Shakespeare's Father, His Catholicism, And The Catholic Persecution of Protestants

 

Was the real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, a catholic? His father's ties to Bloody Mary, the themes of his plays, and the historical evidence suggests so.

Related:

Shakespeare's Motives For Concealing His Real Identity

Wikipedia - John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford: 

John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford (1516 – 3 August 1562) was born to John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford, and Elizabeth Trussell, daughter of Edward Trussell. He was styled Lord Bolebec 1526 to 1540 before he succeeded to his father's title.

While never of consequence in the Tudor court, the 16th Earl's support for Queen Mary was instrumental in her accession to the throne in 1553, though he was given no preferment by her. During her reign he was active as the principal magnate in Essex. Under Mary, Essex men and women suspected of heresy against Catholicism were brought before Oxford to be charged, and thence conveyed to the Bishop of London for examination. Of his prisoners, at least sixteen were condemned and burnt, beginning with his former servant, Thomas Hawkes, who was burnt at Coggeshall on 10 June 1555.

Wikipedia - Religious views of William Shakespeare:

In 1611 the historian John Speed asserted Shakespeare's links with Catholicism, accusing him of satirising in Henry IV the Lollard (or proto-Protestant) martyr John Oldcastle (first portrayed by Shakespeare under his character's real name, then the alias John Falstaff after complaints from Oldcastle's descendants) and linking the playwright with the Jesuit Robert Persons, describing them together as "the Papist and his poet". 

. . .Literary scholar and Jesuit Father Peter Milward and the writer Clare Asquith are among those who have written that Catholic sympathies are detectable in Shakespeare's works. Asquith believed that Shakespeare uses terms such as "high" when referring to Catholic characters and "low" when referring to Protestants (the terms refer to their altars) and "light" or "fair" to refer to Catholic and "dark" to refer to Protestant, a reference to certain clerical garbs. 

. . .Although Shakespeare commonly adapted existing tales, typically myths or works in another language, Joseph Pearce claims that King John, King Lear and Hamlet were all works that had been done recently and in English with an anti-Catholic bias, and that Shakespeare's versions appear to be a refutation of the source plays. Pearce believes otherwise he would not have "reinvented the wheel", revisiting recent English plays.

5 Reasons Why USrahell Lost Iran War Round 2

If it hasn't been made clear already, this past week's ceasefire shenanigans has proven that this war isn't shaping up to be a knockout fight. This isn't Ali vs. Foreman. This one is going the distance, all 12 rounds. 

Round one, the 12 day war last summer, was a draw. The two fighters tested each other's capabilities, drew some blood, and went back into their corners anticipating a long bout ahead.

In Round two the fight tilted towards Iran's favour when it landed a gut punch by selectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S., Israel and their co-belligerents, costing them reputational loss and economic damage for the world. On the other side, the decapitation of the regime had the opposite effect it intended, plus it was a cheap shot, so they get docked points for that.

Now, as we wait for Round three, let's examine why USrahell's war strategy has failed so far. 

I think it's a combination of 5 different factors; 1) Washington underestimating its opponent, 2) alienating both its distant allies and regional proxies, especially the Kurds, who are a ready-made indigenous army, 3) failing to convince the lukewarm Iranian population of its post-war political program, 4) the inability to generate any sort of international consensus for a prolonged military engagement against an embattled adversary, and, finally, 5) running from the battlefield. 

The last one is not a reflection of the fighting spirit of the American soldier, but of the limited number of soldiers in the region, poor military planning, and the overall cowardly war strategy that USrahell had decided to carry out from the very beginning of the conflict.

It is obvious that competent military planners were sidelined and replaced by political appointees who thought the war would be short and relatively painless. They should have expected the thousands of American soldiers in the region would be sitting ducks on those bases and that ordering them to hide in hotels and high rise apartments would crush their morale. The American army wasn't sufficiently prepared psychologically for this war and it showed in the early days.

The criminals in the White House treated their lives as cheaply as the lives of the adversary because, and this must never be forgotten, the Israelis consider all goyim as cattle, especially soldiers. Remember what Kissinger said? He called warriors dumb, stupid animals. And Kissinger is not unique in that view. That is how Jews view non-Jews. They have no respect for the army they've fielded. And when you lack respect for the sacrifice and service of the common soldier you end up losing war after war.

USrahell Must Choose Between A Golden Age And A Dark Age

 

China.

Gaza.

China offers the world infrastructure development, progress, and economic prosperity.

USrahell offers the world Biblical violence, economic suicide, and genocidal wars.

The rest of the world must choose who they want to align with. 

The choice should be obvious at this point. 

This is not Cold War 2.0

It is a matter of life and death, of global energy abundance or artificial scarcity, a hopeful embrace of the future or a return to the dark ages under the permanent rule of cannibalistic pedophiles and genocidal killers.

To countries like Germany, Japan, France, and England that are currently defending genocide: choose wisely. 

This is not a moral question or a matter of conscience. It's a matter of international security and the well-being of your nations. Think of your own future. 

The world revolves around Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, not the parasitic cannibals in Washington and Israel. Do not let them drag you down with them.

As for USrahell, know this: all empires end. The question is how will yours - in flames or with grace. 

