Comparison of British coup d’etat in 1688 in Iran
What was the consequence of the green coup of British capitalists, which is the modern model for “transition to democracy”? The dissidents became miserable, the working class and peasants even more miserable, the small owners went bankrupt, and most painfully, the Catholics fled. According to Will Durant, only the “capitalist” and “upper middle” classes became prosperous, because “the revolution was started by the great nobility and by the second-rate nobility
The owner of the land was successful.
* Finally, what they call “the first modern revolution” and what Iranian reformists consider to be “the bright source of the transition to democracy” happened at the same time as the 100th anniversary of Thomas Hobbes’s birth. These events were not so non-violent and without bloodshed. Greens and Protestants used the opportunity and committed great crimes against dissidents and their intellectual/ideological opponents. They not only burned houses, but also Catholic prayer rooms and places of worship.
The amazing similarity between the year 1688 AD and the year 1388 H can be seen in the same period of time; The similarity between the two soft coups of the capitalists that we said succeeded in England and failed in Iran. After the declaration of tolerance and the rise of religious secularism, the leaders of religious reform (Christian Protestantism), capitalists and some members of parliament agreed on the overthrow of James II’s government in a local pub near London. It is as if it was destined that all the events would take place in the pubs since the rise of the Masons to seize power. The Whig Party (Greens), whose founder was Lord Shaftesbury and whose political theorist was John Locke, operated under the name of the Green Ribbon Club since 1675 with the slogan “Life, Liberty and Property”. According to Clarice Swisher, the Greens, who had lost power in the parliamentary elections due to their political extremism, formed a great political coalition through the Tory Conservative Party and seven influential elites, so that they could take control of the parliament again, but They could not win the elections and thought of a coup. On June 30, 1688, the leaders of the coalition sent an invitation to William Orange, the ruler of the Netherlands, who was James’ son-in-law, and asked him to bring “freedom” to England and attack their country to preserve the “Protestant religion”; A betrayal that no historian has yet explained. At best, Thomas Macaulay calls it “the inglorious elements of the Glorious Revolution” and Will Durant writes with constant regret:
“It was unfortunate that [politicians] of England called a “Dutch army” to save their people; A daughter helps to dethrone her father; An army commander joins the aggressors; And the “national church” participates in overthrowing the king who had confirmed his divine and absolute power; This issue was also a cause of regret that “parliamentary rule” was created by opposition to “religious freedom”. The evils that these men and women committed were buried with their bones, but the good that they caused remained and grew after them. By establishing oligarchy, they laid the foundation of democracy.”
But contrary to Durant’s idea, these “evils” were not hidden in the graveyard of history and a real democracy never came out of it. Everyone called this work “the great betrayal of the English reformers”, which became the source of the birth of the philosophy of capitalist coups in the world. In response to the invitation of the leaders of the Green Party, Protestant leaders and Jewish bankers, William wrote that he would attack England to revive the Great Charter (Magna Carta); A charter that was approved in 1215 AD by the nobles’ rebellion so that the king recognized the “rights of the nobles” and the “capitalist system”; Although his secret motive was to annex England to the Netherlands and create a Protestant empire against Catholic France. Gradually, an unwritten agreement emerged, in which Jewish bankers played a central role in its realization. Their wealth was the economic support of the “Green Coup” from the beginning, but only on the condition of fulfilling their wishes. The capitalists gave William 200,000 pounds to take over England, and in return, William agreed to “leave the merchants and landlords free to rule over England.” The ruling aristocracy will direct foreign policy to commercial interests, and merchants and industrialists will be freed from administrative regulations more than before.
Therefore, the rebellion of the nobles in the 13th century reached the coup of the Protestant capitalists in the 18th century. In addition to the Netherlands (the European capital of Zionism in the contemporary era), which was ruled by William of Orange, the governments of Germany, Spain, Austria, etc., which also called themselves Catholics, joined the reformers to overthrow the Catholic King, and even the Pope, this holy father. Christians approved the coup of British capitalists with the support of the attack of the Dutch army by saying “there is no obstacle”. 300 years later, the same role of the Pope was repeated in the velvet coups of 1989 in Eastern Europe, and in particular, the head of the French spy service owes the collapse of the Polish regime to the association of Pope John Paul II with the policies of the capitalist bloc.
“Bloodless coups” in different cities of England were defined as part of the reformers’ puzzle in this operational plan. Hence, as Maurice Ashley describes, “William was from the beginning committed to a bloodless success in England.” How? The puzzles were carefully put together and a massive propaganda war was launched to realize a “glorious revolution”. Greens sang a song in praise of Prince William. William’s statement number 1 addressed to the British people about the necessity of establishing the “rule of law” and reviving the “free parliament” was circulated in the streets, although he did not allow free elections to be held after the capture of the country! In the memoirs of Serjan Rasbi, the result of this amazing propaganda war is described:
It is very strange that neither nobles nor common people seem to be very afraid or worried about this “invasion”. They said that the Prince would only come to preserve the “Protestant” religion and that no harm would come to England.
