We can thank the indomitable Oliver Cromwell for b...

2007-03-25T23:27:00.000-06:00

We can thank the indomitable Oliver Cromwell for being the central Parliamentarian figure in the First and Second English Civil War as well as the eventual capture and eventually the execution of Charles I in 1649.

Yet, on an unrelated matter, Will, I’m somewhat troubled as to why it is that your usually healthy cynicism and skepticism about “the State” in the abstract, and the humanoids who work on behalf of the State within, only seems to apply to the State? I am, like you, cynical and skeptical of State motives in any endeavor with which it involves itself to be sure; there’s demonstrable tangible evidence proving that truth.

However, on the other hand, your link to the site describing the alleged depravity of James I as well as Francis Bacon and other aristocratic figures in history was interesting. These sources’ motives are always suspect in my mind whenever the main topic of dissection with these historical figures, they apparently focus like an eagle upon, is their apparent “gayness” or homosexual proclivities. In addition, many of these modern sources, who obviously seem to relish attempting to “normalize” this depravity by characterizing well-heeled folk as similarly so inclined, like Norton, are not by the way repulsed in any way by these revelations, like most would be, but are fully supportive of it. I’m not saying it’s outright false, but I’m also not going to accept these kind of characterizations ex facie from the likes of Norton either. Remember Will, there’s a culture war goin’ on and it permeates not just Hollyweird, the government, the schools, but especially history and media also. History is by no means off limits to revisionism and Gramscian propaganda.

And I don’t think it’s merely “coincidental” in this day and age that it seems as if many historical figures are being increasingly “discovered” as being of this lot and so maligned. They also conveniently happen to be notable figures, or even heroic figures in many quarters, who most thought previously were of stalwart character, like Francis Bacon among others. I mean, it is interesting to note in this particular case that the KJV of the Bible was sponsored by this very king.

Again, I’m not saying one way or the other way about whether King James’ true character matching this portrayal is true, half-true, or false; it could be true, half-true, but it could also very well be a damn lie. Do you not also view with a high degree of skepticism these kind of “fab” portrayals from non-State entities and/or individuals? Or do you eagerly accept, prima facie, without in-depth investigation any ugly portrayal of a figure who just happens to be a part of Leviathan?

I guess one could view King James I similarly to how one could view King David in the Bible. Assuming James I fell into the sodomy pit, David fell into the adultery pit with Bathsheeba, and then jumped headfirst into the murder pit killing her husband, Uriah, to cover up his adultery as well. That first child dies; David confessed and repented, but the consequences of the sins are nevertheless far-reaching and would afflict David the rest of his life. Jame’s son Charles I took the row between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians to the greatest pinnacle, including two civil wars, was eventually captured, and ended up executed by the Parliamentarians in 1649. David’s son Absalom rebels against his father and is killed in a clash between his forces and his father David’s under Joab.

Yet, in spite of all that, David was “a man after God’s own heart.” Hmm, how can that be? I guess it signifies to some extent just how dark ALL humans are inside, eh Will?

Comments on Pro Libertate: The Treason Called "Executive Privilege"

We can thank the indomitable Oliver Cromwell for b...