Freemasonry: A Revealing Look at the Spiritual Side

by Carl Teichrib Is Freemasonry a beneficial and benign society only, a place for self-improvement and good deeds? Or does the Craft transmit a religiously-oriented meaning? Two views are before us. On one hand, the Lodge is said to “make good men better,” wherein the member is participating in a grand morality play. On the […]

Dissent on trial: the Grand Inquisitor

The silence of the lambs

Plato’s Republic

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Citizen Smith Jones stands before a judge in the US Federal Court for Crimes against the State.

Mr. Jones, are you aware that paranoia is a serious offense?

What? I’m not suffering from paranoia, sir.

You espouse wild theories that could only come from a disordered mind. A mind that believes others are out to get him.

I merely disagreed with the State, when I wrote that—

NO. DON’T mention what you wrote. That is no part of this proceeding.

Why not?

We are here for one purpose. To confirm you have criticized edicts of the government and the press.

But we need to examine what I claimed, to see whether it was factual.

We are NOT permitted to publicize the particulars of dissent in this court, because we would then be giving them EXPOSURE. We must be silent about the content of your posts and attempted tweets.

Silent?

You admit you disagreed with the State?

Of course.

Then you stand guilty as charged.

Again, Your Honor, suppose what I wrote is true?

It can’t be true.

Why not?

Because all statements are normative.

I don’t know what that means. I’m reluctant to ask.

All statements imply an ethical position, which in turn suggests behavior. I sit here to decide whether that behavior would benefit or harm the State.

Are you a Sophist?

I taught medical ethics at Johns Hopkins for 25 years. Upon retirement, I was appointed to this position. I gauge whether defendants want to help or harm the State. Whether their motives are pure or tainted.

What about my motives?

You’re a reasonable paranoid. That combination is difficult to cure. You’re a traditionalist. You believe we should examine dissent for truth or falsity. That’s a very old idea. It’s already been tossed in the dustbin of history. You’re not aware of this.

Who owns the dustbin?

In this court, I do.

Again, Your Honor, suppose what I’ve written is true? And if it’s false, what about the First Amendment?

You’re fixated on this issue, Mr. Jones. Why should the State care about what is true or false? Our power comes from EDICT, which is law.

Why shouldn’t I be able to express dissent?

Obviously, because one drop of opposition becomes two, and then they multiply like germs. You should express your opinion through your vote.

But if the voting process itself is—

SILENCE. Don’t finish that sentence. The content of dissent is not permitted in this court.

Then I automatically have no defense.

Mr. Jones, my colleagues and I are trampling on the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored. We’re ending anger directed at the government and its media partners. Don’t you realize that? We’re trimming hedges of expression to achieve conformity and uniformity.

I stick out from the crowd so you’re chopping me down.

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say you’re selling a substance you claim will heal disease. You’re brought into court. You tell the judge you want to present evidence that your product is effective and safe. The judge will simply determine whether the FDA has approved the product for sale. If not, you’re guilty. You won’t be given the chance to describe one iota of your evidence.

I could be healing the sick, but I’m guilty.

Exactly. We keep things simple. You want to publish thoughts which are departing from government edicts? You’ve committed a crime. It doesn’t matter what those thoughts are. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Jones?

You are.

Good.

You want the silence of the lambs.

That’s right.

You want to make it seem that non-silence is provocation of some kind. If I publish my thoughts, I’m—

Make it seem? There is no seem. There is only is.

Then it doesn’t matter whether my expression of thought is actually provocative or incendiary. It might be. It might not be. The expression is the crime.

In a nutshell, yes.

My clarity on this issue is improving. Have you considered an edict that would demand a pledge of silence?

We have. It would be voluntary. Those who sign the pledge would enjoy certain privileges. Think of how peaceful things would become if people kept their mouths closed.

Yes. Peaceful. Assuming the government is beneficent and fair.

Mr. Jones, it doesn’t matter what the government is, as long as it is the government.

Therefore, what I wrote about the government—which is why I’m here today—doesn’t matter. I was objecting, based on standards which don’t exist.

Correct.

I see, Your Honor. You’re clearing up things for me. YOU want to make MY objections into outright rebellion and revolution against the government. I was expressing critical comments, but because you rule by edict alone, any criticism I make becomes insurrection.

Mr. Jones, you have the intelligence to work for us, but not the temperament. It’s a shame. We could use you.

Really? And what would I do?

Assist our philosopher kings and princes.

Excuse me?

