Mainly them talking about themselves…

JEWISH BLOOD IN ROYAL VEINS.

Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 86, Number 54, 21 October 1893

A Semitic Strain In Nearly all the Reigning Families in Europe.

A remarkable feature in connection with the ancestry of all the reigning houses of Europe, says the New York Tribune, is the fact that nearly everyone of them has strains of Semitic blood in the veins of its members, Alberia, (queen of Sicily, from whom almost everyone of the now reigning families is descended, having been a daughter of the old Hebrew banker Porleoni, who was the first of his race to be admitted to the ranks of the European aristocracy, Pope Leo XI. ennobling him in the year 1116. Later on one of his sons, who became converted to the Iloman Catholic church, ascended the papal throne under the title of Anacletus 11. This, however, by no means constitutes the only source of Jewish blood in the royal and imperial veins of to-day. There are others of a far less remote character. Thus, King Ferdinand of Portugal, the grandfather of the present King, had, himself, as grandfather, a Hungarian Hebrew named Kohary, whose daughter and heiress married Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg. King Carlos of Portugal is therefore of indubitably Jewish descent, and so, too, is Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria, whose features are remarkably Hebraic, and who is a grandson of old Kohary’s heiress. A second of the latter’s grandsons, Duke Philip of Saxe-Coburg, is wedded to the eldest daughter of King Leopold of Belgium, while a third, Augustus by name, married a daughter of the late Emperor Doin Pedro of Brazil. It is one of the grand-daughters of the Kohary heiress who is wedded to the Archduke Joseph of Austria, while another has become the wile of Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, the brother of the Empress of Austria and the ex-i^ueon of Naples. Queen Victoria’s favorite son-in-law, Prince Henry of Battenburg, is a great grandson of a converted Jew named Hauke, established in Poland, and whose son won his way into the favor of the Grand Duke Constantino of Russia.

And apropos of this Jewish descent, let me add in conclusion the astonishing fact that the country which is distinguished above all others for its animosities toward the Jewish race, namely, Russia, is precisely the very one where the strain of Hebrew blood is the strongest iv the bluo blood of its aristocracy. There is not a single family of the higher grades of the uobility in the Czar’s enimre which has not at oue time or another during the last two centuries affiliated or intermarried with the four great princely houses of Bragagion, Davidoff, Imerietiuski aud Muskranski. Now, each of these claims to be descended in an unbroken and direct line from the Biblical King David, and, like the Georgian princely family of Guriel, are proud above everything else of their Jewish ancestry. L uder the circumstances their undisguised antipathy to the unfortunate Hebrew subjects of the Czar appears, to say the least, to be illogical.

A Jewish King And Queen Of England? It’s Possible

By Bernard Starr, College Professor (Emeritus, City University of N.Y),psychologist, journalist.

Huffington Post -Jun. 17, 2011

When the Royal Wedding uniting Kate Middleton and Prince William was announced, genealogy sleuths got to work. At first, the buzz indicated that Kate’s mother, Carole Goldsmith (maiden name), had Jewish ancestry. If Carole Goldsmith were Jewish then, according to Jewish law, her daughter Kate Middleton would be considered Jewish — and could become the first Jewish Queen (Consort) of England. But alas, investigators still believing that there was a Jewish heritage in Kate’s lineage found that the last five generations of her family were married in churches. Of course, that doesn’t rule out that some may have been secret Jews, which was true for many Jews during the Inquisition. Other sources still suspect Jewish lineage for Kate. And according to an Orthodox Sephardic Rabbi in Israel, both parents of Kate’s mother were Jewish. So the question of Jew or not a Jew for Kate is still open.

But wait, the plot thickens. Could Princess Diana, William’s mother, have been Jewish? One source maintains that Princess Diana’s mother, Frances Shand Kydd, was Jewish — born Frances Ruth Burke Roche, a Rothschild.

If factual, that would be sufficient for Princess Diana to be certified Jewish, as well as her son, William, the future King of England. Another investigation of ancestry details a strong Davidic connection for Frances and her descendents

Other intriguing bits of “evidence” and speculation have been cited in the London Daily Mail, which quotes sources that claim that Diana was conceived during her mother’s affair with the Jewish banker tycoon Sir James Goldsmith (originally Goldschmidt and no apparent relationship to Carole Goldsmith). The report says that Frances was estranged from her husband, Earl Spencer (Viscount Althorp), and had an affair with Sir James Goldsmith just at the time that Diana was conceived. Strengthening the case, a report points to striking resemblances between Princess Diana and Sir James Goldsmith’s other three children, Zak, Ben and Jemima Goldsmith.

If these tidings are true then Diana would be thoroughly Jewish with a Jewish mother (Frances Ruth Burke Roche aka Rothschild) and a Jewish father (Sir James Goldsmith). In turn William, the future King of England, would have deep Jewish roots.

What a myseh (story). Sholem Aleichem and Isaac Bashevis Singer couldn’t have told it better.

The Zac Goldsmith story

BBC, 25 October 2016

Zac Goldsmith has resigned as a Conservative MP, prompting a by-election, over his opposition to the building of a third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport.

He’s been promising for several years that he’ll do it – and now he has, after the government backed Heathrow’s expansion.

The south-west London MP, and long-standing environmental activist, feels the effect of such a huge project will be devastating.

There will be a by-election in the Richmond Park constituency that he has worked for years to transform from a Tory-Lib Dem marginal into one with a big Conservative majority.

There is bound to be plenty of razzmatazz surrounding the contest, but Mr Goldsmith – who ran unsuccessfully to be London mayor earlier this year – is hardly a stranger to it.

Lady Annabel Goldsmith (centre) poses with four of her children, 1981. She holds her son Ben and stands with Jane Birley (her eldest daughter from her previous marriage), and Zach and Jemima Goldsmith.
Zac Goldsmith (bottom left) with his mother Annabel, sister Jemima, brother Ben and step-sister Jane in 1981

Born Frank Zacharias Robin Goldsmith in 1975, he grew up in Richmond.

His father was the flamboyant and domineering billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, who amassed a finance empire, along with three families and five homes.

His mother, Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart, is the daughter of the 8th Marquess of Londonderry.

Her first husband was a nightclub owner who named the famous Mayfair club Annabel’s after her, a hotspot not only for partying celebrities but also royals.

Conservative Mayoral candidate speaks to protesters during a rally against a third runway at Heathrow airport, in Parliament Square on October 10, 2015 in London, England.
Image caption,Zac Goldsmith campaigns outside Parliament against a third runway at Heathrow Airport in October 2015

The pairing produced three children including Zac, who also has five half-siblings from his parents’ other marriages.

His sister is Jemima Khan who was previously married to Imran Khan, the Pakistani cricketer-turned-politician.

She has also gained a high profile through her campaigning on human rights issues as a Unicef ambassador and over the phone-hacking scandal.

His brother Ben Goldsmith married and later divorced Kate Rothschild of the banking dynasty, but that was not the end of Goldsmith-Rothschild connection.

Zac Goldsmith married Sheherazade Bentley in 1999 and they had three children but divorced after he admitted to infidelity.

He went on to marry Alice Rothschild, his former sister-in-law, in 2013 and they now have two children.

In the past Mr Goldsmith has admitted he was no “monk”, has struggled to give up smoking, and enjoys gambling.

The family have royal links.

They counted Diana, Princess of Wales, as a good friend and cousin Clio was married to the brother of Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Lady Diana, Princess of Wales (L) heads toward a restaurant for dinner with Jemima Khan (R), the British wife of former Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan, 21 February 1996 in Lahore. Lady Diana is on a private visit to Pakistan to participate in the fund raising campaign for Khan's cancer hospital. AFP PHOTO SAEED KHAN
Image caption,Princess Diana with Jemima Khan during a trip to Lahore, Pakistan in 1996. Zac Goldsmith’s sister lived with her husband Imran Khan (in the background) in Pakistan during their marriage

William & Kate: The Big Cover-up

Daily News, April 20, 2011

Did William and Kate put the world’s most infamous Jewish bankster crime family on their wedding invitation list? Of course they did!

James Rothschild, 26, son of the late Amschel Mayor James Rothschild, will be representing the Rothschild bankster dynasty at the wedding-of-the-century. He’s bringing along his passed-around girlfriend, Astrid Harbord, who had previously shagged Prince Harry.

The Rothschilds will be attending the royal wedding in more ways than one.

PRINCESS DIANA’S JEWISH FATHER

In Tina Brown’s book ‘The Diana Chronicles’, the author claims that Princess Diana’s mother Frances Shand Kydd had a long-running affair with Sir James Goldsmith during her marriage to Earl Spencer. She suggests that Diana who was born in 1961, was Goldsmith’s love child and not Spencer’s daughter.The late James Goldsmith—a Jewish banker and publisher– was a cousin of the Rothschilds.  James Goldsmith’s grandfather Adolphe Goldschmidt  came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German Goldschmidt to the English Goldsmith. 

PRINCESS DIANA’S JEWISH MOTHER

Officially, Diana was the daughter of the Earl Spencer and Frances Shand Kydd…but sources maintain that James Goldsmith had a long term affair with Frances around the time that Diana was conceived.

Nobody denies that the affair took place “at a time when Frances was deeply unhappy in her marriage to the Earl Spencer, who was ‘drinking heavily’ and ‘being beastly towards her'”. She divorced him and remarried in 1969. Diana was not only like James Goldsmith in looks, “but also in her charisma and her sexual appetites…”

Diana’s mother Frances Shand Kydd was Jewish. She was born Frances Ruth Burke Roche.

PRINCESS DIANA’S JEWISH HALF-BROTHERS

Diana shares a striking physical resemblance to the children of Sir James Goldsmith – Zak Goldsmith, Ben Goldsmith and Jemima Goldsmith. They are allegedly Diana’s half brothers and sister.

Following the Rothschild protocol of interbreeding to keep the power and wealth all-in-the-family, Diana’s alleged half brother Ben Goldsmith wed Kate Rothschild in 2003.

Princess Diana’s other alleged half brother, Zac Goldsmith, divorced his wife after he was elected British MP. He is now living with Alice Rothschild. This Rothschild-Goldsmith couple is also expected to marry.

PRINCESS DIANA’S JEWISH HALF SISTER

Jemima Goldsmith was Princess Diana’s very best friend and confidante. Jemima is genetically related to the Rothschilds and is now a Rothschild sister-in-law (Daily Mail Online, 10 May 2010). 

