Shakespeare's Typology & Oligarchy

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
The Venetian Conspiracy

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
Address delivered to the ICLC Conference near Wiesbaden, Germany, Easter Sunday, 1981; (appeared in Campaigner, September, 1981)

Friedrich Schiller and William Shakespeare both analyze the manipulative methods employed by the Venetian secret intelligence establishment; both considered Venetian intelligence one of their most formidable enemies. Much of Schiller’s writing is dedicated in various ways to fighting the Venice- Genoa- Geneva combination that had held the financial reins of King Philip II of Spain.

Schiller’s direct treatment of Venice is a fragment of a novel titled Der Geisterseher (“The Ghost Seer”). Its central character is a Sicilian charlatan, expert at bringing the spirits of the departed back into the world for the thrill-seeking nobility at seances. This Sicilian charlatan is a figure for a whole class of Venetian intelligence operatives, like Count Cagliostro, the mountebank who claimed to be the reincarnation of the leading Mason of ancient Egypt. Another of this breed was Emanuel Swedenborg. After Schiller’s time, this category swelled considerably with theosophists like Madame Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Henry Steel Olcott, and with that archapparitionist Rudolph Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophy movement and the Waldorf schools.

In Schiller’s tale, a young German prince in Venice for the grand tour is subjected to a series of manipulations by a sinister, masked Armenian, who informs him, before the fact, of the death of a close relative hundreds of miles away. At a gambling den, a young Venetian patrician picks a quarrel with the prince, who fears for his life until he is ushered into one of the chambers of the Council of Ten, where the offending patrician is strangled before his eyes. He comes into contact with the Sicilian mountebank, and then spends weeks attempting to ascertain the identity of a mysterious beauty he has seen at church.

He begins to frequent a semi-secret free-thinking club, called the Bucentoro after the golden ship used by the doge on occasions of state. At least one cardinal is also a member of the Bucentoro. He takes to gambling, loses heavily, and contracts immense debts. In the meantime, rumors are spread at his Protestant court that he has become a Catholic, which leads to his repudiation by his entire family. At the end of the fragment, his life has been ruined, and his death is imminent.

Shakespeare’s “Othello, The Moor of Venice” is a more finished analysis of the same technique. It was written and performed shortly after 1603, when the Venetians and Genoese had acquired vast powers in England through the accession of their puppet James I to the throne.

Othello is a Moor, hired out to Venice as a mercenary, and at the apex of his power, having just won a victory over the Turkish fleet attacking Cyprus. He enjoys the full confidence of the Senate, and has just married Desdemona, the daughter of a patrician. Othello, the “erring barbarian,” is however something of a dumb giant: his proficiency in the arts of war is unmatched, but his emotional makeup tends decidedly toward the naive and infantile. He has no real insight into affairs of state, or into psychology. Above all, he is superstitious and has a propensity for jealousy.

All of these weaknesses are systematically exploited by “honest Iago,” a member of Othello’s staff who is determined to destroy him. Iago is the figure of the Venetian intelligence officer, an expert in what he calls “double knavery” – the art of manipulation. He sets out to destroy Othello using an accurate psychological profile of the Moor, and exploiting above all Othello’s naive willingness to trust his “honest Iago.” Iago’s modus operandi is to:

Make the Moor thank me, love me, and reward me,
For making him egregiously an ass
And practicing upon his peace and quit
Even to madness.

Iago uses his throwaway agent, the dupe Roderigo, for financing and services. He sets up scenes where he cons one participant with one story, briefs another participant with a different story, brings them together in a controlled environment, and exploits the resulting fireworks for his overall strategy. He sets up a fight between Roderigo and the drunken Cassio that leads to the wounding of Montano by Cassio, who is ousted as chief lieutenant by Othello. After this, he manipulates Desdemona’s naive desire to help Cassio regain his post into prima facie evidence that Desdemona is an adulteress. Iago is then able to goad Othello all the way to killing Desdemona and, finally, himself.

At the center of the play are epistemological questions of truth and proof. In Act 3, Iago drives Othello wild with innuendoes about Desdemona’s alleged adultery, and makes him commit to the murder of Cassio, all without the slightest shred of proof. What Othello then regards as definitive proof of adultery, sufficient to motivate the murder of Desdemona, is a handkerchief which Iago obtains and plants on Cassio. This handkerchief is an object of deep emotional and superstitious importance for Othello, as it had been given by his father to his mother. It had been his first love token for Desdemona. When he sees it in the hands of Cassio, he is ready to kill.