Our best people are really making philosophic distinctions. They’re passing judgment on language, on ethics, on psychology, on WHERE IDEAS COME FROM.

Where do they come from?

Take, for example, Justice. Is that an ideal form which exists in a realm separate from humans? An ideal toward which we strive? Or is it a principle we humans construct? If we are constructing it, HOW do we build it? With what motives and goals? How do we describe those goals?

You’re referring to Plato and The Republic.

Of course. There are high-level discussions taking place within government of which you’re unaware. You see, these days, academia and the State are One. The wisdom of each pours into the other.

What about the dustbin of history you mentioned? Isn’t Plato in it?

My dear fellow, what is dead is revolution. Revolution is over. Finished. But history is very much alive. We are building Plato’s Republic. Our own version. The best minds rule.

And everyone else submits.

What else would you expect?

Squashing dissent is a policy of the best minds?

It has to be. In order to achieve stability. If we allowed all sorts of dissent, so we could “pick the best ideas” and institute them—what would result? Chaos.

I see. So it’s subdue, and then uplift.

You really should be working for us.

And these “philosophic discussions” you mention. Do they include debate and dissent?

Of course. But they are taking place INSIDE the wall of government. The participants understand they’re working toward a deeper understanding, which will become policy.

If I were let in, I could make my positions clear?

You could write and speak to colleagues with full knowledge that you are protected.

Even if I were highly critical, if I tried to represent the people outside the wall?

Once you’re in, Mr. Jones, you’d be free to operate in that space. You’d find we’re a collegial group of thinkers. We consider a very wide range of possibilities. Nothing is out of bounds. Imagine, for example, sitting in a room speaking with people very much like Hitler and Thomas Paine. BUT both of these men understand it is government that provides them the freedom to air their views within the undisturbed space, inside the walls.

I could argue for the destruction of the walls?

We have men and women who do just that every day. But they also know they must carry out their campaign within the context of government.

Apart from the people outside.

Yes.

You must have an occasional defector, a leaker.

Leaking is a capital crime with special circumstances.

You’re trying to recruit me.

Mr. Jones, do you think I enjoy sitting here, day after day, handing out sentences to people who commit petty offenses? The whole reason the government wants me here is to discover good minds.

What about my paranoia?

It’s cured the moment you enter our world. Notice I didn’t call it a disorder or a disease. I said it was a serious offense. And it is, for a person who lives on the outside.

If I agreed to work with you, what would I do?

To start, you’d help prepare arguments to be presented at our formal symposia. Eventually, based on merit alone, you could rise to a position of greater strength. Your colleagues might consider you a formidable force of intellect. And of course, informal discussions and debates are occurring on a daily basis.

I assume I’d have to sign a contract of some kind.

We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. We also sign the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women of the government are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

You’re all seeking—

Knowledge. The highest knowledge possible. Among our ranks, we have Platonists, Aristotelians, Cartesians, formal logicians, and so on, and many hybrid thinkers of various persuasions. Most of our people fall into no particular categories. But yes, our pattern, so to speak, is Plato’s Republic. We’re trying to build the ideal State. We unashamedly profess that ambition.

I appreciate your offer, sir. My inclination is to stay outside the wall.

You say that, Mr. Jones, because you suspect our motives.

Yes. And because I believe the distinction between inside and outside, between government and the people, is wrong, to the highest degree.

You say that now, but having learned what we’re really engaged in, let your thoughts simmer. You’re free to go, with no penalties—this time. Mingle with your friends, with the “general population,” and register your own reactions to their opinions and abilities. See if you really believe that our creation of an elite is a serious mistake. Are we just grabbing power, or are we taking a rational course of action? Do we impose our will because we long for control, or are we facing up to the brutal fact that some people are more intelligent than others? Is it just and kind to allow a demonstrably imbalanced person to navigate a ship among rocks, in storms? There is no expiration date on my offer to you.

Understood, Your Honor.

Don’t you wish for a better forum, where your ideas are taken seriously?

Of course.

Don’t you want an audience of people who understand the distinctions you’re making? Don’t you wonder where such an audience is? Well, they’re in government. They’ve gravitated to us. Consider this, Mr. Jones: If you want discussion that MEANS something, that can impact POLICY, don’t you have an obligation to go to government?

Not if government is merely a cover for fascism.

My goodness, man, OF COURSE government is fascism. It has to be. It isn’t a free-for-all wrestling match. Forget about the elected officials and the appointees who give statements to the press. They’re inconsequential. I’m talking about the planners behind those persons. They’re the best and brightest. You should aspire to be among them…if you have the intelligence.

