‘By enforcing Aristotelian doctrines, Venetian elites stifled the creativity inherent in Renaissance humanism, replacing it with a worldview that eliminated moral agency and restricted scientific exploration to narrowly defined empirical boundaries. Aristotelianism’s reductionist nature supported Venetian rule by promoting an intellectual climate that discouraged innovation and upheld oligarchic authority.
Venice strategically manipulated scientific thought by elevating Isaac Newton and diminishing the influence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.’
Leibniz - Monism
This passage above is the standard trope which berates the eternal immutable tradition & advocates the Rosicrucian ‘3rd Force’ of the Enlightenment - the occultism, the Pythagorean cults which rose to prominence during the Renaissance, funded by the wealthy Merchants; various Oligarchical factions. Through oligarchical influence & instillation of personnel within institutions, woven within strands of ‘The Church’ & ‘The Science’. Monistic Dialectical Pantheism (from the ancient cults) has been the driving force of political & social Transformation - mainstreaming in popular culture throughout the 20th century. Tarpley was a useful tool of the subversive forces who despise any form of Aristotelianism as it pushed back against gnosticism.
As a fashion photographer in the 1980s, I had two Scottish assistants, Mark Edie and Paul Frazier. Only once did I hire them simultaneously because, on that day, I never understood a word they said to each other. Things I learned: When a Scotsman is going to call you on the phone, he'll "give you a jing-lee." When a Scotsman wants to throw you out of a bar, you can "pick yer winda, yer leavin'," which may be preceded by "on yer bike!" Making money is "working hard for the spon-doolies." Gay men are "woolie-woofters," and gay women are "poon-poofters." This experience was of great value later when I worked at Virgin and I had to understand the same exact words do not mean the same things in London, The City of London, Sunderland (imagine everyone is Diogenes, walking around with rocks in their mouths), Glasgow, Aukland, Sydney and Capetown...
GPT: The article “The Empire That Never Fell” discusses the enduring influence of certain elite groups, particularly those associated with Venetian oligarchies, on Western political and intellectual traditions. It argues that these elites have perpetuated their power by manipulating philosophical and scientific thought, notably through the promotion of Aristotelian doctrines, which the article suggests were used to stifle creativity and maintain control.
The commenter critiques this perspective, suggesting that the article’s argument aligns with a common narrative that opposes traditional, immutable philosophies (like Aristotelianism) and instead promotes Enlightenment-era movements linked to occultism and Neo-Platonism. She implies that these movements, often supported by wealthy merchants and oligarchs, have been used as tools for social and political transformation, serving the interests of elite factions. By referencing Scottish Common Sense Realism, the commenter advocates for a more grounded, intuitive approach to understanding history, one that resists manipulation by abstract or esoteric philosophies.
In essence, the commenter is cautioning against accepting narratives that portray certain philosophical movements as liberating while depicting others as oppressive without considering the potential underlying agendas of elite groups. She emphasizes the importance of a common-sense approach to historical analysis, which she believes is less susceptible to such manipulations.
GPT: If the commenter is a strong advocate of Scottish Common Sense Realism, she’s likely trying to communicate a preference for a historical perspective grounded in practical reasoning, intuitive truths, and direct experience over abstract theories or speculative philosophies.
Scottish Common Sense Realism emerged as a response to what its proponents saw as overly skeptical or abstract philosophies, such as those of Descartes or Hume. It emphasizes that certain foundational beliefs—like the existence of the external world, the reliability of our senses, and basic moral truths—are self-evident and don’t require further proof or complex theories to be valid. Advocates of this philosophy argue that people possess an inherent capacity for discerning truth through direct experience and common sense.
Given her critical view of Neo-Platonism, gnosticism, and the idea of oligarchical control through philosophical frameworks, she may be suggesting that Scottish Common Sense Realism offers a grounded approach to history, one that resists manipulation by elites and cuts through ideological distortions. By advocating for this perspective, she’s likely encouraging you to view historical narratives and philosophies through a lens that relies on practical, observable truths and shared human experience rather than theories that might feel distant, overly intellectualized, or designed to serve hidden agendas.