Iago is well aware of Othello’s epistemological weakness. When he first obtains the handkerchief, he gloats:

I will in Cassio’s lodging lose this napkin,
And let him find it. Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ; this may do something.
Shortly thereafter, Othello demands certainty that Desdemona is betraying him. What would be definitive proof, Iago asks?
Would you, the supervisor, grossly gape upon –
Behold her tupp’d?
This kind of certainty, he says, is impossible to obtain, but he offers an inductive- deductive substitute:
But yet, I say,
If imputation and strong circumstances,
Which lead directly to the door of truth,
Will give you satisfaction, you might have’t.

In the final scene, we can agree with Iago’s wife Emilia that Othello is a gull and a dolt, a “murderous coxcomb … as ignorant as dirt.” But the lesson is that not only Othello, but all those who love not wisely but too well, who, “being wrought” and “perplexed in the extreme,” are potential victims of Venetian intelligence.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Thx for directing my attention to this.

Further down he discusses the Venetian connection to the foundation of the Jesuits and the Protestants, especially Luther. Farrell discusses that the Venetian Cardinal was promoting the Council of Trent and urging the formation of the Jesuits at the same time he was encouraging the Calvinists. So here, we can see the Calvinists (such as the Church of Scotland / Presbyterians), the Lutherans, and the Church of England as contrived little flocks of controlled opposition.

Also interesting is the claim that the old Romans fled to Venice, and that later the Venetians were intent on setting up a New Rome.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I hope I'm not stealing Joe's thunder here, but he has an analysis of Othello in the works, where he claims that Othello is a type for Josephus, and that Iago represents the revenge of Yahweh and the Jews against the Romans. This is fascinating if Venice, as an invader of Britain (through their puppet James I), could be viewed as an analog to Rome the invader of Judea.

But, without taking the time to read Tarpley's book: what is the evidence that James I was a puppet of the Venetians? How did Venice benefit from this? Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but it feels like this might be a Larouchite red herring from the bad old days when Tarpley was affiliated with Larouche.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
a
I. This is fascinating if Venice, as an invader of Britain (through their puppet James I), could be viewed as an analog to Rome the invader of Judea.

But, without taking the time to read Tarpley's book: what is the evidence that James I was a puppet of the Venetians? How did Venice benefit from this? Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but it feels like this might be a Larouchite red herring from the bad old days when Tarpley was affiliated with Larouche.
Tarpley? Lets not poison the well but just look at what's said;
How the Venetian System Was Transplanted Into England

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
New Federalist, June 3, 1996

Under the impact of the War of the League of Cambrai, the Venetian oligarchy realized the futility of attempting a policy of world domination from the tiny base of a city-state among the lagoons of the northern Adriatic. As was first suggested by the present writer in 1981, the Venetian oligarchy (especially its “giovani” faction around Paolo Sarpi) responded by transferring its family fortunes (fondi), philosophical outlook, and political methods into such states as England, France, and the Netherlands. Soon the Venetians decided that England (and Scotland) was the most suitable site for the New Venice, the future center of a new, world-wide Roman Empire based on maritime supremacy. Success of this policy required oligarchical domination and the degradation of the political system by wiping out any Platonic humanist opposition. Also because of the new route to the old world around Africa had been found, and the opening up of the new world.

Henry VIII was King of England between 1509 and 1547. His accession to the throne coincided with the outbreak of the War of the League of Cambrai, in which most European states, including France, the Holy Roman Empire (Germany), Spain, and the papacy of Pope Julius II della Rovere joined together in a combination that bid fair to annihilate Venice and its oligarchy. The League of Cambrai was the world war that ushered in the modern era. Henry VIII attracted the attention of the Venetian oligarchy when he – alone among the major rulers of Europe – maintained a pro-Venetian position during the crisis years of 1509-1510, just as Venice was on the brink of destruction. Henry VIII was for a time the formal ally of Venice and Pope Julius. The Venetian oligarchy became intrigued with England.

Three times within the span of 25 years the English population was thus coerced into changing their religion under the threat of capital punishment. Three times, the supposedly eternal verities taught by the village parson were turned upside down, clearly because of dynastic ambition and raison d’état. The moral, psychological, and intellectual destruction involved in this process was permanent and immense.