So, in essence, you’ve founded a Church.

If you want to call it that. Indeed, among our ranks, we have deeply religious people. But on the whole, no. We don’t want a Church.

Then let’s call it a cult.

When was the last time you found a cult in which the widest possible range of opinion and debate was encouraged? We ARE what you’re asking for. But we understand that freedom must have a secure home. A home where debate and dissent are understood for what they are, where they can be weighed and tested, where impulsive and outrageous bias are absent. YOU WANT TO BE TALKING TO US, AND WE ARE HERE.

You call yourselves philosophers.

Yes. We go to the roots of positions. We don’t stay on the surface. At the same time, because we institute policy, we have to enact pragmatic decisions.

Decisions based on how you can control the population.

Once inside our wall, you would be free to argue that the population shouldn’t be controlled.

But as soon as I come inside, I’ve accepted certain limitations.

You mean you agree that the State is necessary? No. You can define a position that claims the State should be dismantled. But you would need to defend that notion against excellent minds. Perhaps you’re not up to the challenge. Mr. Jones, in my opinion, when Plato finished his magisterial work, The Republic, he surely saw he had painted himself into a corner. His State was deeply repressive. But he let the work stand. Why? Because his whole effort was noble. He was trying to enthrone the wisest of men to lead the world. A worthy goal. By some estimates, an absolutely necessary goal. We deal with that paradox every day.

Well, Your Honor, in my estimate, there are people who are high-IQ idiots.

And you think I am one of them?

I don’t know.

As you leave here and go about your life, perhaps you’ll dream about me.

Sir, I have been dreaming about you for a long time. During many nights. You and I are facing each other in a crude pistol duel. You and your agents are pursuing me inside a great labyrinth. I’m destroying your outposts. You’re a Greek, bearing gifts. You’re a priest, trying to convince me to confess my sins. I’m a spy gathering information in your inner sanctum. You take over the land I own. I catch you in a net and throw you into the sea. You’re a prince, and I’m a member of your council plotting your overthrow. I live in a shack at the edge of a cliff, and you arrive with a retinue to rescue me with temptations. We’re passing each other in the street, and suddenly time stands still, and we’re paralyzed, staring at each other. You’re a Pope in a cathedral, intoning the mass. I stand up and proclaim you’re a traitor. You offer me your blessing. In the wind, I crouch at the edge of a river, on your back. I force you to carry me across. You and I are signing a peace treaty between nations. There is alarm and danger in the room. The minds behind you are tuned to perfection, which means their failures will be spectacular…

Those dreams are cautionary tales. I’m not offering you paradise. I’m giving you a foothold. You can climb out of the crowd and the mob and the darkness, into a cloister of unparalleled safety. If you have the skill, help us to be better than we are. Perhaps one day soon, you and I will walk together through the wall, and you’ll take up residence in the best place we have yet made…

Your role, Your Honor, is temptation.

I do what I can.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The COVID narrative as an occult work of art

by Jon Rappoport

March 24, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Readers who have been with me the past year know I’ve dismantled every piece of the official COVID narrative. Factually. Scientifically.

I knew from 30 years of experience—investigating HIV/AIDS, West Nile, SARS1, Swine Flu, Ebola and Zika—what to look for in the fake COVID science.

I also want to look at the COVID narrative as an occult work of art. That is, it embroils the uninformed person in an initiation of sorts, with the promise of a final revelation and rescue.

Occult initiations are mysteries, in the sense that the believer is fed steps and procedures which he can’t fathom, or only partially understands.

This is purposeful. The believer’s imagination is engaged without him knowing it. He attributes meaning to factual gibberish.

But no one wants to find out that the images and speculations he is entertaining are empty and barren. HE PREFERS to think a ceremony is highly charged and, on some level, is important to him.

Thus, at the beginning, when “the virus is discovered,” and the initiation is introduced, the believer’s imagination clicks, and he senses he is on a new track of experience. He is entranced:

This is not ordinary life any longer. This is different. Fear, interest, excitement, anticipation are all available. Which are exactly what occult initiations are supposed to provoke: the magnified sense of possibility. The Ordinary is gone.

“Researchers have found a new virus, which is causing an outbreak.” Found a virus? What does that mean? The virus has been isolated. What does that mean? The virus has been sequenced. What does that mean? The believer can automatically apply his own images and thoughts and sensations and feelings to this mystery.