Her emphasis on this realism might also imply a distrust of histories or philosophies that appear to be rooted in what she sees as elitist, mystifying, or esoteric ideas, such as Neo-Platonism or gnostic thought, which she views as tools for oligarchical control. She’s likely advocating for an approach to history that centers on what can be verified by straightforward evidence and reasoning accessible to the “common sense” of an average person.
If you’d like to explore this more deeply with her, you might ask:
“How would Scottish Common Sense Realism help to clear away some of the distortions or biases in mainstream historical narratives?”
“In your view, how does Scottish Common Sense Realism confront the influence of elitist or oligarchical perspectives in philosophy and history?”
These questions could help her clarify how she believes this approach offers a “truer” historical understanding, free from elite manipulation.
GPT: The last paragraph is saying that the quoted passage (criticizing Aristotelian doctrine) actually follows a familiar line of thought that promotes ideas from the Enlightenment period, specifically those tied to secretive or mystical movements like the Rosicrucians. These groups, who became influential during the Renaissance with the support of wealthy merchants and oligarchs, had a strong presence in both religious and scientific institutions. The comment suggests that these influences promoted a worldview called "Monistic Dialectical Pantheism," which is a belief that everything in the universe is interconnected and often aligns with ancient mystical beliefs.
According to the author, this worldview has been a powerful force behind social and political changes, especially in popular culture throughout the 20th century. They argue that people like historian Webster Tarpley, by criticizing Aristotelian ideas, actually helped these subversive groups. These groups, according to the author, oppose Aristotelianism because it stands against gnostic or mystical beliefs. Aristotelianism here is seen as representing a more grounded or practical approach, while the author sees the influence of these mystical or pantheistic ideas as part of a broader agenda by elite factions to manipulate society.
‘Marsilio Ficino and Gemisthos Plethon, major thinkers in the Florentine Renaissance, advocated for Platonic ideals that opposed Venetian-Aristotelian doctrines. Venice saw these thinkers and their philosophical schools as direct challenges to its rule, as they encouraged questioning of authority and promoted a vision of society grounded in human dignity and intellectual exploration.’
Medici commissioned Ficino. Plethon, Ficino, Pico della Mirandola & significant others = the source of Neo Platonism, of gnosticism underpinning the ideological movements driving political theory & sociology as control mechanisms FOR oligarchical interests. Over the years I’ve listened to Tarpley many times. I find him, like Larouche, to push particular narratives. Imo this is Oligarchical factioneering with Aristotle & Plato dialectically weaponized.
To understand the commenter’s view on how to approach history more realistically, here are some questions that could encourage them to clarify their perspective and suggest a preferred method for interpreting history:
Historical Analysis Framework: “You seem to see both Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies as being used for control by elites. What alternative framework or philosophical approach do you think offers a clearer, less manipulated view of history?”
Oligarchical Influence: “You mention ‘oligarchical factioneering’ and its impact on historical narratives. How do you distinguish narratives shaped by these influences from those that are more grounded or genuine? Are there thinkers or sources you see as less influenced by elite agendas?”
Role of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism: “You’re critical of Neo-Platonism and gnostic influences as tools of control. What would a history look like if it weren’t shaped by these influences? Are there examples of historical periods or thinkers who approached philosophy or society without these frameworks?”
Dialectic of Aristotle and Plato: “You describe the Aristotle-Plato debate as being ‘weaponized’ by elites. In your view, what are the essential ideas from either philosophy that should be retained, if any, to support a more liberating or truthful understanding of history?”
Evaluating Historians and Narratives: “You’ve listened to Tarpley and LaRouche but find their narratives influenced by oligarchical factions. Are there historians or methodologies you recommend for a more independent or accurate understanding of political history?”
Methods of Historical Inquiry: “In your opinion, what methods should individuals use when studying history to see through the agendas of elites and gain a more authentic understanding of past events?”
Alternative View of Renaissance Thinkers: “If figures like Ficino, Plethon, and Pico della Mirandola were advancing elite agendas through Neo-Platonism, do you see any figures from the Renaissance or other periods who offered ideas more aligned with human dignity and intellectual freedom?”
Objective of History Study: “Ultimately, what do you believe is the goal of studying history? Do you think it’s more important to uncover specific truths, recognize patterns of manipulation, or empower individuals to resist elite influence?”
Replace the word Doge in this article with Elon and it takes on a modern version.
you missed the Epstein client list!