The Women’s weekly magazine New Idea Australia, created a furore in Britain when it published a story about Jemima and Diana being sisters. The magazine quoted an unnamed source who claims to have known the “sister secret” for 40 YEARS. Rumours of the true sister relationship are rife among the British aristocracy.

News reports that both Diana and Jemima were fathered by swashbuckling tycoon Sir James Goldsmith ignited bushfires all over Australia and Britain. The facts show that during Diana’s unhappy marriage to Charles, she did not seek solace in – nor was she offered solace by the Spencers. She sought solace from her surrogate family – the Goldsmiths.

Jemima Goldsmith converted to Islam when she married retired Pakistani cricketer Imam Khan in 1995. Jemima is said to be the one who inspired Diana to pursue liaisons with Muslim men.

Jemima Goldsmith / Rothschild / Khan protecting the newest Rothschild progeniture
that’s not even hers

PRINCESS DIANA’S JEWISH SON

The original and current Jewish definition of a “born Jew” is a person whose mother is Jewish. Judaism is passed down in a matriarchal lineage. Prince William’s mother, Princess Diana, had a Jewish mother (Frances Ruth Burke Roche) and she likely had a Jewish father. That would make William – Jewish.

The Torah forbids a Jewish man from marrying a Gentile woman. If he does, his children by that woman will not be Jewish. If William, marries Kate Middleton, does that mean their children will NOT be Jewish?

PRINCE WILLIAM’S JEWISH BRIDE

Kate Middleton, possibly the next Queen of England, is rumored to be somewhat Jewish. You see, Kate’s mother’s maiden name is Goldsmith. What? Haven’t we heard that name somewhere before????

Having the Jewish maiden name “Goldsmith” is enough to suggest that Kate has Jewish ancestry despite the media effort to cover it up.

Gary Goldsmith is Kate’s uncle and the younger brother of Kate’s mother Carole. He’s a wealthy property developer who sold his recruitment business Computer Futures for £275 million in 2005.Gary is described as a foul-mouthed, randy, hedonistic playboy. He was filmed covertly by News of the World undercover reporters at his sprawling £5 million villa on the Spanish party island of Ibiza. Gary Goldsmith named his villa “Maison de Bang Bang” which is French slang for House of Sex. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359373/Kate-Middletons-disgraced-uncle-Gary-Goldsmith-gets-VIP-Royal-wedding-invite.html#ixzz1Jv9nnvxW

Guarded by MI6 agents, Prince William and his bride-to-be holidayed and yachted at Gary’s House of Bang Bang in 2006 . Gary jokes about greeting William with ‘Oi, you Fucker’.  “Oi” is a Jewish-Yiddish expression as in “oy vay”.

The undercover reporters for News of the World learned that Goldsmith entertains his guests with hardcore porn – purchased in Britain – on a massive 52-inch screen at the villa. He supplies pot, cocaine, ecstacy and hookers and offers door-to-door delivery at the Ibiza resort AND in London. Goldsmith has a GG logo of his initials tattooed on his bicep. Does anyone believe that William and Kate spent their time holding hands and sipping english tea in uncle Gary’s bang bang house?

GARY GOLDMITH CUTTING A COKE LINE IN IBIZA

Which uncle is sleazier? Kate’s uncle Gary or William’s uncle Andrew? Prince Andrew has recently been exposed in the news media for:

  • being friends with convicted Jewish paedophile Jeffry Epstein who gave the Prince 15,000 pounds to help pay off some of his blackmailing ex-wife Fergie’s massive debts.
  • being involved and photographed with a child prostitute
  • for his ties to the son of Libyan leader Gadhafi
  • for hosting the son of the recently ousted Tunisian dictator just prior to his fall. http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/news266_andrew.html

The Queen herself has recently been named in the abduction of 10 aboriginal residential school children

Jewish Leaders Express Sorrow over Assassination of Earl Mountbatten

Jewish Telegraphic Agency JTA, August 31, 1979

Leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews expressed sorrow at the assassination by Irish terrorists of Earl Mountbatten of Burma and three other members of his family. Eulogies were delivered yesterday at a meeting attended by Philip Klutznick, president of the World Jewish Congress.

Messages of condolence to the Queen and Prince Philip have been sent by many Jewish leaders including MP Greville Janner, who is president of the Board, and Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits.

Mountbatten was very popular in the Jewish community. He had on several occasions taken the salute at the annual memorial parade of Jewish ex-servicemen. His wife, who died in 1960, was a granddaughter of Sir Ernest Cassel, a Jewish millionaire born in Germany, and a forest in her name has been planted in Israel.

[According to Jewish laws if a mother is a Jew, her children will be Jews, too. ]

Prince Charles hails ‘immense blessings’ British Jews brought to country

The heir to the throne also revealed how his father Prince Philip helped a Jewish boy facing antisemitic bullying in 1930s Germany

By JEWISH NEWS UK December 6, 2019

The Prince of Wales with JLGB members (Credit: Board of Deputies of British Jews)

Prince Charles has spoken of the “immense blessings” British Jews have brought to the country – and insisted his support for communal causes “is the least I can do to try to repay” them.

The heir to the throne also revealed how his father Prince Philip helped a Jewish boy facing antisemitic bullying in 1930s Germany, as he addressed a varied guest-list of 400 at the first Buckingham Palace celebrating the community’s contribution.

Describing the ties between Anglo-Jewry and the Crown as “special and precious”, he added: “I say this from a particular and personal perspective because I have grown up being deeply touched by the fact that British synagogues have, for centuries, remembered my family in your weekly prayers. And as you remember my family, so we too remember and celebrate you.”

The Prince said the festive season was a fitting moment to celebrate the “contribution of our Jewish community to the health, wealth and happiness of the nation. In every walk of life, in every field of endeavour, our nation could have had no more generous citizens, and no more faithful friends”. The UK, he insisted, is “enriched by the diversity of its constituent parts. Its whole is so much greater than its parts”.

Recalling how Britain welcomed Jews fleeing pogroms or the Nazis on the Kindertransport, he said:

“In turn, many thousands of Jewish people played a vital role in the war effort. My own great uncle, Lord Mountbatten, was enormously proud of the airman, RAF Flight Sergeant Jack Nissenthall, whose missions behind enemy lines would have been a certain death sentence had he ever been captured. This is a legacy in which all share.”

Prince Charles

He spoke of his own work in supporting Jewish causes including attending Kindertransport reunions organised by the Association of Jewish Refugees, as well as being patron of World Jewish Relief and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.

“I see this as the least I can do to try to repay, in some small way, the immense blessings the Jewish people have brought to this land and, indeed, to humanity,” he said. “In the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide so much of the ethical underpinning of our society, we read in The Book of Deuteronomy, the inspiring exhortation: ‘Choose life!’

The Jewish community of the United Kingdom have fulfilled that divine command in countless ways, and our society has been immeasurably enriched as a result.”

A LORD, A KING, AND A COMMONER Mountbattan

The New York Times July 26, 1981, Section 7, Page 11

This is from a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.

MOUNTBATTEN A Biography. By Richard Hough. Illustrated. 302 pp. New York: Random House. $16.95.

LORD MOUNTBATTEN was killed by an I.R.A. bomb in September 1979 while pleasure boating in Donegal Bay, Ireland. He was accorded the hero’s funeral he had planned. Not even the accounts published this past spring, which suggested that the war hero and favorite relative of the British royal family may have been approached to take part in a scheme to overthrow the Labor Government in 1968, have substantially altered the image of the handsome sea lord.

Richard Hough, who had earlier written a biography of Mountbatten’s parents, was working on this biography at the time of his death. As a result this book is not a hurried scissors-and-paste job, but a carefully researched volume about a man who is a more intriguing mixture of contradictions than meets the eye.

Regarded by many as the epitome of the English gentleman, Mountbatten was the youngest son of a minor German prince, Louis of Battenberg, and of Princess Victoria, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria. In the German-English exchange typical of royalty before World War I, Prince Louis was First Sea Lord (the professional head of the Royal Navy) when the war with Germany began in 1914. In the face of the intense anti-German sentiment that swept the country, all sorts of royal unscramblings became necessary, and Prince Louis was forced to resign. It was the end of his career, an insult that his young son, whom the family called Dickie, never forgot. The family was even forced to anglicize its name to Mountbatten.

According to Mr. Hough, these humiliations instilled in young Mountbatten a sense of insecurity that would later manifest itself in bragging, name dropping and a sometimes unseemly taste for medals and decorations. Mountbatten grew up spoiled, lively, sociable and determined to emulate his seafaring father. He went to Osborne Naval College and then, in 1919, to Cambridge. By this time he was described as ”quite crashingly handsome,” and he threw himself with vigor into the party life of postwar England. His closest friend was his cousin Edward, the Prince of Wales.

In 1921 Mountbatten fell in love with Edwina Ashley, the granddaughter of Sir Ernest Cassel, the Jewish banker who was one of EdwardVII’s intimates. The Mountbattens were married in grand style in 1922 and became one of the glamorous couples of the 1920’s. His looks and her money were an came what readers of literary biographies may now be resigned to accept as a typical upper-class English marriage, with very separate private lives.

After his marriage, Mountbatten pursued his naval career at different posts in the Mediterranean. When World War II broke out he was captain of the H.M.S. Kelly, a ship celebrated by Noel Coward in his film ”In Which We Serve.” Mountbatten’s first important appointment, as Supreme Allied Commander in Southeast Asia, came later in the war, and Mr. Hough provides some interesting details about Mountbatten’s dealings with American generals. After the war his most controversial assignment was as the last Viceroy of India. He was entrusted with the task of overseeing Indian independence – ”a melancholy and disastrous transaction,” as Winston Churchill described it. The job had to be completed in 14 months, and the fact that he pulled it off is impressive, although the resulting bloodshed, Mr. Hough notes, ”was the worst horror India had ever known.” After India came the final accolade, and with it a sense of personal vindication for his father’s ignominious dismissal: Mountbatten was made First Sea Lord, a position he held until his retirement in 1965.

Despite this distinguished record, Mr. Hough writes, Mountbatten had only modest intellectual abilities. His flamboyant social life included friendships with public figures including Charlie Chaplin, Noel Coward and, later in life, Barbara Cartland. He seemed to inspire a loyalty verging on worship from the lower by his snobbery and egomania.

