

Eh the constitution didn't come from Victorian england, but came with the Old-Puritan english ppl.

Cromwell is the bridge between absolute kingship and more Republican governmental systems in the anglosphere. Cromwell wanted the parliament to be more involved but was hamstrung by how retarded they were acting. He literally abolished a few by switching to lunar months because he was so frustrated by their inaction.

Democracies has a tendency to consume themselves. I don't see democracy as antithetical to tyranny, but more like the progenitor to it. You're correct, there does need to be a sovereign that decides on laws and interpretation of constitutions. What bothers me about that is that over time interpretations of constitutions change that they become almost meaningless, and supreme courts can choose to interpret it in whichever way they need to achieve their goals. America being the prime example of this. I'm in the middle of a kind of political exploration, I don't like democracy, and in fact I hate it. I don't think monarchy is good either but I'd say I see it as a little less damaging than democracy, Kings see the state as their property as such have a tenancy to protect it and ensure its stability in the long term because their heir will ultimately take over and they don't want to hand them degenerated garbage.

I'm not sure where a good middle ground sits though, and what alternatives there are and I've explored many. I'm just not certain of my exact preference.

Thread theme.

youtube.com/watch?v=V-LyUCV80d8

>some king bans jews from the UK 1000 years ago
>fast forward to 500 years ago
>Oliver Cromwell overthrows the Crown
>kills the king
>does a bunch of fucked up shit in Ireland
>silently lifts the Jew ban

(((PURE COINCIDENCE)))

He influenced the events of the Glorious Revolution less than half a century later which is the event that crippled the English monarchy for the rest of its history and is the reason its entirely ceremonial today.

Most of the constitutional reforms he set through precedent were reversed the second he died, but there is absolutely no doubt that Charles II absence proved the power of a parliament in some peoples minds.

>some king
That would be Edward I.

Are you sure it wasn't Edward the second?

Nope. Edward II was shit, possibly homosexual. I'd never confuse him with the much better Edward I.

I agree with everything you say about democracies and constitutions, even with your assessment of Kings although I would add that their existence also had a spiritual component, one we now lack and find quite mysterious (or retarded if you're a fedora). Perhaps that could be food for thought as to why you continue to believe in constitutions, since it makes me wonder how you imagine it to exist without a sovereign. What does the sovereign look like? Constitutions are a human construct intended to circumvent judgment and authority by immortalizing the true rights of man and all such things. It has not worked out, but that's of course not enough to lose faith. Perhaps you still have some faith, but why? Extreme examples of this occurred in the 20th century when the natsocs and commies both abolished democracy.

If you consider constitutional parliamentary democratic republics to be responsible for the degeneracy that happened afterwards, then Cromwell is not a glorious king slayer but a herald of the fall.

Just testin ya mate, good to see you know a bit about your own history.

Hate to be that guy, but even Somalia has a constitution. I think you mean a codified constitution or a Bill of Rights that is central to the Constitution like the U.S. has as opposed to just a constitution in its self which is the framework for which a state operates in.

something something genocide
his cavalry tactics were pretty cool tho

Try that test on 90% of people in England, they won't know.

You're right about the spiritual component, I've been thinking about this recently, I wonder if humans have perhaps an innate need for a leader, something that provides a face and voice for their cultural identity and something to rally behind. I'm not a collectivists persay (As in I don't see it as a virtue, but I do recognize its practicality), but I do think because of evolution humans have the tendency to form loose tribes, and it fulfills a need that's almost primal.

I only believe in constitutions as far as I believe in contracts, I only believe in the practicality of having a constitution that explains mutual terms that govern your collective. I don't necessarily see constitutions as the perfect way to guarantee your rights, ultimately what secures your rights is the threat of force. Maybe having a heavily armed society would be enough to scare a monarch into not abusing them. I can also see the use in ideas proposed like neo-cameralism, where the government is run like a business, and profit incentives ensure that treating the population well and providing them a valuable society is seen as a better alternative to abusing them which make hurt profits and productivity.

At this point I might point out that Carlyle would have been completely bewildered by neo-cameralism, and considers it self-evident that supply & demand, and by extension pure profit, do not a healthy society make. One can not run things on steam, yet no libertarian theory ventures anything about why people want what they want, and how they come to want this. There is a kind of blind faith in the connection between profit and standards that is evident even in Hoppe and the neo-reactionaries.

he was very very very very very very bad

His name is the same as one of my favourite tanks in WoT

Is that you Prince Rupert?

Neo-cameralism as the perfect option, but to me when you reduce government down to its core functions I don't see how profit incentives would fail to deliver those same core functions.

Capitalism seems to me the only reason the west has made it as far as it has under democracy. Democracy has eroded culture and many rights, but capitalism has consistently pushed peoples living standards up, which is why I think many have not noticed democracies disgusting effects, and often even associate democracy with having delivered these improvements in our living standards.

I don't think the goal of a neo-cameralist government should be to give people what they want (As democracy gives people what they "want"), it should give them only what they need, which is a secure, clean, and safe society. I know those things are quite broad but for the sake of a quick response I've been brief.