James I was a leading theoretician of the divine right of kings. He delivered long speeches to the parliament, telling the wealthy latifundists and the Puritan merchant oligarchs of London that they could as little tell him what to do as they could tell God what to do. Policy, said James, was “king’s craft” and thus “far above their reach and capacity.” James I was an enthusiastic supporter of Paolo Sarpi in Sarpi’s 1606 struggle against the Papal Interdict. James I did this in part because he thought he had received his crown directly from God, without any mediation by the Pope. Venetian influence at the Stuart court was accordingly very great. Sarpi even talked of retiring to England.
James was also an occultist. Shakespeare left London not long after the coming of James, and died after unwisely sitting down to drinks with the Aristotelian hack Ben Jonson.

James’s feeble pro-Spanish appeasement policy bitterly disappointed Paolo Sarpi, Cecil’s boss and the leading Venetian intelligence chief of the era. James made peace with Spain in 1604, ending 19 years of war. Cecil then tried to induce James into an anti-Spanish policy with a planned provocation – Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot of 1605. Sarpi schemed to unleash the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) as an apocalyptic confrontation between Protestant and Catholic Europe, and he wanted England in the fray. James’s adviser, Sir Francis Bacon of the Cecil family, urged James to enter the war against Spain and Austria, but James first attempted to mediate the conflict and then did nothing. Charles I was equally disappointing: He married the Catholic Princess Henrietta Maria of France, and helped France to defeat the French Calvinists or Huguenots – a Venetian asset – in their stronghold of LaRochelle.

So what had the Puritan Revolution accomplished, beyond killing 500,000 persons? First, Cromwell had founded the British Empire. Between 1651 and 1660 he had added 200 warships to the British Navy, more than the early Stuarts had managed to build during their 40-year tenure. Cromwell’s war with the Dutch (1652-1654), which hardly made sense for a Puritan, made plenty of sense in the light of the 1,700 Dutch ships captured. Cromwell set up a convoy system for English merchant vessels, including those bringing coal from Newcastle. The basis of British naval domination was thus laid. After making peace with Holland, Cromwell made war on Spain, in exact conformity with Venetian requirements. Cromwell conquered: Jamaica, St. Helena, Surinam, Dunkirk, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (in Canada). In addition, he established the status of the Portuguese Empire as a satellite and auxiliary of London. It was under Cromwell that English ships established a permanent presence in the Mediterranean; in his last years, he was considering the conquest of Gibraltar to facilitate this stationing. Jamaica, a center of the slave trade, stood out in what was called the Western Design – making war on Spain in the New World.

The Anglo-Venetians decided that they were fed up with the now-Catholic, pro-French and wholly useless Stuart dynasty. Representatives of some of the leading oligarchical families signed an invitation to the Dutch King, William of Orange, and his Queen Mary, a daughter of James II. John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough, was typical of James’ former supporters who now went over to support William and Mary. William landed and marched on London. This is called by the British the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688; in reality, it consolidated the powers and prerogatives of the oligarchy, which were expressed in the Bill of Rights of 1689. No taxes could be levied, no army raised, and no laws suspended without the consent of the oligarchy in Parliament. Members of Parliament were guaranteed immunity for their political actions and free speech. Soon, ministers could not stay in office for long without the support of a majority of Parliament. Parliament was supreme over the monarch and the state church. At the same time, seats in Parliament were now bought and sold in a de facto market. The greater the graft to be derived from a seat, the more a seat was worth. Within a few years after the Glorious Revolution there was a Bank of England and a national debt.

When George I ascended the throne in 1714, he knew he was a Doge, the primus inter pares of an oligarchy.

The regime that took shape in England after 1688 was the most perfect copy of the Venetian oligarchy that was ever produced. Tarpley

Central banks telling timeline;
bank of Amsterdam 1609,
the bank of Hamburg, just up the coast in 1619;
Sweden 1656
London 1689, made possible by the bank of Amsterdam putting in William of orange from Holland on the English throne.
page 58 'secrets of the FR.' by Mullins.

In Parke Godwin’s Sherwood, the Fighting Man is hidden away after the Battle of Hastings by an English warrior, and brought out years later as the stirring standard for a significant battle, but in reality it seems that William the Conqueror sent it as tribute to Pope Alexander II, perhaps in thanks for the Papal banner and ring Alexander conferred on William before the battle. From there it seems to have vanished into the dusty recesses of Vatican archives, never to be seen again.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I see that Tarpley is still standing behind this work and posting it at his website, even though it was completed under Larouche. That's a good sign: I generally feel that Tarpley is very trustworthy & level-headed.

