Shakespeare's Typology & Oligarchy

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I forgot to add in relation to Bavaria, that Donald Trump's grandfather, Friedrich, was originally from Bavaria, and of course, liddle Adolph, got his start in Bavaria (Munich) albeit he sprouted up in Austria. There also seems to be some contention over the name Drumpf versus Trump as being the original, or perhaps this is resolved by finding the correct point in time. Bavarian documents in one production show the name Trump for Friedrich?

Loren, would you mind editing the title of this thread to correct the spelling of the bard's name and correcting 'typology'?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
a

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.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The above is episode 1 of a 5-part series from 2012. Review from Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/bbc-series-empire-confronts-british-colonial-past-63633

The British, so the cliché goes, are a repressed lot. Faced with an awkward subject, they avoid it, change the subject, make tea. Nowhere is this more so than with the topic of the British Empire. The subject of fascination, hatred, and admiration throughout the world, the history of the empire is largely avoided in Britain itself: a bloody, embarrassing episode everyone would rather forget.....

Television plays a curiously vital role in Britain. In a deeply private and, yes, somewhat repressed culture, TV is the way Britons bond and deal with things. Some cultures stay up all night talking and drinking to deal with their problems, others turn to the church—the British switch on the TV. On the airwaves at least, Britannia still rules.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Petter Amundsen's book is here:

http://amzn.to/2DNuDES

'Cracking the Shakespeare Code' is also available on Amazon Prime.

Many reviewers like the book & the documentary. But the fact is, Amundsen went on a treasure hunt and found no buried treasure. This review, harsh as it is, seems to sum up the true situation.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R29L3BL8YS84H4/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01N6Q91AP

This entertaining film explores the Shakespeare authorship question and the ongoing search for the Shakespeare manuscripts as it amusingly illustrates some of the more absurd aspects of Shakespeare studies. Seemingly completely innocent of any knowledge about how Jacobean print shops operated, particularly of how the Shakespeare First Folio was assembled, the filmmakers proceed by treating the First Folio as part acrostic, part star chart, thus providing themselves the license to find just about anything.

The clues they create using their Acrostical-Astrological method lead them to construct the following ridiculous narrative: Francis Bacon and another aristocrat wrote “Shakespeare’s” plays, then laminated the manuscript pages by soaking them in mercury. They then took or sent the laminated manuscripts across the Atlantic Ocean, where they were buried under a rock, at the bottom of a swamp, on an island off the coast of Nova Scotia -- along with, possibly, the ancient Hebrew Ark of the Covenant and a menorah from the (1-2?) temple in Jerusalem.

Not to be outdone by the mentally unbalanced nineteenth century anti-Stratfordian Delia Bacon, who brought only a small shovel to dig up Shakespeare’s tomb during her crazed search for Francis Bacon's secret papers, the filmmakers descend upon the offshore Canadian bog with backhoes, bulldozers, and the latest machines that go 'ping' to accomplish their task. The construction equipment makes a mess of the island, but unfortunately it does not turn up either the manuscripts, the Ark, or the menorah. In fact, after watching this island backhoed and bulldozed almost to the point of unrecognizability, one can't help thinking that if there ever really was something there, it sure isn't there anymore.

Oh yeah, it made me snicker for two hours, so I gave it two stars.
So, I still favor Atwill's view that Shakespeare was Amelia Bassano Lanier. Or, perhaps, that "Shakespeare" was a group effort involving Lanier along with Marlowe and/or Shakespeare himself.
 
Top