And indeed, the whole “virus discovery process” HAS been conducted behind closed doors, in high-security facilities, in a sanctum where only the priests can operate. Because they possess the magic.

They have found the enemy.

Next comes a new piece of magic. The test. The priests have devised a highly complex system of amulet arranging and rubbing, in order to detect the presence of the virus in a human.

How did they accomplish this, and so quickly? Through AMPLIFICATION. The essence of the specimen taken from the patient—in itself an initiatory step—is so small, no microscope can register it. But through a successive series of “doublings,” the specimen is transformed into a visible object.

And the believer will take this (PCR) test. Another step on the road.

Minor priests will announce the outcome of the test to the believer. Positive or negative. Now the meaning of “the virus” sinks in: infected or not infected. Either way, the initiation is proceeding.

If infected, there will be potions. “Anti-virals.” Ventilators, to bring what the believer may not be able to provide himself: the breath of life.

And yes, one possible outcome is death. This is no superficial initiation. The stakes are high, very high.

We come, of course, to the mask. The believer’s identity will be protected. Masking makes one an anonymous member of a very large group—all of whom are undergoing the same ceremony and enforcing it on others. Secret society.

Masking, traditionally, is for criminals as well. (The thrill of the outlaw.)

Masking also erases identity. The believer can find (imagine) a new persona.

Masking includes a sense of sacrifice. “I eliminate who I was, for the Cause.”

Masking introduces touches of humiliation, guilt, and pride. All standard elements of initiation.

Distancing provides “necessary isolation,” so the initiatory process for the individual can proceed unhampered. Distancing (like masking) separates the Clean from the Unclean.

The lockdown is further isolation. Removal from the influences of the outside world and its distractions. “The monk in his cell.” Great sacrifice of the means of financial support, in order to attain purity. Renunciation of ordinary work (employment) for a higher purpose; purification.

And finally, rescue and revelation—the vaccine. The injection. The transformation of cells of the body, which now produce a protein that stimulates the action of the immune system; a protein that under ordinary circumstances would never come into being. Miracle.

Immunity and purity are attained. Elite status is won through enduring the whole preceding ritual. A document (wellness certificate) is created and recorded. The initiate can now reenter the world. He is made anew.

If he suffered from the injection—well, that was part of what he needed to endure. If he died, that, too, was “worthy.” A sacrifice on the altar of The Group.

Of course, this COVID initiation isn’t meant to be a CONSCIOUS occult ceremony. The person isn’t meant to know he is in a cult. He senses glimmers and rivulets of ritual. He swims among them. He knows very little, but he FEELS.

As with every occult process, reality is created for him. The whole purpose of the steps on the ladder to redemption is: the quelling of the person’s own creative fire, by which he can invent his own future, freely.

In effect, the cult artists say: “You don’t make your own painting; our painting makes you.”

Through the pretended “science” of virology (fake isolation, fake sequencing) and the pretended “science” of vaccinology (fake immunity), the State—which is already an authoritarian entity—becomes a Cult.

Prior law (the Constitution) is ruled out; it is anathema. It didn’t account for the new great enemy: the virus. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” is replaced: “The eternal virus demands the curtailment of liberty.”

“Science” is the cover story that conceals the occult hypnotic inducement.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The United Nations & the Origins of ‘The Great Reset’

“Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence.” …Under the […]

Secret Societies Revisited

by Jon Rappoport

November 29, 2019

(To join our email list, click here.)

As many of my readers know, I wrote a book called The Secret Behind Secret Societies (included as a bonus in Exit From The Matrix and Power Outside The Matrix). This article adds a few pieces to the puzzle.

Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission—I called these and other such groups Architects of Reality. Among their actions, they try to build our perception of the world.

What is that perception? It’s an endless string of crises and half-hearted resolutions—that’s how we’re supposed to see things. We’re not supposed to see what actually works about the world.

Because what works is freedom and everything that flows from that.

In other words, secret societies are trying to bury the idea of freedom under an ongoing process of manufacturing desperate situations that can only be dealt with by large organizations—governments and so-called public interest groups.

“THE GROUP WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.”

“THE INDIVIDUAL IS TOO WEAK.”

“FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS PASSE, BECAUSE ONLY LARGE GROUPS CAN INFLUENCE THE COURSE OF EVENTS.”

With an estimated 40-60 million people in the US taking tranquilizers every year, it appears this program is working. One chronic user frankly told me, “I can’t deal with reality anymore. Unless it’s a chemical reality.”