You can be instrumental in unleashing a new golden age or keeping humanity in a dark age. 

Trump In Tirade Attacks His Base, Insults The Great Alex Jones

 

Trump crossed another red line.

Mr. Sloppy Seconds, the Devil's Apprentice, Diaper Don, the man of many names, minds, and faces, couldn't help himself yesterday, using that big mouth of his to insult one of the great men of our time. 

Alex Jones has more bravery in his pinky than Trump has in his body. 

On the day of 9/11, Alex stuck his neck out to report the truth about that historic crime while Trump went on air to spread the official lie like a good little goy.

While Trump was filming reality tv and raping kids backstage at his pageant show, Alex was educating and awakening an entire generation. He built something Trump's pathetic mind couldn't even imagine.

You foolish con man, you ungrateful vermin! Who do you think you are? 

You're the biggest slave in the land. 

Mind your tongue and do not insult men better than you.

A New Order In The Persian Gulf

 

"The other danger posed by the threat of an Ottoman navy in the Gulf was that, by casting doubts on British paramountcy, it might revive Arab piracy. Poor Arab traders would be tempted to return to plunder, if they thought they could play British and Ottoman authorities against each other. This would be a retrograde step, since British ambitions to secure order in the Gulf were increasing significantly in the mid-1840s. In 1846, Hennell agreed informally with the Persian governor of Fars that British ships would police the Persian shore looking for pirates, though this agreement was not made public. In 1845, Muscat bowed to British pressure and agreed to confine its slave trading to the African coast rather than the Gulf. In 1847, the Porte agreed to forbid Ottoman vessels and subjects from engaging in the slave trade, giving British warships limited rights of search and seizure over them. Meanwhile, Hennell persuaded the Trucial shaykhs to ban the slave trade in 1847. Britain's assault on the slave trade, as on piracy, was part of its aim of creating an ordered space for free commerce.

. . .Ottoman assertiveness, however, merely encouraged the British to secure their own position in the Gulf to head off any challenge. When the maritime truce in the Gulf expired after ten years, it was replaced by a permanent truce in 1853, guaranteed by the British resident and negotiated by Hennell's successor Kemball. It offered the shaykhs permanent protection and "peace in perpetuity." All the Trucial rulers agreed to prevent hostilities between them, and to rely on the British authorities to obtain reparations for any act of aggression on them. The Ottoman navy in the Gulf remained a phantom for some decades. Meanwhile, in 1861, the British met continuing threats to Bahrain, from the Saudis and others, with the first of several treaties guaranteeing its independence. The local British representatives rejected Ottoman claims to sovereignty, either in the Gulf or over Faysal, and insisted that Gulf security was a British responsibility.

So naval power guaranteed British authority on the coast. Whether it could also improve the economic condition of the pashalik of Baghdad was a greater challenge." - An excerpt from, "Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East" by Jonathan Parry, Princeton University Press, 2022, Pg. 307 - 309. More here.

"As part of their offensive, British forces seized the canal. Lesseps denounced the seizure as a violation of the canal's neutrality, but British troops had in fact occupied the entire country. Several years passed before an international convention declared that the Suez Canal should never be closed to ships of any nation by any nation, and in the interim, the British established a protectorate over Egypt. While the khedive ruled in name, along with a prime minister and an assembly, the British government held ultimate authority, and the British consul general, Lord Cromer, was the final arbiter of what the government could and could not do." - An excerpt from, "Parting The Desert: The Creation of the Suez Canal" by Zachary Karabell, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2003, Pg. 266

The British brought law and order to the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters when they arrived. They elevated civilization. Muslim piracy and the Muslim slave trade were real problems in the 19th century. The Ottomans weren't interested in addressing those issues and Iran wasn't strong enough to do anything about them even if it wanted.

That's not the case now. The origin of the chaos lies outside the Persian Gulf, and is a direct result of U.S. policy over the span of multiple decades.

In the past fifty years it's been the British and American installed regimes in the Persian Gulf countries, from Saddam to the Ayatollahs, and the Arab tribal kings, who have been causing trouble and mischief, each in their turn.

America and England have used both Iraq and Iran to help police the waters and keep the territorial ambitions of each other in check. And, should they step out of line, like Saddam did with Kuwait, they received harsh slaps. 

This was not an exercise in international law, but naval power.

Power enabled the Anglo-American empire to run roughshod in the Persian Gulf and basically command the various puppet states to do its bidding.

But that's only part of the story. In geostrategic bodies of water that are hard to navigate, whether the Middle East or elsewhere, Western technology liberated trade. That fact is undeniable. 

But it was, and still is, a dog eat dog world. French ingenuity built the Suez Canal, and British power seized it. They didn't ask nicely either.

And power will once again shape the new security and economic arrangement in the Persian Gulf. I think it's paramount for regional security and international stability that both Iran and Iraq have a strong say. 

The days of isolating either one should not be brought back. As for their obnoxious southern neighbours, they need to learn some gratitude and avoid playing the role of spoiler. 

Trump can get a major political win here if he has his head screwed on straight and helps orchestrate a new and fair order. He can have some island near the Strait of Hormuz named after him if glory and fame is what he's after.