Review of British history Philip Baker: The Putney Debates: The Levellers
Profoundly disappointing, December 25, 2010I bought this book out of general interest—is it true that Cromwell's soldiers invented democracy? Is it true there was a series of debates going to the roots of politics?—Probably it was a long-term scheme to introduce 'democracy' in the controllable form liked by Jews.
Note, five years later: Emerging from the murk, it seems clear Cromwell was a tool of Jews, who wanted to enter Britain, to start their Bank and exploit England, Ireland, and the New World. Not 'democracy'. But Jews may have wondered about opposition from the landed (and traditionally rather warlike) aristocracy. Could these 'debates' have been set up as a divide-and-rule strategy? It seems likely enough. (At this time I happen not to have access to my books, so I leave the question here).
I found putneydebates.com, on The 360th celebrations, at St Mary’s Church, Putney, October 2007. This site sells 2 DVDs:
Film 1 The Story of the Debates Extracts from the play are intercut with comments from historians: John Morrill, Antonia Fraser, and Quentin Skinner; Rev Dr Giles Fraser, politicians Justine Greening, Susan Kramer, Martin Linton filmed on a 17th wherry rowed from Westminster to Putney; and Civil War re-enactment scenes.
Film 2 What’s Wrong with Britain’s Democracy? A modern Putney Debate chaired by Geoffrey Robertson QC. with Billy Bragg, Shami Chakrabarti, historians Tony Benn, Tristram Hunt, Antonia Fraser.
Antonia Fraser wrote (among other 'history' books) Cromwell, Our Chief of Men. Robertson introduced the book being reviewed; see notes below on his money-making legal scheme. Billy Bragg is a sort of zero-intellect folk-joke singer. Here's my review/obituary of Benn. Chakrabarti is one of many rented foreigners, paid as she long as she remembers what lies she has to tell.
All this certainly adds weight to the idea that 'democracy' was a fake, foisted on England in a way designed to support Jewish crime. To this day it appears to be defended by a corps of liars and collaborators.
All this may help people decipher what such outfits as Common Purpose mean by the 'post-democratic era'.
DeadlyRhythm84: Youtube 10 Jan 2016: Cromwell certainly tried his best to let the Jews back in, But the English parliament of the time rejected it.
Rerevisionist: the Bank of England was established. Those were the 'Jews' Cromwell was paid by.
Matt Thompson: And then London burned down. lol...
Rerevisionist: Possible connection with the 'Great Fire' and the later Bank of England. 1666 Great Fire/ St Paul's Cathedral in the Blitz.
This book has the texts (or claims to have the texts) of seven pamphlets, with modernised spelling and probably some rewording. All but one predated the 1647-1649 debates, and formed, presumably, part of the mental atmosphere of the times. There is a single chapter on the Putney debates; about 40 pages. All the text selection and annotation is by someone called Philip Baker; Geoffrey Robertson's sole contribution is an introduction of about twenty pages.
After some poking around on Internet, it seems clear the definitive edition of the Putney debates was edited by A S P Woodhouse, a literary historian who died in 1964. His first edition, confusingly titled 'Puritanism and Liberty', was published in 1938, taken from shorthand documents organised by Clarke (I think). Baker, irritatingly, gives almost no information on the printed sources, not even the size and scale of these publications; nor on his reasons for choosing the selections—and in any case a badly-worded comment suggests he may have not consulted the originals.
I was surprised to find the 'Debates' were far more formal and constricted than I'd assumed. British readers will know what I mean when I say it reads a bit like 'Question Time', a BBC/state propaganda thing. There was quite a small cast of characters, including Cromwell. It's amusing to find that women were automatically not considered. Nor were beggars and a few others; however one has to wonder about what a 'freeman' actually was.
Robertson's introduction describes the start of the Debates, but he soon peters out and turns to legal precedents—such as rights in written form, the comfort of prisoners, and juries deciding against judge's direction—supposedly set at this time. Unfortunately, for several reasons, I found this unsatisfactory;
[1] There are numerous conventions which Robertson accepts without realising they are disputable: 'Areopagitica' is trumpeted as advocating a free press without any qualification; the English priority for written documents seems doubtful—for example, at the time of Magna Carta, there were lots of similar documents promulgated throughout Europe. The change in meaning of 'leveller' from an insult is mentioned, but not discussed. The funding of Cromwell by Dutch Jews, which may (or may not) have underwritten 18th century oppression in Britain.
[2] The fact is that trial by Jury, Parliament, habeas corpus etc existed well before the Civil War. Is it really the case that important precedents were set? One has to wonder even about regicide—there must have been innumerable examples of the execution of failed leaders.
[3] Robertson rather disturbingly imports assorted anachronisms: jack-boots (in the populist modern sense), 'appeasement', 'charisma', 'revolutionary'.
[4] Robertson has no idea of economics and productivity—he simply assumes we have progress. No doubt if industrialism fails, slavery will return, and types like Robertson will argue why it's necessary and desirable. His introduction ends with a paean to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'; ignoring small matters like voting fraud, intimidation, puppet electees, and widespread wars. And the unelected EU making law, about which Robertson makes no comment.
(Robertson appears a bit in Youtube, and appears to be a typical pilpul type.) Jewish It turns out that Robertson (QC) has 'Chambers' in Doughty Street, slogan 'At the heart of human rights'. He seems to have some enthusiasm for revolutions and violence, no doubt in practice of the desk warrior type. (The cover of this book includes an advert for a book on Trotsky—mass murderers? No objection—and also the witless Eagleton on 'Jesus Christ'). Modern human rights of course is a euphemism for taking government and pressure-group money in anti-white activity. It's curious that lawyers' actions, because of the process of precedent, live on. Unlike advertisers, hired to promote some third-rate product, lawyers have to pretend for the rest of their lives that they really believed in whatever absurdity they promote. And also in the non-existence of other 'products'. (I see for example Robertson is very anti-Pope, because of child abuse allegations. Where is his activity on Muslim paedophile grooming? Where is his activity on Eastern European women used as prostitutes in Israel? What about cover-ups of paederasty/paedophilia in Britain?)
In sum, it's impossible to recommend this book. The history of the period is shaky, the legal material problematical, and the sociology looks unreliable. Worth mentioning also is the tiny typeface, lack of index, and godawful cover design. This is a 'Verso' book (left-hand page, geddit?) with all the limitations of the Jewish fake 'left'.
My notes (in this same page) on Gerrard Winstanley.