Sir Thomas More vs. Ron Paul and the Bloggers

One of the more comforting myths perpetrated in the latter part of the 20th century was of the sainted purity and integrity of Sir Thomas More. Robert Bolt’s excellent play, and the brilliant portrayal of More by Paul Scofield on the screen, moved many to almost weep when More lost his head for his integrity. But it is good to ponder the true facts.

And added to the true facts is the poigniancy for bloggers that More was one of the first persecutors of bloggers in “modern times” if we take that to mean the period from 1500 unto the present. But More’s persecution of the heretics and the “heretical writings” he so furiously fulminated against are a little more than the “soft Fascism” of the Malaysian state, who calls Nathan Tan in for a 3-day “consultation” with the police for writing the same kinds of criticisms of the local police chief that Silverwolf reads in his own county newspaper. Tan, I think, was even invited to lunch by his interrogator, as if they were business associates out on a free company junket Likewise the Saudi blogger Al-Farhan “invited in for a consultation with the police” was equally probably just spoken to. (Correction: Al-Farhan was incarcerated by the Egyptian Fascists.) The visibility of the internet has made some governments more courteous.

Had these bloggers come up against Sir Thomas More, their fate would have been a little harsher. For More not only persued “heretical writings” like the DEA persues cannabis caches, but he had a real liking for burning those who views he felt were heretical. How many poor wretches that he sent to the flames did this miscreant describe as “well and truly burned”. In some cases, like Pettit’s involvement with the promulgation of Tinsdale’s translation of the Bible, Tinsdale’s arguments were so obtuse and intellectual that there was very little chance the man in the street would be influenced in his religious beliefs at all by Tinsdale’s work. But bring Tinsdale’s printed works into England and you would be burned at the stake.(However, Pettit was lucky. He merely died in the Tower of London). Drug smugglers and champions of free speech should keep that in mind when they praise Saint Thomas More.

What is amazing is that some of these heretics like Thomas Bilney, had recanted their heretical beliefs to save themselves from being burned, but then, like a drug addict returning to his drug, they had readopted their old views knowing full well that, almost certainly, to do so was to get themselves roasted. And all over esoteric points of church doctrine that no modern Christian in America would ever get so worked up about that he would shun his neighbor because of his doctrinal interpretation of Christianity. Such has been the calmative effect of the American separation of church and state, and its Jeffersonian Constitution, on the fanaticism of Christianity that gripped it in Europe for such a protracted period.

Alan Watts well makes the point that we must understand that to men like More, heresy was viewed as such a heinous threat to the whole social structure and stability of society, that to burn a few people to stop it was considered nothing. Indeed, compared to the eternal damnation of the soul, the few minutes of writhing, (or 45 minutes for one wretch, thanks to the wonderful Sir Thomas) was for most eminent divines of the day a small price to pay. Listen to the archbishop’s speeches, the most moderate of her prosecutors, in G.B. Shaw’s  play “Saint Joan”. The few moments of discomfort she will suffer, terrible as they may be, he says, are nothing compared to the eternal flames her soul will suffer… and so everything was honky-dorey, go ahead and burn the young girl.

Silverwolf finds it interesting too, that all these heretical writings were mostly being printed in Holland, in places like Antwerp, and then being smuggled into England in cargo packages with secret markings. Just as for 40 years cannabis users have viewed Holland as an island of sanity in an insane world, given drug-warrior miscreants like Clinton, Chirac, and Thatcher-Major-Blair, so 500 years ago people were free to read pretty much what they wanted in Holland (and Bruges and Cologne), but would get burned like the Lollards in the Lollard pit in Merry England.(And it’s interesting that Libertarian Holland has a lower use of cannabis in its high school students that Britain or the USA. One Dutch student said that most of the people coming to Amersterdam for the dope were American tourists. Once again the Dutch traders supply what the market wants and go laughing all the way to the bank. Well, good luck to them. Holland had long been a refuge for the misfits and bloggers of the world, like Spinoza, and they deserve some reward for their True Liberalism (in the Misesian sense). )Once smuggled in, these writings were sold like dope in the back streets of certain parts of the City of London, and for the right price, and with the right connection, one could get a copy of Tinsdale, or who knew what doctrinal heresy. One can only image the supressed excitiment, the susurrus of their baited breath as they rushed to their privys and un-secreted the copy of Tinsdale they had sown into their garments, and read with ogrerish passion his heretical blasphemics. What fun they must have had. Like a thirteen year-old with his copy of Playboy in the outhouse. Talk about prohibition making things desirable. These people were willing to be burned in the Lollards pit to own and read literature that the average American would probably toss  directly in the burn barrel if it showed up in the mail.

On the other side of the universe in tolerance, when compared to Sir Thomas More, is Rep. Ron Paul, a fierce champion of non-censorship and free speech in the tradition of Alan Dershowitz and Lord Bertrand Russell. Ron Paul’s opposition to internet regulation and his liberal views on free speech  have been often stated and often proven by his actual votes (for example his no-vote which he said would have been a “No” vote, had he been present in Congress instead of campaigning for President, on the “Radicalization Speech” Bill that Congressman Waxman admitted publicly he didn’t even bother to read before voting “Yes” on it because it was on a list of “non-controversial” bills. Waxman, in his public questioning in Los Angeles recently ,even thought that there had been no votes against it, whereas there were 6 no-votes. This Bill, if Silverwolf’s interpretation is correct, would outlaw legal and non-violent union strikes, or boycotts like the Civil Rights Movement of the ’60s employed, to rectify social wrongs, for it outlaws the use of “force…to effect social change”. Well, isn’t that what a strike or a boycott is trying to do? To force the unjust employer or the public transport to effect a social change that is sorely needed. Under this bill, someone like Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, or Ghandi could be “monitored”, even though their speech still falls within the Constitutional limits of the freedom of speech.  The Liberals want us to think this “monitoring” is somehow healthy, but Jeffersonians well know “inciting to riot” when they hear it, and they do not need another level of bureaucrats, sucking up federal salaries and pensions, thanks to Liberals like Jane Harman, and Rep. Waxman, who doesn’t even bother to read the Bills he votes for. Disgraceful!)

No, no American will be burned or have their writings or blogs burned in the Lollard-pits of government censorship if Ron Paul is elected President.

 Sir Thomas More. A Man for All Seasons?

Silverwolf sure hopes not.

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww — Silverwolf

Tags: Alan Watts, censorship, Henry Waxman, Nathan Tan, Ron Paul, Sir Thomas Moore, Tinsdale