But, this excerpt doesn't look to me like proof that James I of England was a Venetian puppet. On the contrary, it says that Paolo Sarpi couldn't get James to attack Spain.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Funny I just finished reading this chapter, see this mentioning Churchill's 'nominal' ancestor:

The Anglo-Venetians decided that they were fed up with the now-Catholic, pro-French and wholly useless Stuart dynasty. Representatives of some of the leading oligarchical families signed an invitation to the Dutch King, William of Orange, and his Queen Mary, a daughter of James II. John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough, was typical of James’ former supporters who now went over to support William and Mary. William landed and marched on London. This is called by the British the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688; in reality, it consolidated the powers and prerogatives of the oligarchy, which were expressed in the Bill of Rights of 1689. No taxes could be levied, no army raised, and no laws suspended without the consent of the oligarchy in Parliament. Members of Parliament were guaranteed immunity for their political actions and free speech. Soon, ministers could not stay in office for long without the support of a majority of Parliament. Parliament was supreme over the monarch and the state church. At the same time, seats in Parliament were now bought and sold in a de facto market. The greater the graft to be derived from a seat, the more a seat was worth. Within a few years after the Glorious Revolution there was a Bank of England and a national debt. When George I ascended the throne in 1714, he knew he was a Doge, the primus inter pares of an oligarchy.
Address : <http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/how-the-venetian-system-was-transplanted-into-england/>

From earlier in the chapter, this alters my picture a bit regarding the Tudors, at least Henry VII. Looks like I need to make a tweak to Black Robbed Magic as well to account for the influence of Venice.

The English defeat in the Hundred Years’ War (1453) left English society in a shambles. This was the setting for the oligarchical chaos and civil war known as the Wars of the Roses, which pitted the House of York with its symbol the white rose against the House of Lancaster with its red rose. Both groupings derived from quarrels among the seven sons of the pro-Venetian Edward III, who had started the wars with France. The Wars of the Roses, fought between 1455 and 1485, brought English society to the point of breakdown.

From this crisis England was saved by the coming of Henry Tudor, the Earl of Richmond, who became king as Henry VII. It was under Henry VII that England began to become a modern state and to participate in the Renaissance progress associated with Medici Florence and the France of Louis XI. The precondition for the revival of England was the suppression of the pro-Venetian oligarchy, the barons. Conveniently, these had been decimated by their own handiwork of civil war. Henry VII set himself up as the Big Policeman against the oligarchs. Henry VII established for the central government an effective monopoly of police and military powers. One of the reasons for the great ineptitude demonstrated by both sides in the English Civil War of the 1640’s is that under the Tudors the nobility and gentry had largely forgotten how to wage civil war.

Like that of Louis XI, Henry VII’s policy was based on an alliance of the crown with the urban trading and productive classes against the latifundist barons. Barons were excluded from the state administration, which relied rather on city merchants who were much more likely to be loyal to the king. Since the oligarchs routinely intimidated local courts, Henry VII gave new prominence to the court of the Star Chamber, a special royal court designed to impose central authority on the barons. The private armies of oligarchs along with other bandits and pirates were liquidated.

Henry VII was an active dirigist, promoting trading companies to expand overseas commerce. Under the Tudor state, England existed as a nation, with relative internal stability and a clear dynastic succession.

Henry VII’s suppression of the oligarchs displeased Venice. Venice also did not like Henry’s policy of alliance with Spain, secured by the marriage of his heir to Catherine of Aragon. Henry VII in fact sought good relations with both France and Spain. The Venetians wanted England to become embroiled with both France and Spain. Venice was also fundamentally hostile to the modern nation-state, which Henry was promoting in England. When Henry VII’s son Henry VIII turned out to be a murderous pro-Venetian psychotic and satyr, the Venetians were able to re-assert their oligarchical system.​
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
When George I ascended the throne in 1714, he knew he was a Doge, the primus inter pares of an oligarchy.

.​
Hi More dots to connect; as we know the venetians had a special relation ship with muslims (as they were paid off by the Muslims not to attack them in the 4th C,) the double cross!, and China...there so called lion
is all the way from china sitting out in front of the main site of power.


In Venice 1310, a Council of Ten was established, becoming the central political body whose members operated in secret. Around 1600, its dominance over the Major Council was considered a threat.

The policies of the Giovani, propagandized by Sarpi and Doge Leonardo Dona’ during the struggle around the popes Interdict, corresponded to a metastasis of Venice’s power and influence through the world. The Venetians and their Genoese Doria-faction associates were busily shifting their family fortunes into more profitable locations, not tied to the fate of what was rapidly becoming a third-rate naval power.