I don't see it as perfect, I just see it as one of the better alternatives. We're in a situation where there are not many good alternatives that haven't already been tried.

oops I meant to say I dont see neo-cameralism as the perfect option.

Thanks for the quality post finbro

And when I say capitalism I'm using the term as being loosely synonymous with general principles of supple & demand.

Fair enough. I was merely pointing out that neo-cameralism neither gives people what they want nor a leader, be it material or spiritual. It might be that
>secure, clean, and safe society
is not exactly what profit inevitably makes. Everyone knows that factories and companies do not automatically care for their workers, though that's not to say unions or law is the answer. Mencius himself seemed to have a strange kind of faith that the dictator would go beyond profit and "care" for the population. Moreover, he hedged that if a dictator were to turn evil, then there should be a neighboring patch that had a better life. These are all quite big assumptions for something as big as a government restructuring, especially considering he wanted the transfer of power to be as formalist as possible, meaning money = power as it has been earned so far. Carlyle believed that we must find a Good Man and make him King, but neo-cameralists believe that this man can be found by synchronizing everyone's interests as purely profit. I mean, this suggests that even now you can exchange political power for money, and that doesn't account for all the minions trying to build the New Jerusalem. He knows government officials can be sincere but thinks it comes from brain-washing in a sort of closed power cycle. Are these people going to be restored to sanity once their political power is bought out? Questions abound.

I am a direct descendant of King Edward III (so also I and II) It was not until today I learned that Edward I was England's Jew-remover.

LONG LIVE KING CHARLES

DEATH TO ALL ROUNDHEADS

Wiki:
>In 1275, Edward had issued the Statute of the Jewry, which outlawed usury and encouraged the Jews to take up other professions; in 1279, in the context of a crack-down on coin-clippers, he arrested all the heads of Jewish households in England and had around 300 of them executed. In 1280, he ordered all Jews to attend special sermons, preached by Dominican friars, with the hope of persuading them to convert, but these exhortations were not followed. The final attack on the Jews in England came in the Edict of Expulsion in 1290, whereby Edward formally expelled all Jews from England.
He tried. His edict stood for over 350 years.

Absolute monarchy, fuck all that "rights" noise.

Long enough for my ancestors to get the fuck out of England and come to America before they married Jews.

My ancestors were Cavaliers, when King Charles was beheaded and Cromwell took power they fled to the New World.

>Absolute monarchy
Is the only way to save Western Civilization

No he's just an Irishman.

Republican is all you need to know. He was a degenerate.

>tfw my family were commoners and were given a title by the King for fighting against Cromwell

Feels comfy, man.

I should have been clearer. The secure, clean, and safe society is the "product" that the state is selling to the people. The profit comes from the people providing what is essentially rent. On a small scale it is similar to a gated community.

I would think that the dictator/ceo/monarch would see the state as his property and would want the best for it, and maybe the best way to achieve that is to care for the people residing in the state, and if he shows benevolence the people living there would be more likely to defend and aid it which helps the long term prospects of gov-corp.

I agree with much of what you say and ask a lot of questions myself, I just think its an interesting place to start thinking about alternative government.

I can see Carlyle's points, maybe it is just easiest to get a good man and make him king, but what is a good man? And how do we ensure a good man doesnt turn into a tyrant? What do we do if a king who's good in your eyes isn't good in mine? That can also get a bit complicated. Either way I still see either of those things as better alternatives to democracy.

>The secure, clean, and safe society is the "product" that the state is selling to the people.
But this is a sovereign we're talking about. He is only subordinate to profit, not to "The People's" wishes. We have changed voting with ballots into voting with your wallet, but only insofar as the state can turn a profit. At what point are the taxes too high? Or does that not matter since political power was bought out with shares in the sovereign? The entire problem is the assumption that you can expect good customer service from profit alone. Do you at least see how this goes against some of the more traditional philosophies that suggested some people can use a leader? Money is power the free'er your markets, and 'standards' that restrict freedom come from the sovereign, so they must be profitable.

I realize that it's strange to consider how to find a proper King, but that doesn't change Carlyle's argument that that's what we're doing. He does not believe that everybody or even anybody is able to recognize a good King, because his merit comes from God and his ability to understand the laws of the universe. What Carlyle is suggesting is that there is no formula for finding such a man, and neo-cameralism is definitely a formula.

Finally you said that
> Either way I still see either of those things as better alternatives to democracy.
but there might be an enormous difference between a King and a neo-cameralist dictator. The only thing a formalist can say is that they both have plenary power, but nothing can be said about what such a society would do. Does the dictator outlaw brothels? Mencius says he wants to divorce information from security, by which he also means "religions and superstitions". Yet those latter are not just opiums of the masses, but inform what people do and buy. And they are affected by propaganda. So how come the dictator won't immediately start the largest consumerist propaganda campaign in history? Enough to make Steve Jobs blush?

After Alfred and Athelstan, he's one of the best kings in English and Anglo-Saxon history.