JK
Sorry I dropped off, batt died
The Zoom meeting
‘By enforcing Aristotelian doctrines, Venetian elites stifled the creativity inherent in Renaissance humanism, replacing it with a worldview that eliminated moral agency and restricted scientific exploration to narrowly defined empirical boundaries. Aristotelianism’s reductionist nature supported Venetian rule by promoting an intellectual climate that discouraged innovation and upheld oligarchic authority.
Venice strategically manipulated scientific thought by elevating Isaac Newton and diminishing the influence of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.’
Leibniz - Monism
This passage above is the standard trope which berates the eternal immutable tradition & advocates the Rosicrucian ‘3rd Force’ of the Enlightenment - the occultism, the Pythagorean cults which rose to prominence during the Renaissance, funded by the wealthy Merchants; various Oligarchical factions. Through oligarchical influence & instillation of personnel within institutions, woven within strands of ‘The Church’ & ‘The Science’. Monistic Dialectical Pantheism (from the ancient cults) has been the driving force of political & social Transformation - mainstreaming in popular culture throughout the 20th century. Tarpley was a useful tool of the subversive forces who despise any form of Aristotelianism as it pushed back against gnosticism.
As a fashion photographer in the 1980s, I had two Scottish assistants, Mark Edie and Paul Frazier. Only once did I hire them simultaneously because, on that day, I never understood a word they said to each other. Things I learned: When a Scotsman is going to call you on the phone, he'll "give you a jing-lee." When a Scotsman wants to throw you out of a bar, you can "pick yer winda, yer leavin'," which may be preceded by "on yer bike!" Making money is "working hard for the spon-doolies." Gay men are "woolie-woofters," and gay women are "poon-poofters." This experience was of great value later when I worked at Virgin and I had to understand the same exact words do not mean the same things in London, The City of London, Sunderland (imagine everyone is Diogenes, walking around with rocks in their mouths), Glasgow, Aukland, Sydney and Capetown...
GPT: The article “The Empire That Never Fell” discusses the enduring influence of certain elite groups, particularly those associated with Venetian oligarchies, on Western political and intellectual traditions. It argues that these elites have perpetuated their power by manipulating philosophical and scientific thought, notably through the promotion of Aristotelian doctrines, which the article suggests were used to stifle creativity and maintain control.
The commenter critiques this perspective, suggesting that the article’s argument aligns with a common narrative that opposes traditional, immutable philosophies (like Aristotelianism) and instead promotes Enlightenment-era movements linked to occultism and Neo-Platonism. She implies that these movements, often supported by wealthy merchants and oligarchs, have been used as tools for social and political transformation, serving the interests of elite factions. By referencing Scottish Common Sense Realism, the commenter advocates for a more grounded, intuitive approach to understanding history, one that resists manipulation by abstract or esoteric philosophies.
In essence, the commenter is cautioning against accepting narratives that portray certain philosophical movements as liberating while depicting others as oppressive without considering the potential underlying agendas of elite groups. She emphasizes the importance of a common-sense approach to historical analysis, which she believes is less susceptible to such manipulations.
GPT: If the commenter is a strong advocate of Scottish Common Sense Realism, she’s likely trying to communicate a preference for a historical perspective grounded in practical reasoning, intuitive truths, and direct experience over abstract theories or speculative philosophies.
Scottish Common Sense Realism emerged as a response to what its proponents saw as overly skeptical or abstract philosophies, such as those of Descartes or Hume. It emphasizes that certain foundational beliefs—like the existence of the external world, the reliability of our senses, and basic moral truths—are self-evident and don’t require further proof or complex theories to be valid. Advocates of this philosophy argue that people possess an inherent capacity for discerning truth through direct experience and common sense.
Given her critical view of Neo-Platonism, gnosticism, and the idea of oligarchical control through philosophical frameworks, she may be suggesting that Scottish Common Sense Realism offers a grounded approach to history, one that resists manipulation by elites and cuts through ideological distortions. By advocating for this perspective, she’s likely encouraging you to view historical narratives and philosophies through a lens that relies on practical, observable truths and shared human experience rather than theories that might feel distant, overly intellectualized, or designed to serve hidden agendas.