He played an important role as confidant to the royal family, particularly in regard to his nephew, Prince Philip of Greece. Mountbatten, perhaps seeing in Philip the son he never had, shaped the young man’s career with the greatest care, and finally helped him to achieve his ambition – marriage to the future Queen of England.

Part of the royal honeymoon was spent at the Mountbatten estate, Broadlands. By insisting that Philip assume the name Mountbatten, he insured that his name, once so rudely treated, was safe forever in the genealogy of British royalty. The affection between uncle and nephew was passed on to Prince Charles, who revered his great-uncle as a grandfatherly figure, and who will spend part of his honeymoon at the same estate.

Mr. Hough deals with all this in a very readable fashion. He is careful when it comes to the personal side of Mountbatten’s life – hardly surprising, since the book received the cooperation of the royal family, a rare privilege. He is more expansive, however, on the subject of Lady Mountbatten. She had two daughters, but quite early in the marriage she became restless and spent much of her time traveling around the world, often with her sister-in-law, Nada Milford Haven.

Mr. Hough does not address the rumors, published elsewhere, of Lady Edwina’s affairs with women. Instead, he writes at length about her alleged affairs with men, including one with Nehru at the time when her husband, as Viceroy, was negotiating Indian independence. Mr. Hough quotes Lord Mountbattan as saying, ”He and Edwina got on marvelously, too. … That was a great help.” As for Mountbatten himself, Mr. Hough comments, ”He was … a man who enjoyed the sexual act more in theory and anecdote than in fact and practice.”

Lord Mountbatten Visits Israel Display at Toronto Exhibition

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 9, 1959

Lord Mountbatten, Admiral of the Fleet; Donald Fleming, Finance Minister of Canada, and Nathan Philips, Mayor of Toronto, were among the more than 1,000,000 persons who have visited the Israel pavilion and booths at the Canadian National Exhibition here this week.

Lord Mountbatten, who opened this year’s Exhibition, visited the Israel Pavilion escorted by Adin Talbar, Israel’s Commercial Consul in Canada and director of the pavilion.

A reception and fashion show was held on the Israel freighter, Yarden, which arrived in Toronto with merchandise for the Israel pavilion.

Harry Zifkin, vice-president of the central division of the Zionist Organization of Canada, reported to the guests at the show on the work of his committee in fostering trade relations between Canada and Israel. David Peters, president of the central division, presented cases of concentrates of Israel oranges to Lt. Comdr. D. F. Slocombe of HMCS the Restigouche and to Lt. Richard Smith of HMS Whitby as good will tokens to crews of NATO units now in Toronto harbor.

BONUS: THE JEWISH RULERS OF INDIA

Commentary: Highlights of Israel-India relations as India turns 70

It is an irony of history that it took the approaching centenary for an Indian prime minister to visit Israel, says a senior researcher at the Hebrew University.

Jerusalem Post, AUGUST 15, 2017

Modi and Netanyahu on the way to Haifa (photo credit: KOBI GIDEON/GPO)
Modi and Netanyahu on the way to Haifa

India came into being on 15 August 1947, as did Pakistan. Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy of India and cousin of current Queen Elizabeth, attended the celebrations in Pakistan the day before because, of course, he could not attend both events simultaneously.

By August 15,  he had returned to New Delhi to become the last Viceroy of India and the first Governor-General of united India.

Ironically, Indian Independence was originally supposed to have taken place a little later, and would have coincided with Israeli independence in 1948. Mountbatten had been given strict instructions to pull Britain out of the mire with the least possible damage upon being appointed Viceroy in early 1947. He surmised — some people say incorrectly today that Britain could not wait to exit. His plan of Partition resulted in millions of people becoming refugees on both sides of the Indo-Pakistani borders. Today, stories about partition abound the internet: neighbors became enemies; friends became murderers. Indians and Pakistanis alike still remember the slaughter and the horror.

After teaching a semester on Indian Jews this year at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi, I took the railway, which was once known as the “British Jewel of the Orient,” to the summer capital of British India, Shimla, in Himachal Pradesh. It was here that Lord Mountbatten met with Mahatma Gandhi in the Viceregal Lodge, a grand Elizabethan castle built in grey sandstone — more fitting in Oxford than in the foothills of the Himalayas. It was also here that Gandhi urged to Mountbatten to invite the Muslim leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah to form a new united central government. But Mountbatten never conveyed Gandhi’s ideas to Jinnah, and the rest, as they say, is history. In the end, Prime Minister Nehru, who was having an affair with Mountbatten’s wife according to all accounts, agreed to divide India.

Only Gandhi refused. The pictures hung today on the walls of the Viceregal Lodge in Shimla, testify to the historic meetings, where Mountbatten unfurled his Partition plan. Today, the same building houses the Indian Institute of Advanced Study.

It is tempting to speculate how a previous British Viceroy, Lord Reading, would have reacted to the Partition plan when he resided at the Viceregal Lodge in Shimla during the 1930’s.

Rufus Daniel Isaacs Reading was born to poor Jewish parents, who had a stall in Covent Garden market, London. Lord Reading reached the highest title any Jew has reached in Britain: he became a Marquess, the Viceroy of India, Attorney General, Lord Chief Justice,  British Ambassador to the United States and Foreign Secretary.

When Lord Reading visited Tel Aviv in 1932, he was received as a celebrity. Onlookers reported that it was the most triumphal reception since Lord Arthur Balfour’s visit. It was Balfour who had composed the Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for a national Jewish homeland. In the same year that India is celebrating its Independence and 70th birthday, in Israel in November 2017, we will be marking the centenary of the Balfour Declaration at a special reception in the Knesset.

It is odd that yet another Jew in the British Raj, who became Governor-General of India, actually opposed the Balfour Declaration. This was Edwin Samuel Montagu, who came from an Orthodox Jewish family, but rebelled and married Venetia Stanley, a Protestant aristocrat, who converted to Judaism.

Montagu’s sister, the honorable Lily Montagu, became active in progressive Judaism and eventually established the Jewish Religious Union in Bombay in 1925. Their synagogue catered to the English-speaking Bene Israel Jews of Maharashtra since prayers were held in the English language. Today, services are still held at the JRU, as it became known, on High Holidays.

Montagu’s objection to the Balfour Declaration was based upon the belief that Zionism was “a mischievous political creed” and that Jews were not a nation. However, both Reading and Montagu requested to be buried as Jews.

It is an irony of history that it took nearly a centenary for an Indian prime minister to visit Israel, which was declared a state less than one year after the independence of India, despite the fact that diplomatic relations were established between the two countries in 1992. It is a truism that the two countries have more than the British Raj or the British Mandate in common.

Shalva Weil, a senior researcher at the Hebrew University, is the Founding Chairperson of the Israel-India Cultural Association. She is the author of “India’s Jewish Heritage: Ritual, Art and Life-Cycle,” and several other books on Jews in India, and has authored scores of articles on different aspects of Indian Jewry.

Queen Elizabeth II – A Daughter of Destiny!

The remarkable genealogy of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, reveals that the monarch seated on the throne of Britain fulfils the promises that YEHOVAH God made to Judah of an everlasting scepter, and to King David that he would never lack a person to sit on his throne. When the Messiah returns, according to Scripture he will be given the throne of David — which presently is the throne of Britain.

by Glyn S. LewisHope of Israel Ministries (Ecclesia of YEHOVAH)

The Monarchy and the Throne of Great Britain are part of a divinely ordained royal succession that is descended from the scepter-holding line of Judah, and the royal throne of David. The evidence for this can be traced as far back as Abraham, but this article will concentrate on later evidence, including that from England’s Coronation Service.

When James VI of Scotland ascended the English throne as King James I, he proclaimed a view of the monarchy that accorded with YEHOVAH God’s promise of an enduring throne of David.James came to the throne with the firm belief that the sovereign had a right to the throne that was deriveddirectly from YEHOVAH God: a belief that came to be known as the Divine Right of Kings, by which the King was the rightful inheritor of the Crown, to whom his subjects rendered fealty.

None of the Hanoverians claimed a Divine Right of Kings. The alliance of YEHOVAH God and the monarchy was now sealed by the hand of Providence, which was seen to have been instrumental in bringing the House of Hanover to the throne. At the Coronation of George I, William Talbot, Bishop of Oxford, in his Coronation sermon cast Britain in the role of the new Israel, eulogizing the new king as being of the line of King David, and taking as his text: “This is the day which the Lord has made; we will be rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalm 118:24).

These lines from Psalm 118were traditionally composed by David after his anointing as King of Israel. Such a reference to the divine nature of the appointment of this ruler from the new Hanoverian dynasty was not confined to the Coronation of George I. At his successor’s Coronation, John Potter, the Bishop of Oxford, exalted the new king, George II, as “seated on God’s throne, and King for the Lord his God.”

During Victoria’s reign, various publications began to appear, detailing the Queen’s descent from King David. It appears that Queen Victoria was neither unaware of, nor unsympathetic to, these views. Reader Harris, K.C., the founder of the Pentecostal League, wrote in his book, The Lost Tribes of Israelthat: “Queen Victoria was herself interested in this, and it is said that she showed the Revd. Glover, who was a great authority on this subject, her own genealogy right back to King David.”

Following the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, the name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha lasted only sixteen years. In 1917, King George V announced to the British nation, now war-weary as a result of the Great War, that the nominal link with Germany was to be severed. Henceforth, the House of Windsor would reign.

On the death of King George V in 1936, it was confidently expected that David, Prince of Wales, would in due course succeed to the throne. He did in fact become King, taking the title of Edward VIII. But on the 10th December, 1936, he abdicated in order to marry Mrs. Bessie Wallis Warfield, better known as Wallis Simpson.

An alternative view: Edward, Duke of Windsor, reviewing a squad of SS with Robert Ley in October 1937. (Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-17964 / Pahl, Georg / CC-BY-SA)
Is this why he really had to step down from the throne? His Nazi connections were either well tolerated or not tolerated by the Jewish Royals.
Multiple accounts seem to agree that many top-tier Jews weren’t really disturbed by Nazi ties.

His place was taken by his brother, Albert, who was enthroned and crowned as King George VI, together with his consort, Queen Elizabeth. The genealogical descent of his consort, Queen Elizabeth, is significant. Formerly the Lady Elizabeth Bowes­Lyon, the Bowes-Lyon family is traceable back to the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce. Our present Queen, Elizabeth II, is therefore descended from King David through both of her parents.