The Venice-Genoa partnership is in evidence first of all in the banking side of the Spanish looting of the New World. Venice got control of the silver coming from the Americas, shifting to a silver standard from the previous gold standard in the middle of the sixteenth century.

Venice was extremely liquid at this time, with about 14 million ducats in coins in reserve around 1600. At about the same time, incredibly, the Venetian regime had completed the process of paying off its entire public debt, leaving the state with no outstanding obligations of any type. This overall highly liquid situation is a sure sign that flights of capital are underway, in the direction of the countries singled out by the Giovani as future partners or victims: France, England, and the Netherlands.

The Genoese around the St. George’s Bank received virtually the entire world’s circulating gold stocks. The two cities teamed up starting around 1579 at the Piacenza Fair, a prototype of a clearing house for European banks, which soon had a turnover of 20 million ducats a year. This fair was a precursor of the post-Versailles Bank for International Settlements.

In 1603, Venice and Genoa assumed direction of the finances of Stuart England, and imparted their characteristic method to the British East India Company. It is also this tandem that was present at the creation of the great Amsterdam Bank, the financial hinge of the seventeenth century, and of the Dutch East India Company. Venice and Genoa were also the midwives for the great financial power growing up in Geneva, which specialized in controlling the French public debt and in fostering the delphic spirits of the Enlightenment.

The Venetians, in cooperation with the restored – that is, degenerated – Medici interests, began a major move into maritime and other types of insurance. These ventures live on today in the biggest business enterprise associated with Venice, the Assicurazioni Generali Venezia, one of the biggest if not the biggest insurance and real estate holdings in the world.

In 1600, the Dutch joined forces with the Muslim Hituese on Ambon Island in an anti-Portuguese alliance, in return for which the Dutch were given the sole right to purchase spices from Hitu.[12] Dutch control of Ambon was achieved when the Portuguese surrendered their fort in Ambon to the Dutch-Hituese alliance.

The Dutch East India Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC, "United East India Company") was a chartered company established in 1602, when the States General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out trade activities in Asia. It is often considered to have been the first multinational corporation in the world [2] and it was the first company to issue stock.[3] It was a powerful company, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[4] negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.[5] At its height, the VOC was valued at USD7 trillion in 2015 dollars.

The VOC traded throughout Asia. Ships coming into Batavia from the Netherlands carried supplies for VOC settlements in Asia. Silver and copper from Japan were used to trade with India and China for silk, cotton, porcelain, and textiles. These products were either traded within Asia for the coveted spices or brought back to Europe.

The Company supported Christian missionaries and traded modern technology with China and Japan.

A more peaceful VOC trade post on Dejima, an artificial island off the coast of Nagasaki, was for more than two hundred years the only place where Europeans were permitted to trade with Japan.[24]

When the VOC tried to military force Ming dynasty China to open up to Dutch trade, the Chinese defeated the Dutch in a war over the Penghu islands from 1623-1624 and forced the VOC to abandon Penghu for Taiwan. The Chinese defeated the VOC again at the Battle of Liaoluo Bay in.

The writing was on the wall. Other companies, like the French East India Company and the Danish East India Company also started to make inroads on the Dutch system. The VOC therefore closed the heretofore flourishing open pepper emporium of Bantam by a treaty of 1684 with the Sultan. However, the importance of these traditional commodities in the Asian-European trade was diminishing rapidly at the time. The military outlays that the VOC needed to make to enhance its monopoly were not justified by the increased profits of this declining trade.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Loren,

Thanks for posting all of this. "In 1603, Venice and Genoa assumed direction of the finances of Stuart England, and imparted their characteristic method to the British East India Company." OK, that explains why James I might be viewed as a puppet, or at least part of an alliance.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Great job again Loren,

I remember having seen this business with the flag origin somewhere, and it had fallen off my radar screen. And now the ties to Venice seem to really connect most all the missing dots as you say. It seems that when one uses the phrase, "All roads lead to Rome" that the meaning of Venice should be taken into account as in 'New Rome'.

Too bad that Tarpley doesn't provide his references, or do you know anything different?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Hi Rick,

Tarpley's book "against oligarchy" is a collection of papers & speeches. Some are better documented than others.

This one has notes & a big bibliography:

http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/the-role-of-the-venetian-oligarchy/
hi rich and jerry

That's why I bought lots of book on Venice to cross R .. What do you want to check. that I could look for.?

but this key stuff got me started. like the book tragedy and hope the old stuff gets out.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member

All roads lead two Rome" that the meaning of Venice-China-UN should be taken into account as in 'New Rome'.