The people had not consented to the occupation of their country by William, and this comprehensive propaganda war was the program of the coup agents with the aim of neutralizing the British resistance to William’s entry. Even the majority of people didn’t think that this Dutch ruler was planning to reign over England, and until his campaign, it was not even clear to the English whether he would keep the King (James) on the throne of power or not; In the event that William wrote in a secret letter to high-ranking army officers, “James’ victory means the enslavement of the nation” and considered the military’s turning their backs on the government as loyalty to their country. Historians believe that if William had the slightest hint of overthrowing the monarchy of the time in his public statements, “he would have divided the nation” and the possibility of the failure of the coup d’état would have disappeared. When on November 5, 1688, the 38-year-old William arrived on the coast of England with his numerous soldiers, a series of bloodless coups by agents of the Green Party (Whig) and the Tory Party started from the city of York, and within 10 days, they took control of most of the important cities. It was taken out of the hands of the central government and by suppressing the scattered resistances and rebellions, the situation was under William’s control five weeks later.
Finally, what they call “the first modern revolution” and what Iranian reformers consider “the bright source of the transition to democracy” happened at the same time as the 100th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Hobbes. These events were not so non-violent and without bloodshed. Greens and Protestants used the opportunity and committed great crimes against dissidents and their intellectual/ideological opponents. They not only burned the houses, even the prayer halls and places of worship of the Catholics, looted people’s property and caused a lot of destruction. The brutality and wickedness of the Green Lanterns, the creators of the glorious revolution, reached the point where Maurice Ashley writes that the royal army could no longer control the situation and people were extremely afraid of their lives and property. The expansion of this chaos also endangered the security of the capitalists and nobles, and for this reason, William tried to provide security temporarily in the first step. At the same time, James II, who was still in England, proposed that according to the laws and to get rid of this chaotic situation, a “free election to form a legal parliament” would be held, but William, contrary to his promises, did not hold any election to form a parliament. Azad refused and finally James fled to the court of Louis XIV in France on December 21, 1688. After the victory of the coup d’état, John Locke also returned to the country with a ship from Holland on Queen Mary (William’s wife), although with a new nickname: Locke is called “Prophet of the Glorious Revolution”.
Although the reformists in Iran never clearly discuss the history of the origin and the development of their political/philosophical ideas such as secularism and modern government, but political secularism gained power at this historical point and here, the first government of the modern era in the form of a royal regime. Head estimate: In February 1689, when William III and Queen Mary ascended the throne. Until then, there was no political philosophy about the “popular legitimacy of the government” that could be the theoretical support of a new system. Therefore, the “legitimacy of the new king” provoked a historical debate among British politicians. William was not English, he was a foreign invader and usurper of the government, who certainly could not claim the “divine right” to reign, nor could he call the parliament to appoint the king’s successor based on the “legal laws” of that time, but the invading king, contrary to the explicit text of the laws of the time, And without holding free elections, he himself chose the members of a “contractual parliament” which, according to the consensus of historians, was “legally invalid.”
Those who helped William to usurp their country, that is, Protestant capitalists and Jewish nobles, formed the members of this illegal parliament in Westminster, and when that assembly saw that the monarchy could not be changed, it changed the theory: The “divine right” of the monarchy turned into the “human right” of the monarchy so that they could bring a Dutch invader to the throne and give him “legitimacy”; Legitimacy of the people! The Green Party (Whigs) argued that there was no way to continue the hereditary monarchy, because James (the previous king) had gone to France and would not accept returning to England. Secondly, they believed that if the parliament elects the king, the position of monarchy will never go out of their control, especially since no one except the owner and capitalist class has the right to vote, and John Locke theorized this electoral policy well. Therefore, the political and economic interests of capitalists will always be secured. Such a process happened by ignoring all the current laws and customs of England at that time, and due to its illegal nature, 400 church priests refused to swear loyalty to the new king. The invading king took his legitimacy from the assembly of Protestant capitalists, but liberal historians say that the parliament made him king by virtue of his legal and popular dignity; Just when there was no official and legal parliament! It was another bitter irony of history that the theory of “political secularism” arose through a capitalist coup in England to justify the monarchy of an aggressor Dutch ruler. In fact, “the will of the capitalists” replaced “the will of the people” and of course they forged the name of “popular legitimacy” (earthly/secular legitimacy) for it.
What was the consequence of the green coup of British capitalists, which is the modern model for “transition to democracy”? The dissidents were miserable, the working class and peasants were even more miserable, the small owners went bankrupt, and most painfully, the Catholics fled. In the words of Will Durant, only the “capitalist” and “upper middle” classes became prosperous, because “the revolution was started by the great nobility and was brought to fruition by the second-rate nobility of the land owner.” Therefore, it was not possible to consolidate the power of the new king without fulfilling the demands of the “Protestant nobles” and granting privileges to the “Jewish bankers”, because they carried out all the work from the beginning of planning the green coup to the coronation of the usurping king and had an unwritten agreement with him. 300 years later, in the velvet coups of 1989, a similar process occurred, and according to the confession of Adam Michnik, one of the leaders of the Polish coup, everyone became prosperous there, except for the downtrodden and the oppressed. Through this coup, “sex trade” became a profitable business for Jewish capitalists and many poor Polish women were sent to Israel to work as “sex slaves” in brothels of the Zionist regime; Like the calamity that they brought upon poor and unfortunate English women three centuries ago. They were the first victims of “human trafficking”. These ominous results arise from the nature and destiny of capitalist coups that continuously expand the black sex and its destructive consequences in various forms; As if the Netherlands was the source of aggression against the British in the Green Coup of England, in the Velvet Coup of Eastern Europe it became a transit route for the export of Polish women (sex slaves) for prostitution to Israel, and in 2008, it resumed its old role as one of the political partners. The economy of the green coup played in Iran; Although the last performance of the Dutch remained in their minds like a full-scale political scandal and historical tragedy.