At the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, an anthem was sung just prior to the enthronement: “Be strong and of good courage.” In the Old Testament, Moses is credited with speaking these exact words to the people of Israel as they are about to cross the River Jordan and enter the land that was promised to their forefathers. The analogy between the reign of our Queen and the imminence of Israel about to cross a threshold (the Jordan) into a new and promised era is worth considering.

So what might that new destination or era be? In reply to this question, I would like to take you back in time to the shores of the Sea of Galilee. The four disciples who had formerly been fishermen — Simon Peter, his brother Andrew, and the two brothers, James and John — had been called by the Messiah to “Follow me,” and told from that time on, instead of being fishermen, they were to be “fishers of men,” catching people, and not fish. But in the final chapter of the Gospel of Johnwe find Simon Peter and six ofthe other disciples, including James and John, going fishing. They toil all night, but by morning they have caught nothing.

In the morning light, while still in the boat, they see the Messiah standing on the shore; but they do not recognize him. Yeshua calls to them, “Children, have you any food?” They call back “No,” Yeshua responds “Cast your net on the right side, and you will catch some.” So the disciples cast the net, and now the net fills up with so many fish that the disciples are unable to draw it in. Simon Peter plunges into the sea, and drags the net to the land, full of large fish, totaling one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken.

The writer of the Gospel does not tell us what they all discussed over their breakfast, but he does provide us with a possible clue. When the Messiah tells his disciple Peter to “feed my sheep,” Peter turns and sees another disciple following and asks, “Lord, what about this man?” to which the Messiah replies, “If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” This exchange must have been overheard, because the rumor went about that that disciple would not die.

Is this what the conversation over breakfast had been about: the return of the Messiah? And if so, is this why the Gospel writer tells us the actual number of fish that they caught, and that they were large fish? Is its meaning to do with the end time, when the Messiah will return to sit on the throne of David — as promised by YEHOVAH God?

In Daughters of DestinyItrace the genealogical descent of the people who might be the human equivalent of those large fish, beginning with Adam and leading through to Queen, Elizabeth II. As the book progresses, tables of people that comprise this descent are provided, with each person numbered, beginning with Adam who is number one, and ending with the present Queen, Elizabeth II, who is number one hundred and fifty-two.

This means that Her Majesty’s successor will bring us to the number that equals the count of the large fish that the disciples caught. This is the number which the Gospel writer considered of sufficient importance to pass on to us because he thought that it might relate to the time when the Messiah will return. The Messiah himself said that no one but his Father knows the day or the hour of his return; but he did say that we should keep alert and look for and interpret the signs of his return.

The remarkable genealogy of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, reveals that the monarch seated on the throne of Britain fulfils the promises that YEHOVAH God made to Judah of an everlasting scepter, and to King David that he would never lack a person to sit on his throne. When the Messiah returns, according to Scripture he will be given the throne of David — which presently is the throne of Britain. That time might be near.

‘Circumcision is one of the oddities of the Royal Family’

For many years my dinner-party claim to fame was that I was circumcised by the same rabbi who performed the procedure on Prince Charles.

The Telegraph, 31 Mar 2015

It is one of the oddities of the Royal family — shared by the majority of the English upper classes — that for many generations they have circumcised their male sons, invariably using a Mohel, the Jewish word for a circumcision practitioner. It was rarely done on medical grounds, nor on religious ones, but was a matter of class.

This has prompted some speculation as to whether the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will chose to follow suit. Understandably, Clarence House will not comment on such a private and delicate matter.

However, it is unlikely because the connection between class and circumcision, which continued up into the 1970s, has all but died out in Britain. Indeed by the time the Duke of Cambridge himself was born in 1982, it is understood that Diana, Princess of Wales, refused to continue the tradition, in keeping with the then medical opinion that it was an unnecessary procedure whose risks outweighed any possible benefits.

The NHS now tries to guide parents away from the practice and the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. This is down from a rate of 20 per cent in the 1950s, when there was a belief, especially among those who could afford to have it done privately, that it was more hygienic.

 The Prince of Wales is among the royals who have been circumcised

Nearly all of those now undertaking the practice do so on religious grounds — it is done by nearly all Muslims and Jews — as well as a few on cultural grounds.

Maurice Levenson, the secretary of the Initiation Society, an Anglo-Jewish organisation which represents about 55 mohels, said: “The great majority of the enquiries we receive come from those of the Jewish faith, Muslims, Afro-Caribbeans and Americans, where circumcision remains popular.” He said very few upper class British parents approached the organisation as they did in previous decades.

The Portland Hospital, which has the most famous private maternity ward in London, after the Lindo Wing at St Mary’s, where Prince George was born, offers circumcision on site for £737.

The connection between circumcision and the royal family was started by George I, who brought the practice over from Hanover. And it has continued through Queen Victoria’s children to Edward VII, and then through the Duke of Windsor to the Prince of Wales, Princes Andrew and Edward.

Follow the genes by following the diseases THEY CARRY

Haemophilia in the Descendants of Queen Victoria

Source: englishmonarchs.co.uk

Haemophilia acquired the name the royal disease due to the high number of descendants of Queen Victoria afflicted by it. The first instance of haemophilia in the British Royal family occurred on the birth of Prince Leopold on 7th April 1853, Leopold was the fourth son and eighth child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. No earlier occurrence of the disease in the Royal family had been known, it is assumed that a mutation occurred in the sperm of the Queen’s father, Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent.

Victoria and Albert and their eldest five children

Image: Victoria and Albert and their eldest five children

Haemophilia is an X-linked recessive disorder. The blood of a haemophiliac cannot coagulate, due to the fact that one or more of the plasma proteins required to form a clot is absent or reduced in their blood. The condition is passed on to males through females, who do not manifest the symptoms of the disease themselves. A recessive gene, it is carried on the sexual female chromosome X . Males possess XY chromosomes and females XX. Since females have two X chromosomes, they are more often than not carriers.

Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany (1 on chart), the first of Queen Victoria’s descendants to suffer from haemophilia was described as a delicate child who remained a constant source of anxiety to the Queen throughout his life, evidence exists that Leopold also suffered mildly from epilepsy, like his grand-nephew Prince John (the youngest son of King George V). He was first diagnosed with haemophilia in 1858 or 1859, Queen Victoria consequently placed restrictions on him, which he chaffed at. He was later created Duke of Albany and married the German princess, Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont. Leopold died in 1884 at the age of 31, in the south of France. He suffered a fit, the cause or the consequence of a fall on some stairs at Cannes, injuring his knee and hitting his head and died the following morning, apparently from a cerebral haemorrhage.Prince Leopold, Duke of AlbanyPrince Leopold, Duke of Albany

Leopold was the only one of Queen Victoria’s haemophiliac descendants to have children, his marriage to Helena of Waldeck produced two children, a daughter, Princess Alice of Albany (4), later to become Countess of Athlone, who was a further carrier of the disease and an unaffected son, born posthumously, Charles Edward, later Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Alice was later to become Countess of Athlone and was to prove a carrier of haemophilia. She married Prince Alexander of Teck, the brother of Queen Mary, their son, Rupert Alexander George of Teck. During the First World War, when anti-German feeling was at its height, in conjunction with changing the name of the Royal House to Windsor, King George V changed that of the Tecks to Cambridge, (for their maternal ancestor, Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge, a son of George III). Alexander of Teck was made Earl of Athlone and Rupert granted the courtesy title of Viscount Trematon. Viscount Trematon (5) was also a haemophiliac. He died on 15 April 1928 from an intracerebral haemorrhage as a result of a car crash in France. On 1 April 1928, Rupert was driving with two friends Paris to Lyon. In the course of overtaking another vehicle, his car hit a tree and overturned. He was taken to a nearby hospital with a skull fracture but never recovered and died in hospital.

Through two of the Queen’s daughters, Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse (2) and Beatrice, Princess of Battenberg (3), both of whom were carriers, the disease was to be spread into many of the Royal Families of Europe.

Tsar AlexeiTsarevich Alexei

Princess Alice was married to Prince Louis of Hesse-Darmstadt and gave birth to a haemophiliac son, Frederick of Hesse (6), (Frederick William August Victor Leopold Louis) known as Frittie in the family, in 1870. His haemophilia was first diagnosed in February 1873, a few months before his death, when he cut his ear and bled for three days. He died very young in 1873, after a fall from a window induced a brain haemorrhage. Tragically, the child bled to death, leaving his mother inconsolable. Alice also had an unaffected son, the future Grand Duke Ernest Louis of Hesse and five daughters. Two of the daughters, Irene (7) and Alix of Hesse(8) were in turn, carriers of the haemophilia gene.

Haemophilia appeared in the Prussian Royal family when Alice’s third daughter Irene married her first cousin, Prince Henry of Prussia, the second son of Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter Victoria, Princess Royal and brother of Kaiser Wilhelm II. The disease appeared in two of their sons Princes Waldemar (9) and Henry of Prussia (10). Prince Waldemar died in a clinic in Tutzing, Bavaria during the Second World War due to a lack of blood transfusion facilities. He and his wife fled before the Russian advance, arriving in Tutzing, Waldemar needed a blood transfusion but the U.S. Army overran the area and diverted all available medical resources to treat concentration camp victims, preventing Waldemar’s German doctor from treating him, Waldemar died the following day, on 2 May 1945. His brother Prince Henry died at the age of four on 26 February 1904, from a brain haemorrhage, the result of a fall from a chair.

The disease was spread to the Romanov dynasty through the marriage of Alice’s fourth daughter Alix, to Tsar Nicholas II, at which she became the Empress Alexandra of Russia. The highly attractive Alix had previously refused a proposal from Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, and heir to the British throne, the eldest son of Bertie, Prince of Wales. Had she accepted, haemophilia could have re-entered the British Royal line. Nicholas had long loved and cherished dreams of marrying Alix, but she turned down his first proposal as she could not bring herself to change her Protestant religion to the Russian Orthodoxy required of a future Tsarina, but after much soul searching, accepted when Nicholas proposed for a second time.