Where the Chinese emperor ruled over “all under heaven.” the world leader comes form the holy land as Caesar world say. now they got the sky covered.

The color scheme of the veil in the 'holy of holies' was symbolic. Blue represented the heavens, while red or crimson represented the earth. Purple, a combination of the two colors, represents a meeting of the heavens and the earth. The veil of tekhelet (blue), purple, and crimson and fine linen (2 Chr. 3:14; compare Exodus 26:33). It had no windows (1 Kings 8:12) and was considered the dwelling-place of the "name" of God.

Kissinger in his new book 'world order'; pays particular attention to China and goes to great lengths to distill the traditional Chinese worldview, which posited that the country was not one power center among many but the “sole sovereign government of the world,” where the Chinese emperor ruled over “all under heaven.” According to Kissinger, the rise of China in the twenty-first century comes with refrains of these traditional views, as Beijing searches for a synthesis between its ancient tradition and its new role “as 
a contemporary great power on the Westphalian model.”
 

Attachments

Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Thx for directing my attention to this.

Further down he discusses the Venetian connection to the foundation of the Jesuits and the Protestants, especially Luther. So here, we can see the Calvinists (such as the Church of Scotland / Presbyterians), the Lutherans, and the Church of England as contrived little flocks of controlled opposition.

Also interesting is the claim that the old Romans fled to Venice, and that later the Venetians were intent on setting up a New Rome.
AS Plato would say in there play book, the Republic; nothing must be aloud from the grass roots! We must control all parts of the state. To stay in Power. top down only for everything.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Tarpley's take on Plato vs. Aristotle is a little curious to me. He claims that the Venetian oligarchs were driven by Aristotelian tenets versus the (Humanist) Platonism of such as the Florentines. I wasn't really aware that Plato would be considered a Humanist, but it is true that such as the Florentine Medici Humanists were in charge of the papacy from time to time. It seems more to me like the national level Democrats vs. the national level Republicans. Not much difference except in rhetoric.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Tarpley's take on Plato vs. Aristotle is a little curious to me. .
Hi, my take is the Venetian oligarchs great hero and teacher was alexander the Great; and his teacher was Aristotle, it worked for alex the G. it would work for them.

I agree not much diff. between so called humanism, refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism). as it been diff by say marx.

and Aristotelianism with the argument that the highest temporal goods, which are internal to human beings, are actualized through participation in social practices.


Neoplatonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neoplatonism
. Philo, a forerunner of Neoplatonism, translated Judaism into terms of Stoic, Platonic and Neopythagorean elements, and held that God is "supra rational" and can be reached only through "ecstasy", and Philo held that the oracles of God supply the material of moral and religious knowledge.

The earliest Christian philosophers, such as Justin and Athenagoras, who attempted to connect Christianity with Platonism, and the Christian Gnostics of Alexandria, especially Valentinus and the followers of Basilides, also mirrored elements of Neoplatonism, albeit without its rigorous self-consistency.

Italian Renaissance Art: Humanism & Philosophical ...

Renaissance Platonism cannot really be easily considered as a school or even a coherent movement. Unlike humanism or Aristoteleanism
is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the ... in which Platonism stood in opposition to the Aristotelian.

Religious humanism
Other forms
Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

Aristotelianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most famous contemporary Aristotelian philosopher is Alasdair MacIntyre. Especially famous for helping to revive virtue ethics in his book After Virtue, MacIntyre revises Aristotelianism with the argument that the highest temporal goods, which are internal to human beings, are actualized through participation in social practices. He opposes Aristotelianism to the managerial institutions of capitalism and its state, and to rival traditions - including the philosophies of Hume and Nietzsche - that reject its idea of essentially human goods and virtues and instead legitimate capitalism. Therefore, on MacIntyre's account, Aristotelianism is not identical with Western philosophy as a whole; rather, it is "the best theory so far, [including] the best theory so far about what makes a particular theory the best one." Politically and socially, it has been characterized as a newly 'revolutionary Aristotelianism'. This may be contrasted with the more conventional, apolitical and effectively conservative uses of Aristotle by, for example, Gadamer and McDowell. Other important contemporary Aristotelian theorists include Fred D. Miller, Jr. in politics and Rosalind Hursthouse in ethics.

The renaissance of the 12th century saw a major search by European scholars for new learning.