Over the years, I’ve spoken with a number of teachers in the US. They tell me the areas variously known as Civics, Social Studies, and Government no longer place emphasis on the individual or individual freedom. Instead, it’s all about “group rights” and “victims.”

So again, the agenda of burying freedom is working.

In 1776, the Illuminati was announced as an operating society in Europe. The most important political tenet of this group was the abolition of private property—and that principle can be historically traced all the way down to the formation of the USSR. And beyond. These days, private property is under attack, albeit in a “softer” manner. It, too, is a concept no longer given emphasis in our schools—and when you de-link private property from the individual, you are attacking a significant aspect of what freedom translates into, in everyday life.

An American Studies professor at a prominent Northeastern university told me, off the record, because he was afraid he might lose his job if he went public, “Political and economic crises are being manufactured all the time. It’s basically psychological warfare, because one feels these endless crises can’t be solved. People just give up. And when they do, who do they turn to? Government. Government will handle things. That’s a sign that freedom is no longer a priority. It’s going into the dustbin of history.”

He was suggesting that, in wider and wider circles, freedom is no longer considered a solution to any serious problem. And since we seem to be awash in a sea of problems, freedom goes on the shelf.

As I’ve been writing for years, creative power of the individual is the prow of the ship of our society. Great innovators are the people who keep us moving into the future. Well, if the legs are being cut out from under freedom, we will be seeing fewer and fewer of these innovators. As has been pointed out, we will be “naturally selecting” away from those people and toward groups.

This is no accident. This is an agenda. To say the loss of freedom is simply a trend overlooks the keynote of coming global government and management—it is groups, not individuals, who have access to larger and larger structures that run our affairs.

One small example: 90 years ago, the rise of labor unions was achieved through legislation passed by the federal government. In other words, government would protect the right of employees to organize and bargain with management. But now we have public unions—government employees who bargain with “themselves.” It’s an absurdity. The real purpose is to expand the size of government by making its jobs more attractive and intractable.

In our schools, children are being taught to think of themselves in terms of a group identity. To what group do you belong? What are the problems of your group? What are your group’s grievances? How is your group being mistreated? What does your group need?

Is this development an accident? Did it happen by chance?

It’s on the agenda of legislated equality, which replaces the idea of equal opportunity to succeed. Legislated equality supposes that, instead of freedom, we will have group rights and group privileges.

This leads to the development of “positioning”—a hierarchy of groups who have assigned degrees of power—in hopes that the notion of the individual will disappear. The individual will be placed in a context, will be given what he “deserves,” will occupy a place in life that is suitable for the benefit of overall society.

Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, stated: “It was the full conviction of this, and what could be done, if every man were placed in the office for which he was fitted by nature and a proper education, which first suggested to me the plan of Illumination.”

Earlier, in 1755, a Frenchman known only as Morelly (possibly a pseudonym), wrote a treatise called Code of Nature. In it, he spells out what “fitting into society” means for those who oppose individual freedom:

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.

Today, we are moving in this direction. A pseudo “share-and-care” philosophy, that claims to be the ultimate in humane concern, wants to “distribute” individuals within the fabric of society, in order to achieve “a better world for all.”

These days, instead of brusquely elevating society beyond the scope of the individual, the agenda works by tapping into empathic and sympathetic emotions—using others’ suffering as the tool by which people can be turned to “help everyone.” But what slips under the radar of this program is the institutionalizing of aid out along broad political and economic platforms that change the nature of society in its official functions.

Society, in other words, in the person (or non-person) of government, takes in order to give. Takes more to give more. A great leveling, which in essence ranks the free individual at the bottom of the ladder.

Nothing appears to be lost in this effort, if people have already forgotten what the free individual means and is.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Exposing the 18 Families of the Black Nobility

The "Black Nobility" are/were the oligarchic families of Venice and Genoa, Italy, who in the 12th century held the privileged trading rights (monopolies).

The first of three crusades, from 1063 to 1123, established the power of the Venetian Black Nobility and solidified the power of the wealthy ruling class.

The Black Nobility aristocracy achieved complete control over Venice in 1171, when the appointment of the Doge was transferred to what was known as the Great Council, which consisted of members of the commercial aristocracy (among them the infamous de’Medici family).

Venice has remained in their hands ever since, but the power and influence of the Venetian Black Nobility extends far beyond its borders, and today it is felt in every corner of the planet. (Don’t forget, our modern banking system originated in Italy.)

The Venetian Black Nobility

Read Entire Article »