Alix, who became known as Empress Alexandra, produced four daughters before giving birth to their only son, the Tsarevitch Alexis (11), heir to the Russian empire, who was also stricken with haemophilia. As with most mother’s of haemophiliacs, Alix was overprotective of her son and worried about him constantly. Through his supposed ability to heal Tsarevich, and Tsarina’s confidence in him, Rasputin acquired a fatal influence over the Tsar’s decisions which was to lead directly to the Russian Revolution. The entire family perished at the hands of a Bolshevik firing squad in a cellar at Ekaterinberg on 17th July 1918.

The Queen’s youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, fell in love with and married the handsome Prince Henry of Battenberg. The couple produced three sons and a daughter. Two of their sons, Leopold Mountbatten (12) and Maurice, Prince of Battenburg (13) inherited the haemophilia gene from their mother. Maurice was killed whilst engaged in active service in the Ypres Salient during the First World War. Leopold (Leopold Arthur Louis) lived to the age of 32, dying during a hip operation in 1922.

Leopold MountbattenLeopold Mountbatten

Beatrice’s only daughter, Victoria Eugenie of Battenburg (14), known as Ena, was married to King Alfonso XIII of Spain and carried the disease into the Royal House of Spain.

Though they did not enjoy a particularly happy marriage and Alfonso had many mistresses, the couple produced six children, four sons and two daughters. Two of their sons, Alfonso, Prince of the Asturias (15), the heir to Spain, and Infante Gonzalo of Spain (16), were affected with haemophilia. Alfonso is reported to have never forgiven his wife for passing the disease into the Spanish Royal bloodline. Both children were dressed in padded suits to prevent their undergoing knocks which might result in a life-threatening haemorrhage.

Alfonso later renounced his rights to the throne of Spain to marry a commoner, Edelmira Sampedro Ocejo y Robato, after which he took the courtesy title Count of Covadonga. A car accident led to his early death in 1938, when he crashed into a telephone booth and appeared to have minor injuries, but his haemophilia led to fatal internal bleeding. Another of Victoria Eugenie’s sons Juan was the father of Juan Carlos, the present King of Spain’s father.

In August 1934 the Infante Gonzalo of Spain was spending the summer holidays with his family at the villa of Count Ladislaus Hoyos at Pörtschach am Wörthersee in Austria. The infante Gonzalo died as a result of a traffic accident, he and his sister the Infanta Beatriz were driving from Klagenfurt to Pörtschach. On approaching Krumpendorf, Beatriz, who was driving the vehicle, was forced to swerve to avoid a cyclist, resulting in the car being crashed into a wall. Since neither Gonzalo nor Beatriz appeared badly hurt, they returned to their villa. Several hours later it became clear that Gonzalo had severe abdominal bleeding and died two days later. 

“It is assumed that a mutation occurred in the sperm of the Queen’s father, Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent.“, they said. He is the son of…

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

19 May 1744 – 17 November 1818

Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was born on 19 May 1744 at the Untere Schloss in Mirow, she was the child of Duke Charles Louis Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Elizabeth Albertine of Saxe-Hildburghausen. Mecklenburg-Strelitz was a small north German duchy in the Holy Roman Empire.

Charlotte of Mecklenburg_Strelitz

Image: Charlotte of Mecklenburg_Strelitz

Although intelligent, Charlotte was reported to have received a very mediocre education, her father, Duke Charles, died when she was but eight years old and was succeeded as Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz by her half-brother Adolphus Frederick III.

The young King George III succeeded his grandfather George II to the throne of Great Britain at the age of 22. The seventeen-year-old German Princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz appealed to him as a prospective bride partly because she had been brought up in an insignificant north German duchy and therefore would have had no experience of power politics or party intrigues. Charlotte spoke no English but was quick to learn the language, albeit she was noted to have spoken with a marked German accent.

Contemporaries commented that Charlotte was “ugly”, she was small and thin, had a dark complexion and flared nostrils. Baron Stockmar, in his autobiography, described the Queen as having a “mulatto face”.

African or Middle-Eastern?

The historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom argues that her features, as seen in royal portraits, were conspicuously African, and contends that they were noted by numerous contemporaries. He claims that Charlotte, though of German birth, was directly descended from a black branch of the Portuguese royal family, related to Margarita de Castro e Souza, a fifteenth-century Portuguese noblewoman nine generations removed, whose ancestry she traces from the thirteenth century ruler Alfonso III and his lover Madragana, whom Valdes states to have been a Moor and thus a black African.

According to Valdez, Queen Charlotte’s apparent African features could have been inherited three to six times over from Margarita de Castro e Sousa, thus explaining the Queen’s unmistakable African appearance. The Royal Household itself, at the time of Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation, referred to both her Asian and African bloodlines in an apologia it published defending her position as head of the Commonwealth.

Princess Charlotte left her Mecklenburg eight days after her mother’s death and arrived in England after a tempestuous Channel crossing, George III was said to be visibly disappointed at his first meeting with her at St. James’ Palace in London, although they were later to form a strong and affectionate bond. The couple were married on September 8, 1761, at the Chapel Royal in St James&rsquo’s Palace.

Less than a year later, on 12 August 1762, Charlotte gave birth to her first child, George Augustus Frederick, Prince of Wales, later to become King George IV. A second child, Frederick Augustus, Duke of York and Albany was born in August of the following year, while a third son William Henry, Duke of Clarence, the future William IV was born on 21 August 1765. William was followed by the couple’s first daughter, Charlotte Augusta Matilda, Princess Royal, destined to become Queen of Württemberg, who was born on 29 September 1766. In all the marriage produced fifteen children, nine sons and six daughters, all but two of whom (Octavius and Alfred) survived into adulthood.

Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz

Image: Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz

King George III was fond of country pursuits, riding and farming and preferred to live as much as possible outside of the capital in the then-rural towns of Kew and Richmond-upon-Thames. He favoured an informal and relaxed domestic life and a healthy diet, to the dismay of some courtiers more accustomed to displays of grandeur and strict protocol.

In 1761 the King bought Buckingham House (later Buckingham Palace) for his wife, as a comfortable family home close to St James’s Palace. George and Charlotte were music connoisseurs with German tastes, who gave special honour to German artists and composers. They were passionate admirers of the music of George Frideric Handel.

Queen Charlotte was also a keen amateur botanist who took a great interest in Kew Gardens, and in an age of discovery, when travellers and explorers such as Captain Cook and Sir Joseph Banks were constantly bringing home new species and varieties of plants, saw that the collections were greatly enriched and expanded. Her interest in botany led to the magnificent South African flower, the Bird of Paradise, being named Strelitzia reginae in her honour. Queen Charlotte is also credited to have introduced the German tradition of Christmas trees to England and had the first one in 1800.

King George III succumbed to a bout of physical and mental illness in 1788, now believed to be porphyria, a metabolic condition, which greatly distressed the Queen. As the King gradually became permanently insane, the Queen’s personality altered, she became bad tempered, sank into depression and gained weight, no longer enjoyed appearing in public and her relationships with her now adult children became strained. From 1792, she found some relief from her worry about her husband in throwing herself into the decorations and gardens of her new residence, Frogmore House, situated in Windsor Home Park.

After the onset of his madness, George was placed in his wife’s care, while their eldest son, known as the Prince Regent, ruled in his father’s stead. Charlotte could not bring herself to visit her afflicted husband very often, due to his erratic behaviour and occasional violent reactions. It is believed she did not visit him again after June 1812. However, she remained supportive of King George as his illness, worsened in old age. Charlotte was a fond grandmother of Princess Charlotte of Wales, the daughter of the Prince Regent and heir to the throne, it was a great blow to her when the younger Charlotte died in childbirth in November 1817.

A year after Princess Charlotte’s death, Queen Charlotte fell ill and thought a few days in the country air of Kew would be beneficial, she was suffering from dropsy or fluid retention and her condition deteriorated until she contracted pneumonia. She died at the age of 74 at royal family’s country retreat, Dutch House in Surrey (now known as Kew Palace) on 17 November 1818. Her two eldest sons, George, the Prince Regent, and Frederick, Duke of York, along with the Princesses Augusta and Mary were with her at the end. She was buried at St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. Her husband, now completely blind and suffering from dementia, was not informed of her death, he died at the age of 81 at Windsor Castle, just over a year later.

The Children and Grandchildren of George III and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

(1) George Augustus Frederick, Prince of Wales KING GEORGE IV (1762-1830) m. Caroline of Brunswick.

Issue:-

(i) Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales (1796-1817) m Leopold of Saxe-Gotha

(2) Frederick Augustus, Duke of York (1763-1827) m. Fredericka of Prussia

No issue

(3) William Henry, Duke of Clarence KING WILLIAM IV (1765-1837) m. Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen.

Issue:-

(i) Princess Charlotte Augusta Louisa (b. & d. 1819)

(ii) Princess Elizabeth Georgina Adelaide (1820-21)

(4) Charlotte Augusta Matilda, Princess Royal (1766-1828) m. Frederick I of Wurtemburg.

No issue

(5) Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent (1767-1820) m. Victoria Mary of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfield.

Issue:-

(i) Alexandrina Victoria of Kent. QUEEN VICTORIA (1818-1901) m. Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

(6) Princess Augusta Sophia (1768-1840)

No issue

(7) Princess Elizabeth (1770-1840) m. Frederick of Hesse-Homberg

No issue

(8) Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland KING ERNEST OF HANOVER (1771-1851) m, Fredericka of Mecklenberg-Strelitz.

Issue :-

(i) KING GEORGE V OF HANOVER

(9) Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (173-1843) m.(1) Lady Augusta Murray (2) Lady Cecilia Letitia Buggin.

Issue by (1) :-

(i) Augustus Frederick d’Este (1794-1848)

(ii) Augusta Emma d’Este (1801-66)

(10)Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850) m. Augusta of Hesse-Cassel.

Issue:-

(i) George, Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904)

(ii) Princess Augusta of Cambridge (1833-1927)

(iii) Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (1837-1897)

(11) Mary (1776-1857) m. William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester of Edinburgh

(12) Princess Sophia of the United kingdom (1777-1848) never married

(13) Prince Octavius of the United Kingdom (1779-1786) died in infancy

(14) Prince Alfred of the United Kingdom (1780-82) died in infancy

(15) Princess Amelia of the United Kingdom (1783-1810) died in infancy

POINT BEING:
IF JEWISHNESS IS HEREDITARY, ALL EUROPEAN ROYALS ARE JEWS.


More on this in an upcoming report.

fact-check this!