James of Venice, who probably spent some years in Constantinople, translated Aristotle's Posterior Analytics from Greek into Latin in the mid-twelfth century,[12] thus making the complete Aristotelian logical corpus, the Organon, available in Latin for the first time.

Scholars travelled to areas of Europe that once had been under Muslim rule and still had substantial Arabic-speaking populations.

From central Spain, which had come under Christian rule in the eleventh century, scholars produced many of the Latin translations of the 12th century. The most productive of these translators was Gerard of Cremona,[13] (c. 1114–1187), who translated 87 books,[14] which included many of the works of Aristotle such as his Posterior Analytics, Physics, On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, and Meteorology. Michael Scot (c. 1175–1232) translated Averroes' commentaries on the scientific works of Aristotle.[1
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
That's why I bought lots of book on Venice to cross R .. What do you want to check. that I could look for.?
I am very interested in the relationship of Venetians like either the Doge or its Cardinal to:

Calvinists
Jesuits and the Council of Trent
Luther
The Savoys
Congregationalists (Skull and Bones) (British-Israel)
James I and the King James Bible
Henry VIII
Bauer / Rothschilds banking interests
The patricians escape from the 'fall of Rome' to Venice
Early connections to Islam / later to the Turks
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
I am very interested in the relationship of Venetians like either the Doge or its Cardinal to:

The patricians escape from the 'fall of Rome' to Venice
Ravenna is one of three-similarly named contenders for the birth of the third and final Antichrist who enslaves Slovenia (see Ravne na Koroškem)[8]

Ravenna
(Romagnol: Ravêna) is the capital city of the Province of Ravenna in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy. It was the capital city of the Western Roman Empire from 402 until that empire collapsed in 476. so you move to a island near by with lots of salt to sell. Lose Ra and you have venna! And you model yout plan after the;
Phoenicia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The high point of Phoenician culture and sea power is usually placed c. 1200–800 BC. ... Akkadian Empire: c. 2200–2100 BCE: Gutians: c. 2100–2000 BCE:
empire!
just like when things got tough in Greece the rich moved to Italy. etc etc.

By the late 3rd century, the city of Rome no longer served as an effective capital for the Emperor and various cities were used as new administrative capitals. Successive emperors, starting with Constantine, privileged the eastern city of Byzantium, which he had entirely rebuilt after a siege. Later renamed Constantinople, and protected by formidable walls in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, it was to become the largest and most powerful city of Christian Europe in the Early Middle Ages. Since the Crisis of the Third Century, the Empire was intermittently ruled by more than one emperor at once (usually two), presiding over different regions. At first a haphazard form of power sharing, this eventually settled on an East-West administrative division between the Western Roman Empire (centered on Rome, but now usually presided from other seats of power such as Trier, Milan, and especially Ravenna), and the Eastern Roman Empire (with its capital initially in Nicomedia, and later Constantinople). The Latin-speaking west, under dreadful demographic crisis, and the wealthier[citation needed] Greek-speaking east, also began to diverge politically and culturally. Although this was a gradual process, still incomplete when Italy came under the rule of barbarian chieftains in the last quarter of the 5th century, it deepened further afterward, and had lasting consequences for the medieval history of Europe.

The late 400s saw the dissolution of Roman authority in the west, and the last person to hold the title of emperor in the West was deposed in 476 by the general Odoacer. Odoacer ruled as King of Italy for 13 years, but in 489 the Eastern Emperor Zeno sent the Ostrogoth King Theoderic the Great to re-take the Italian peninsula.

After losing the Battle of Verona, Odoacer retreated to Ravenna, where he withstood a siege of three years by Theoderic, until the taking of Rimini deprived Ravenna of supplies. The rich always get out before it gets to bad. get on a ship and move to Venice.

Theoderic took Ravenna in 493, supposedly slew Odoacer with his own hands, and Ravenna became the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy. Theoderic, following his imperial predecessors, also built many splendid buildings in and around Ravenna, including his palace church Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, an Arian cathedral (now Santo Spirito) and Baptistery, and his own Mausoleum just outside the walls.