Her emphasis on this realism might also imply a distrust of histories or philosophies that appear to be rooted in what she sees as elitist, mystifying, or esoteric ideas, such as Neo-Platonism or gnostic thought, which she views as tools for oligarchical control. She’s likely advocating for an approach to history that centers on what can be verified by straightforward evidence and reasoning accessible to the “common sense” of an average person.
If you’d like to explore this more deeply with her, you might ask:
“How would Scottish Common Sense Realism help to clear away some of the distortions or biases in mainstream historical narratives?”
“In your view, how does Scottish Common Sense Realism confront the influence of elitist or oligarchical perspectives in philosophy and history?”
These questions could help her clarify how she believes this approach offers a “truer” historical understanding, free from elite manipulation.
GPT: The last paragraph is saying that the quoted passage (criticizing Aristotelian doctrine) actually follows a familiar line of thought that promotes ideas from the Enlightenment period, specifically those tied to secretive or mystical movements like the Rosicrucians. These groups, who became influential during the Renaissance with the support of wealthy merchants and oligarchs, had a strong presence in both religious and scientific institutions. The comment suggests that these influences promoted a worldview called "Monistic Dialectical Pantheism," which is a belief that everything in the universe is interconnected and often aligns with ancient mystical beliefs.
According to the author, this worldview has been a powerful force behind social and political changes, especially in popular culture throughout the 20th century. They argue that people like historian Webster Tarpley, by criticizing Aristotelian ideas, actually helped these subversive groups. These groups, according to the author, oppose Aristotelianism because it stands against gnostic or mystical beliefs. Aristotelianism here is seen as representing a more grounded or practical approach, while the author sees the influence of these mystical or pantheistic ideas as part of a broader agenda by elite factions to manipulate society.
‘Marsilio Ficino and Gemisthos Plethon, major thinkers in the Florentine Renaissance, advocated for Platonic ideals that opposed Venetian-Aristotelian doctrines. Venice saw these thinkers and their philosophical schools as direct challenges to its rule, as they encouraged questioning of authority and promoted a vision of society grounded in human dignity and intellectual exploration.’
Medici commissioned Ficino. Plethon, Ficino, Pico della Mirandola & significant others = the source of Neo Platonism, of gnosticism underpinning the ideological movements driving political theory & sociology as control mechanisms FOR oligarchical interests. Over the years I’ve listened to Tarpley many times. I find him, like Larouche, to push particular narratives. Imo this is Oligarchical factioneering with Aristotle & Plato dialectically weaponized.
To understand the commenter’s view on how to approach history more realistically, here are some questions that could encourage them to clarify their perspective and suggest a preferred method for interpreting history:
Historical Analysis Framework: “You seem to see both Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies as being used for control by elites. What alternative framework or philosophical approach do you think offers a clearer, less manipulated view of history?”
Oligarchical Influence: “You mention ‘oligarchical factioneering’ and its impact on historical narratives. How do you distinguish narratives shaped by these influences from those that are more grounded or genuine? Are there thinkers or sources you see as less influenced by elite agendas?”
Role of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism: “You’re critical of Neo-Platonism and gnostic influences as tools of control. What would a history look like if it weren’t shaped by these influences? Are there examples of historical periods or thinkers who approached philosophy or society without these frameworks?”
Dialectic of Aristotle and Plato: “You describe the Aristotle-Plato debate as being ‘weaponized’ by elites. In your view, what are the essential ideas from either philosophy that should be retained, if any, to support a more liberating or truthful understanding of history?”
Evaluating Historians and Narratives: “You’ve listened to Tarpley and LaRouche but find their narratives influenced by oligarchical factions. Are there historians or methodologies you recommend for a more independent or accurate understanding of political history?”
Methods of Historical Inquiry: “In your opinion, what methods should individuals use when studying history to see through the agendas of elites and gain a more authentic understanding of past events?”
Alternative View of Renaissance Thinkers: “If figures like Ficino, Plethon, and Pico della Mirandola were advancing elite agendas through Neo-Platonism, do you see any figures from the Renaissance or other periods who offered ideas more aligned with human dignity and intellectual freedom?”
Objective of History Study: “Ultimately, what do you believe is the goal of studying history? Do you think it’s more important to uncover specific truths, recognize patterns of manipulation, or empower individuals to resist elite influence?”