I admit I don’t have the dedication, it’s an expert’s lifetime work, but I can vouch for about half of it to be consistent with many other sources. I skipped the speculative parts as much as possible. – Silview

It important and interesting to note that the author recommends himself and a red-haired (Ashkenazi) expert, but also of Catholic belief:


Red haired ancestor of R1b M222 clade

I am a fifth generation Australian of Anglo Jewish and Anglo-Celtic ancestry who belongs to the R1b M222+ subclade of A260 y-dna and to I1a1 mt-dna clade. My father belongs to J1b1a1 mt-dna and my mother’s father belongs to R1b SYR2627+ FGC11245+ y-dna. I have a Bachelor of Arts (majoring in History and minoring in English Literature, Ancient History and Music) from the University of Western Australia, a Graduate Diploma of Education (History, English and Religion) from the Australian Catholic University and a Master of Arts (in Theological Studies) from the University of Notre Dame. I am presently studying a Graduate Diploma in Ancient Languages at the ACU.
This blog is to share some of my insights drawn from over 30 or so years of research. Three major influences in the area of history on me have been the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky, Cecil Roth and Arthur Zuckerman. In my younger year, I was also inspired in the area of genealogy and heraldry by Leslie Gilbert Pine and Sir Iain Moncreiffe and did a course in Genealogy and Heraldry with Dr Douglas Sutherland-Bruce at UWA. I am also formed by the Bible and other religious writings within both the Jewish and Catholic traditions. In accord with Catholic teaching I believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible as originally written in all its parts and it is the love of God and the Holy Scriptures that animates my research and writings
.”

Source

Davidic Ancestry of Prince William and Prince Harry

Prince William and Prince Harry of Wales are the 75th generation in descent from Mar Joseph of Arimathea a kinsman of the Blessed Virgin. On the direct male line they descend from Nathan or Nascien the brother of St Joseph of Arimathea who was also known as the British King Tasciovanus (Tenantius/ Tenaufan). Some believe that Mar Joseph sat as Nasi (the Davidic Prince)in the Sanhedrin sometime after the death of Rabban Hillel the Elder. Mar Joseph was the son of Mar Hunya of Babylon son of the Babylonian Exilarch Solomon II. Mar Joseph was a disciple of Hillel. I believe that in the Second Temple times the Sanhedrin had three high seats or chairs called the ‘Chair of David’ for the Nasi who must be of Davidic lineage, the ‘Chair of Aharon’ for the High Priest and the ‘chair of Moshe’ for the Chief Rabbi who was also called Av Bet Din (Father of the House of Justice). This structure entered the early Church with the ‘chair of Aharon’ called the ‘Chair of Peter’. St Peter sat in the ‘chair of Peter’ as the High Priest of the New covenant priesthood. St James the Great was the Nasi who sat in the ‘Chair of David’ now called the ‘Chair of James’ [after his departure for Spain St James the Just became the Nasi] and St John was the ‘Av Bet Din’ on the ‘Chair of John’. The ‘chair of Peter or Aaron’ represented the priestly calling, the ‘chair of David or James’ the kingly and the Av Bet Din or ‘chair of Moshe or John’ the prophetic. The Wales brothers descend from the Royal House of King David through the Babylonian Exilarchs. On their mother’s direct maternal line they are of Jewish ancestry from females of the Davidic House.

1.Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales (born 1981)
2.Charles Philip Arthur George Prince of Wales (born 1948)married Lady Diana Spencer
3.Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark duke of Edinburgh (born 1921) married Elizabeth II Queen of Great Britain
4.Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark (b. 1882 d.1944) married Princess Alice of Battenburg daughter of Prince Louis of Battenburg and Princess Victoria of Hesse
5.King (William)George I of Greece (b.1845 d.1913)married Grand Duchess Olga of Russia daughter of Grand Duke Constantine of Russia and Princess Elisabeth Alexandra of Saxe-Altenberg
6.King Christian IX of Denmark (b.1818 d.1906) married Princess Louise Wilhemina Fredericka Caroline Augusta Julie of Hesse-Cassel daughter of William X of Hesse Cassel and Princess Louise Charlotte of Denmark the daughter of Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark
7.Duke Frederick William Paul Leopold (1785-1831)married Louise Caroline of Hesse-Cassel daughter of Charles of Hesse-Cassel and Princess Louise of Denmark the daughter of Frederick V King of Denmark [Duke Frederick William may have died young and been replaced by King Louis XVII]
8.Duke Ferderick Charles (1757-1816)married Fredericka Amalia of Schlieben daughter of Charles Leopold of Schlieben and Marie Eleanora of Lehndorf
9.Duke Charles Anthony Augustus(1727-1759)married Fredericka Countess of Dohna daughter of Albert of Dohna and Sophie Henrietta of Schleswig-HOlstein-Sondersberg-Beck
10.Duke Peter Augustus (1697-1775)married Sophie of Hessen-Phillipsthal daughter of Phillip of Hessen-Philippsthal and Catherine Amalia of Solms-Laubach
11.Duke Frederick Louis (1653-1728)married Louise Charlotte daughter of Duke Ernest Gunther of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg and Augusta of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg- Glucksburg
12.Duke Augustus Philip (1612-1675)married Marie Sibylla of Nassau-Saarbrucken daughter of William Louis Duke of Nassau-
Saarbrucken and Anne Amelia of Baden-Durlach
13.Duke Alexander (1573-1627)married Dorothea of Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen daughter of Johann Gunther I of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen and Anne of Oldenburg
14.Duke Johann of Schleswig- Holstein-Sonderburg (1545-1622)married Elisabeth of Brunswick-Grubenhagen daughter of Duke Ernest of Brunswick- Grubenhagen and Anne Margaret of Pommern-Stettin
15.King Christian III of Denmark (1503-1559)married Dorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg daughter of Magnus I Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg and Katharina of Brunswich- Wolfenbuetel
16.King Frederick I of Denmark (1471-1533)married Anna of Brandenburg daughter of Johann Cicero Elector of Brandenburg and Margarethe of Saxony
17.King Christian I of Denmark and Norway (1426-1481)married Dorothea of Brandenburg daughter of Johann Margrave of Brandenburg and Barbara of Saxe-Wittenburg
18.Count Deitrich II the Fortunate of Oldenburg (1390-1440)married Heilwig of Holstein daughter of Gerhard VI Duke of Silesia and Catharina of Brunswick- Luneburg
19.Count Christian V (1340-1399)married Agnes of Honstein-Herringen daughter of Dietrich V Count of Honstein and Sophie Countess of Brunswick
20.Count Conrad I of Oldenburg(died 1347)married Ingeborg of Holstein- Segeburg daughter of Gerard IV of Holstein-Segeburg and Anastasia of Wittenberg
21.Count Johann II married Hedwig of Diephol daughter of Conrad V of Diephol and Hedwig of Rietberg
22.Count Christian III of Oldenburg married Hedwig of Oldenburg-Wildeshausen daughter of Heinrich IV of Oldenburg-Wildeshausen and Elisabeth of Techlenburg
23.Count Johann I married Rixa of Hoya daughter of Heinrich of Hoya and Hedwig (Ava/Eve)
24.Count Christian II of Oldenburg married Agnes of Altena daughter of Arnold III of Altena and Adelheide of Heinsberg
25.Count Moritz married Salome of Wickerode daughter of Count Otto of Wickerode and Adelheid
26.Count Christian I of Oldenburg married Cunigunde of Loccum daughter of Burchard of Loccum
27.Count Elimar II (died 1143)married Eilika of Armsberg daughter of Heinrich of Rietburg
28.Count Elimar I (Mar Eli/Egilmar)married Rixa of Oldenburg daughter of Johann of Oldenburg
29.Hayo (Mar Eliyahu Hiyya) of Frisia (Eliyas the Swan Knight/Helias Count of Maine)married Rixa (Beatrix/ Reyna)daughter of Joseph Orobed and Druda (Doda) Perfet bat Sheshet
30.Mar Aharon ‘Hen Tzvi’ Barzillai ben Eliyahu of Barcelona (Warin of Lorraine/Lohengrin) – married Gracia(Hannah/Beatrix)daughter of Mar Isaac Halabu of Barcelona and Bonadona Azara Perfet
31.Mar Eliyahu ben Mar Barzillai of Barcelona (aka Richard Mari)- married Bilhah Perfet daughter of Bouchard Prefect of the Royal Hunt and his wife Ava (Alberada) de Lorraine
32.Mar Barzillai of Allepo and Barcelona (born c.960)- married Sarah Bat Mar Shlomo ben Azarya
33.Mar Isaac Haim of Allepo (Halabu)
34.Mar Yishai married Sarah bat Mar Judah
35.Solomon Exilarch of Babylon
36.Josiah of Khoresan Babylonian Exilarch (born 860)married Judith daughter of Baldwin I Brasdefer(Barzilay)and Judith of Franks
37.Mar Zakkai ben David
38.David I ben Judah Exilarch of Babylon (cousin of Mar Isaac Iskoi II Babylonian Exilarch)
39.Mar Judah of Babylon (brother of Mar Moses Babylonian Exilarch)
40.Mar Isaac Kalonymus (William) of Babylon and Narbonne
41.Nehemiah Ha Makiri King of Ripaurien and Saxony
42.Machir Todros (Theuderic) Jewish King of Septimania and Western Exilarch (b.710)married Princess Alda
43.Judah Zakkai (Eudes/Eudo)King of Aquitaine and Babylonian Exilarch (b.690) married Shoshanna (Rozelinde)of Babylon.
44.Mar Ahunai of the Holy Land [Hernaut de Beauland] married Dode (Ita)daughter of Ansegisel of Aquitaine and Rebecca (Begga)His sister Berthe marrried Natronai ben Nehemiah (Norbert of Aquitiane)
45.Mar Abu Aharon (Garin) married Hermenjart daughter of the Exilarch Heman ben Shallum ben Hushiel. Brother of Bat Chasdai who married Prince Nehemiah ben Hananiah of Babylon
46.Mar Chasdai II Exilarch of Babylon. Brother of Hananiah Gaon of Sura
47.Mar Adoi (Adal) married Hepzibah daughter of Mar Nehemiah ben Hushiel Governor of Jerusalem
48.Bostanoi Exilarch of Babylon (b.580)
49.Mar Hananiah Exilarch (b.560) [brother of Mar Hushiel]
50.Mar Ithiel Hayyim ha Nasi
51.Mar Amorai (Amr/Machir)
52.King Arthur Mor of Britain (brother of Mar Kafnai (Custeynn/ Constantine) Exilarch of Babylon and British Prince) married Princess Ceindrich daughter of King Elutherius (Elidyr/ Uther PenDragon)
53.Huna Mar (Cunomor/Ahunai) Exilarch and British King
54.Nathan Todros (Tudwal) British King and Judiarch (b.460) married Princess Corun daughter of King Erbin (Erb) of Gwent
55.Nehunia (Nennius/Ninian) British Jewish Prince
56.Nathan Mar (Neithon Morbet/Tewdfalch/ Theodosius)King of Picts and British Jewish King (b.420) married Lady Corun daughter of Ceredig son of Cunedda (Mar Chuna/ Constantine)
57. Erbin (Eber Scot)Rosh Galuta Scoti (b.400) married Princess Ceneu daughter of Eudaf Hen (Mar Judah Hen ben Mar Chuna)
58. St. Ninian of Scotia
59. Mar Chasdai Golomh (Chasdub)of Spain married Princess Scota daughter of Raphael VII Nathan (Tegfan) Rosh Galuta Scoti
60.Nathan II Exilarch of Babylon (died 400)
59.Abba Mari Exilarch of Babylon (c.320-370)
61. Mar Ukba III Exilarch of Babylon
62. Nehemiah the Babylonian Exilarch
63. Rafael IV Heber (Urban/Erbin) Rosh Galuta Scotti [brother-in-law of Rabbanu Nehemiah of Babylon and Nathan Mar Ukba II] married Esther (Earca) of Babylon daughter of Nathan I Ukba Babylonian Exilarch
64.  Rafael III Gideon (Gratien/ Geta) Rosh Galuta Scotti married Empress Barbia Orbiana
65. Raphael II Metallanus (Iumetel) Rosh Galuta Scoti (b.200 AD)[ cousin of Huna II Babylonian Exilarch] married Lady Severa daughter of the Emperor Septimius Severus and Julia Domna
66. Lady Judith (Julia) of Scots and Babylon [b.181] married Raphael I Judah Rosh Galuta Scoti [b.172 AD d.217] (brother of Nathan Mar Ukba I Babylonian Exilarch and Herennia Orbiana ) son of  Gaius Julius Bassus of Emesa in Scotland [b.140] and Lady Claudia (Chaya) of Scots [b.142]
67. Nehunia Rosh Galuta Scotia and Babylonian Exilarch (b.160) married Julia Sohaemus of Emesa in Scotland [b.162] daughter of Gaius Julius Longinus Sohaemus of Emesa in Scotland [b.138]. Gauis Julius Bassus was the son of Johanan (Yochanan) (son of Nathaniel I) who took the name Gaius Julius Sohaemus on his marriage to Lady Julia Sohaemus of Emesa in Syria and was the Roman King of Armenia.
68. Lady Eurgen of Scotti married Nathaniel IV Rosh Galuta Scotti son of Nathaniel II (Einudd) Rosh Galuta Scotti
69.  Nathaniel III (Nenual/Naisi) Rosh Galuta Scotia (b.122) [brother of Nathaniel II (Ennysien/Einudd/Usnach)Rosh Galuta Scoti (b.120)] married Esther (Strada Cambria) of Camelon daughter of Mar Gideon of Camelon (Cadvan Cambrius) and Princess Lucina
70. Nathaniel I (Nenual)Rosh Galuta Scoti (b.92 AD)married Eurgen (Johanna) Bat Scotia [b.89] the daughter of  Gaius Lucinius Lucullus Sallustius and Princess Eurgen (Europa/ Johanna) Marcella of Britain [b.60 AD]
71. Pinchas b. Phares Rosh Galuta Scotia (aka Pinchi Babylonian Exilarch (b.76 AD d.130) married Lady Beliat of Lud (Leudonia) [b.77] daughter of Bran (Hebron) the Fisher King and Anna of Avalon (Glas Isle/ Sallog)
72. Mar Phares Fisher Lord (Dayag Adon) (Feradach/Feradag) Rosh Galuta Scotia (b.53 AD) married Bat Scotia [b.55 AD] daughter of Meurig Cyllin (Marius Claudius Marcellus) King in Britian and Julia Bat Scota Pennardun (Penardim/ Beni Nathanim) a daughter of St Andrew
73. Mar Nathan the Red (Nuada)Rosh Galuta Eran married Fianna (Fiona) daughter of Elemar of the Milesians and Inda of Rhoda
74. Mar Gilad ben Joseph (Gilead/Galahad/Giallchad)married Nissyah Naire daughter of Nataniel bar Tolmai
75. Mar Joseph of Arimathea Fisher King married Johanna (Eurgen/Elyab)