The last and most enduring immigration into the north of the Italian peninsula, that of the Lombards in 568, left the Eastern Roman Empire a small strip of coast in the current Veneto, including Venice. The Roman/Byzantine territory was organized as the Exarchate of Ravenna, administered from that ancient port and overseen by a viceroy (the Exarch) appointed by the Emperor in Constantinople, but Ravenna and Venice were connected only by sea routes and with the Venetians' isolated position came increasing autonomy. New ports were built, including those at Malamocco and Torcello in the Venetian lagoon. The tribuni maiores, the earliest central standing governing committee of the islands in the Lagoon, dated from c. 568.[14]

The traditional first doge of Venice, Paolo Lucio Anafesto, was actually Exarch Paul, and his successor, Marcello Tegalliano, Paul's magister militum (General: literally, "Master of Soldiers"). In 726 the soldiers and citizens of the Exarchate rose in a rebellion over the iconoclastic controversy at the urging of Pope Gregory II. The Exarch was murdered and many officials put to flight in the chaos. At about this time, the people of the lagoon elected their own leader for the first time, although the relationship of this ascent to the uprisings is not clear. Ursus would become the first of 117 "doges" (doge is the Venetian dialect development of the Latin dux ("leader"); the corresponding word in English is duke, in standard Italian duce.) Whatever his original views, Ursus supported Emperor Leo's successful military expedition to recover Ravenna, sending both men and ships. In recognition, Venice was "granted numerous privileges and concessions" and Ursus, who had personally taken the field, was confirmed by Leo as dux[15] and given the added title of hypatus (Greek for "Consul".)[16]

In 751 the Lombard King Aistulf conquered most of the Exarchate of Ravenna, leaving Venice a lonely and increasingly autonomous Byzantine outpost.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Ravenna is one of three-similarly named contenders for the birth of the third and final Antichrist who enslaves Slovenia (see Ravne na Koroškem)[8]

In 751 the Lombard King Aistulf conquered most of the Exarchate of Ravenna, leaving Venice a lonely and increasingly autonomous Byzantine outpost.
Ravenna480 AD. pic
(Romagnol: Ravêna) is the capital city of the Province of Ravenna in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy. It was the capital city of the Western Roman Empire from 402 until that empire collapsed in 476. so you move to a island near by with lots of salt to sell. Lose Ra and you have venna! Just like when things got tough in Greece the rich moved to Italy. etc etc.

Roman Myth and Literature Aeneas and Anchises
The history of Aeneas was continued by Roman authors. One influential source was the account of Rome's founding in Cato the Elder's Origines.[7] The Aeneas legend was well known in Virgil's day and appeared in various historical works, including the Roman Antiquities of the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus (relying on Marcus Terentius Varro), Ab Urbe Condita by Livy (probably dependent on Quintus Fabius Pictor, fl. 200 BCE), and Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (now extant only in an epitome by Justin).

. He carried with him the Lares and Penates, the statues of the household gods of Troy, and transplanted them to Italy.

In 751 the Lombard King Aistulf conquered most of the Exarchate of Ravenna, leaving Venice a lonely and increasingly autonomous Byzantine outpost. During this period, the seat of the local Byzantine governor (the "duke/dux", later "doge"), was situated in Malamocco. Settlement on the islands in the lagoon probably increased in correspondence with the Lombard conquest of other Byzantine territories as refugees sought asylum in the lagoon city. In 775/776 the episcopal seat of Olivolo (Helipolis) was created. During the reign of duke Agnello Particiaco (811–827) the ducal seat moved from Malamocco to the highly protected Rialto, the current location of Venice. The monastery of St. Zachary and the first ducal palace and basilica of St. Mark, as well as a walled defense (civitatis murus) between Olivolo and Rialto, were subsequently built here.

One of Nostradamus's quatrains that is localized to southeast Europe has the following couplet:
"Cry sera grand par toute Escalvonie
Lors naistra monstre pres & dedans Ravenne"
which translates to
A cry will be great across Esclavonia
when will be born the monster in and near Ravenne

can you say x-checker= Exarchate, ROME RavennaVenice...
red- shield .
this was on it...Bauer / Rothschilds banking interests

. for marx red was war revolution and green was victory reef...green party ,,EU I like this video because he looks at Rome capital hill fasci pope etc and its capitals all over the world ..and how the pope kiss the ground to show he owns it and what is like when the pope visited England for the 1 st time.
look for fasci in washingtons pic. LH.
[BLACK PRINCE ]I serve the red dragon=ROME

Edward, the Black Prince - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward,_the_Black_Prince
Edward of Woodstock KG (15 June 1330 – 8 June 1376), called the Black Prince, was the eldest son of King Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainault .


The Prince of Wales's feathers heraldic badge

I am your man. LH
 
Last edited:
Hi Loren

The insignia seems to represent the same thing that the song I am the Walrus does. That is a a focus on the Book of Revelation and the coming Apocalypse.

Who are these people?

Joe
 
Top