There have always been persistent claims that the Mountbatten/ Battenberg family are Jewish through Julie Von Hauke. These claims are true as Julie von Hauke was the adopted daughter of Countess Sophie [de la Fontaine]von Hauke and Count Maurice von Hauke. Maurice and Sophie came from Frankist families. They adopted two children of Gershon Brody the son of Rabbi Moshe ben Zalman [who was baptised as a Catholic in 1820]. These two children were called Julie after Rabbi Moshe pseudonym Leon Yulievitch and her younger brother Aharon was also called Alexander after his great grandfather Alexander (Sender) Brody and Rabbi Moshe’s use of the name Piotyr Alexandrovitch at his baptism. However in 1830 their adopted father Count John Maurice von Hauke was killed defending Grand Duke Constantine and their adopted mother Sophie died in 1831 from the shock of seeing her husband murdered. The Czar took charge of the upbringing of the children of the Von Hauke family. Julie was later made a lady -in-waiting of the Empress whose brother Alexander of Hesse fell in love with the young Polish countess. As Julie was a descendant of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov they eloped to Breslov where they were married in 1851. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero believed that the Messiah would be a Marrano and Rebbe Nachman stated that the Messiah would be his descendant who would be the Emperor of the World. What Messiah is this? This is Messiah Ephraim who is called in Jewish tradition the Messiah Anointed for War. His description in the Jewish tradition is similar to that of the promised Great Monarch Henry (some prophecies call him Charles) in the Catholic prophetic tradition. He would be a good child who later would become wayward until his deep conversion to God. The prophet Jeremiah speaks of him as Ephraim and the prophet Ezekiel as Prince David. Like the biblical Ephraim he will be the younger brother of the Messiah Manesseh (see Zechariah). Like Messiah ben Joseph he will suffer much and like Messiah ben David he is a Conqueror. He is spiritually guided and assisted by the Ultimate Messiah and his Mother (see Sefer Zerubbabel). I hold that the Messiah Ephraim is Prince Henry Charles Albert David [Harry]of Wales and his older brother Messiah Manesseh is Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales. Many Catholics of the past considered the Great Monarch as the Messenger (or angel) referred in Chapter 10 of the Apocalyse.

1. Prince William and Prince Harry
2. Prince Charles Philip Arthur George
3. Prince Philip Mountbatten of Greece and Denmark
4. Princess Alice of Battenburg
5. Prince Louis of Battenberg
6. Countess Julie von Hauke (Julia Brody)[married Prince Alexander of Hesse]
7. Feiga Horodenker [married Gershon Brody son of R. Moshe ben Schneur Zalman]
8. Udel Horodenker [married Rabbi Yoske]
9. Rebbe Nachman of Breslov [married Sashia (Alexandra)Brody]

1. Prince William and Prince Harry of Wales
2. Charles Prince of Wales
3. Philip Duke of Edinburgh
4. Princess Alice of Battenberg
5. Prince Louis of Battenburg married Princess Victoria of Hesse
6. Countess Julie Von Hauke (Julia Brody)
7. Gershon Yehuda Leib Broide (George Brody)
8. Leah Golda Broida [married Rabbi Chaim Moshe Leib Schneursohn (Leon Yulievitch Brody/Peter Alexanrovitch)]
9. Rachel Mayer [married Rebbe Benjamin Ephraim Zvi Broida (Alexander Margolioth/Reb Sender/ Alexander Brody)]
10. Anna Rosa Jacob (married Nathan Mayer)
11. Jacob Leib Frank (married Chaya Falkon)
12. Rachel Franco (married Yehuda Leib)
Prince Louis Of Battenburg

Female ancestry of Philip Duke of Edinburgh

1. Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh
2. Princess Alice of Battenburg
3. Princess Victoria of Hesse
4. Princess Alice of England
5. Queen Victoria of Britian
6. Princess Marie Louise Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Saalfeld
7. Countess Augusta Caroline Sophia of Reuss
8. Countess Caroline Henrietta of Erbach
9. Countess Ferdinanda Henrietta of Stolberg
10. Countess Christina of Mecklenburg married Count Louis Christian Stolberg-Gedern
11. Princess Magdalen Sybilla of Holstein-Gottorp married Duke Gustav Adolf of Mecklenburg-Gustrow son of Duke John Albert of Mecklenburg-Gustrow and Princess Eleanora Marie of Anhalt-Bernberg
12. Duchess Marie Elisabeth of Saxony married Frederick III Duke of Holstein Gottorp son of Johann Adolf of Holstein-Gottorp the grandson of King Frederick I of Denmark and Augusta of Oldenburg the daughter of Frederick II King of Denmark
13. Duchess Magdalena Sybilla of Hohenzollern (b.1589) married Johann-George Elector of Saxony son of Christian I Elector of Saxony and Sophie of Brandenburg
14. Duchess Marie Eleanora of Cleve married Duke Albert Frederick of Prussia (b.1553)son of Duke Albert of Prussia and Princess Anna of Brunswick-Kalenberg
15. Archduchess Maria of Austria married Duke William of Cleves IV (b.1516) son of Duke John III of Cleves and Marie de Juliers
16. Princess Anna Jagellon of Hungary and Bohemia married Ferdinand I Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor son of Philip le Beau King of Castile and Leon and Queen Juana la Loca of Spain
17. Countess Anne de Foix of Candale married Vladislas II King of Hungary and Bohemia son of King Casimir of Poland and Princess Elisabeth Hapsburg of Austria
18. Infanta Catherine of Navarre married Gaston II de Foix son of Count John of Foix-Candale and Elizabeth Kerdeston from England
19. Queen Eleanor of Navarre (Princess of Aragon) married Count Gaston de Foix (b.1423) son of Jean de Grailly and Joan d’Albret
20. Queen Blanche I of Navarre (b.1385)married King John II of Aragon son of King Ferdinand I of Aragon and Princess Leonor Urraca Sancha of Castile
21. Infanta Eleanor of Castile married Charles III King of Navarre son of Charles II King of Navarre and Princess Joan of France
22. Princess Juana Manuela of Castile (Queen Consort of Castile)married King Henry II of Castile son of King Alfonso XI of Castile and Leonora de Guzman (b.1319)
23. Lady Blanca Fernanda Cerda Nunez de Lara married Prince Juan Manuel of Castile son of Infante Manuel of Castile and Beatrice Alix of Savoy
24. Juana Nunez de Lara La Palomilla married Ferdinand d e la Cerda of Castile son of Infante Ferdinand of Castile and Princess Blanche of France
25 Lady Teresa Alvarez de Azagra married Senor Juan Nunez de Lara son of Juan Nunez “El Gordo” de Lara and Teresa Diaz de Haro
26.Inez de Navarre married Alvar Perez de Azagra son of Pedro Fernandez de Azagra and Elfa Ortiz
27.Agnes de Beujeu mistress of Theobald the Great King of Navarre son of Theobald of Brie and Princess Blanche of Navarre
28.Sibyl of Hainault married Guichard the Great de Beujeu son of Baron Humbert IV of Beujeu
29. Countess Margaret of Flanders married Count Baldwin V of Hainault son of Baldwin IV of Hainault and Alice de Namur
30. Sybilla of Anjou married Thierry Count of Flanders son of Thierry (Dietrich) Duke of Lorraine and Gertrude Heiress of Flanders
31.Erembourge of Maine married Count Fulk V of Anjou King of Jerusalem son of Fulk IV of Anjou and Bertrade de Montfort
32. Beatrix of Barcelona and Flanders married Helias Count of Maine the Swan Knight (aka Hayo of Friesland/ Mar Eliyahu Hiyya)
33.  Druda (doda) Perfet married Joseph Orodbed
34. Reyna Halabu married R.Sheshet Bouchard
35. Sarah bat Shlomo married Mar Barzilay of Barcelona
36. Malka married Mar Solomon ben Azarya of Aleppo (Halab)
37.  Sarah bat Mar Judahmarried Mar Yishai
38.  Malka married Mar Judah
39. Judith of Flanders married Josiah of Khoresan Babylonian Exilarch(born 860)
40. Judith of the Franks married Baldwin I Brasdefer of Flanders
41. Ermentrude married Charles the Bald Holy Roman Emperor and King of France 
42. Princess Engeltrude (Judith of the Angles) (b.805) married Eudes or Odo of Orleans
43. Queen Redburga (b.787) married Egbert King of England (son of King Egbert II of Kent and Saxony and Ida of Autun(daughter of Theodoric II (Aumery/Nehemiah/Namen) of Septimania)

1. Teresa Diaz de Haro married Juan Nunez “El gordo” de Lara son of Nono Gonzalez de Lara “El Bueno” and Princess Teresa of Leon
2. Constance de Bearn married Diego Lopez de Haro Lord of Vizcaya son of Lope Diaz de Haro
3. Gersende de Provence Princess of Aragon (b.1205)married Guillame II of Bearn son of Guillame I de Moncade and Marguerite of Narbonne
4. Garsinde de Sabran married Prince Alfonso of Aragon son of King Alfonso II of Aragon and Princess Sancha of Castile
5. Countess Gersinde of Provence married Lord Raymond de Sabran (b.1155) son of Lord Rostaing de Sabran and Almode de Mouvellion
6. Adelaide Beatrix (Reyna)de Bezieres married Count William de Foucalquier son of count Bertrand de Foucalquier and Josserande de Flotte
7. Saura (Sarah/Azara)of Barcelona married Viscount Raymond de Bezieres son of Viscount Bernard Aton de Bezieres and Cecile de Provence Arles
8. Maria Rodriguez of Barcelona married Count Raymond Berenger IV Arnold of Barcelona son of Raymond Berenger III and Matilda Guiscard de Hautville
9. Rhodrigo El Cid married Ximena daughter of Count Diego (Jacob)Gormaz of Oviedo the son of king Iago of Gwynedd and his wife Sussanah of Barcelona
10.Teresa Rodriguez married Diego (Jacob)Lainez son of Lain Calvo and his wife Gila (Giolla)of Ireland
11. Teresa Lainez married Rodrigo Alvarez (Roger of Este) son of Mar Azarya (Alvaro)
13. Sarah of Barcelona married Lain Alvarez (Lancelin)son of Mar Azarya (Alvaro)
14. Bonadona Azara of Barcelona married Mar Isaac of Barcelona son of Mar Barzilay of Aleppo and Barcelona
15. Reyna of Barcelona married Rabbi Sheshet Bourchard Perfet son of Meshullam Bourchard Prefect of the Royal Hunt

1. Count Raymond Berenger IV Arnold of Barcelona married Maria Rodriguez of Barcelona
2. Raymond Berenger III Count of Barcelona (b.1054) married Matilda Guiscard de Hautville (b.1060) daughter of Robert Guiscard de Hautville
3. Raymond Berenger II Count of Barcelona (b.1023 d.1076) married Almodis de Haute Marche daughter of Bernard I de la Marche and Amelia de Thouars [Almodis’first husband was Count Henry V de Lusignan)
4. Raymond Berenger I the Crooked Count of Barcelona (b.1005) married Sancha of Gascogne daughter of Sancho of Castile and Urraca Salvadores of Castile
5.Ramin Borel (Barzel)of Barcelona (b.972) married Ermensinde of Carcasonne daughter of Roger I de Carcasonne and Adelaide de Rouergue
6. Barzelay (Borcello/Borrel)of Barcelona (b.926)married Leutgarda of Toulouse daughter of Ramin III Pons de Toulouse and Garsinde Bertha de Gascogne
7. Suniaro (Sunifried/Solomon)of Bresalu married Richilde of Rouergue daughter of Ermengaud (Armengol) of Toulouse and Adelaide of Toulouse
8.Winifred of Bresalu (b.840) married Gunilde of flanders daughter of Baldwin I Brasdefer (Beuve Barzilay)Count of Flanders and Judith of Franks
9. Sunifred (Solomon)of Urgell-Cedanya (b.810) married Ermensinde
10. Beggo/Bellon of Paris and Cacasonne (b.780) married Alpais of Franks daughter of Lewis the PiousHoly Roman Emperor and Ermengarde of Narbonne and Hesbaye
11. Gui Belin (aka Bellon/Belo/Gilbert/ Gui Alberic/Gunderland/Yakar ben Makir Todros)of Narbonne married Rolande of Hesbaye

Some believe that the Great Monarch will be Prince Philip of Spain (son and heir of King Juan Carlos) as some old prophecies refer to Spanish origin or ancestry of the Great Monarch. One ancient prophecy refers to him as “Philip VI”. However Prince William also carries the name of Philip. I believe that confusion reigns because the prophecies refer to two great leaders who are brothers – Messiah Ephraim and Messiah Manesseh. The Great Monarch who is called Henry, Charles and David will be the great Emperor who defeats with his brother the Armilus (third antichrist)and ushers in the era of peace. This Great Monarch will be the ruler of Germany and all Europe while his brother called Arthur and Philip will rule America and be active in Spain. Some allude to the Great Monarch reigning for 15 years and others that he would die at 40 years of age (about 2025). He will then be succeeded as Great Monarch by his brother who will reign a further 11 years (about 2036)as Great Monarch who will die fighting the forerunner of the final Antichrist (Gog). These two brothers are called the “brothers or sons of the White Lily or Rose (Shoshana)”. This white Rose is the Davidic heiress called the Geveret who descends from the ‘daughters of Dinah’. Dinah was the maternal grandmother of Ephraim and Manesseh. Princess Diana is the Josephite Davidic heiress of the daughters of Dinah or Danaus’ revealed in her name Diana and she is heiress of the Frankists (Hebrew Catholics) by her second name of Frances.The Greeks called her Diana and the Celts Dana or Dona. It is interesting that Philip of Spain is also descended from Julie von Hauke.

1. Prince Philip John Paul Alfonso of Asturias
2. King Juan Carlos (John Charles)of Spain
3. Don Juan Prince of Spain
4. Princess Victoria Eugenia Julia Ena of Battenburg (Queen of Spain)
5. Prince Henry of Battenburg (married Princess Beatrice of England)
6. Countess Julie von Hauke
7. Gershon Yehuda Leib Broida
8. Rabbi Chaim Moshe Leib
9. Schneur Zalman of Liadi the Alter Rebbe
10 Boruch Leib (Loewe)
11. Schneur Zalman Leib
12.Rabbi Moshe Loewe
13 Rabbi Yehudah Leib
14.Rabbi Samuel Loewe
15. Rabbi Betzalel Loewe
16.Rabbi Judah Loew Maharal of Prague

Diana, Princess of Wales mother Frances Ruth Burke-Roche descends from another daughter of Jacob Frank called Leah Golda (Frances) who married the Irishman Edmond Roche of Kildinan. In Europe he used the name Roch Frank and was the son-in-law of Jacob Frank but many believed that Roch was Frank’s son. The family later created a false identity for Frances Roche as Frances Coghlan, daughter of George Coghlan of Ardoe to hide her Frankist Jewish origin. Frances sister Rivka Shoshana (Anna Rosa)Jacob (Anne Rose Mayer) also moved with her family to Ireland.With the troubles in France and then the rise of Napoleon made the British Isles a safe refuge. Another sister Dinah Ruth (Maria Rostowski) went to Scotland and was also an ancestor of Frances Ruth Burke-Roche. Edmond and Frances Roche’s son Edward Roche married into the Curtain family an Irish crypto Jewish family.

1. Prince William
2. Lady Diana Frances Spencer
3. Hon. Frances Ruth Burke-Roche
4. Edward Maurice Burke-Roche 4th Baron Fermoy
5. James Boothy Burke Roche 3rd Baron Fermoy
6. Edmund Burke Roche 1st Baron Fermoy
7. Edward Roche (married Margaret Honoria Curtain)
8. Frances Coghlan [Leah Golda Frank/ Frances Roche]married Edmond Roche [Roch Frank]
9. Jacob Leib Frank (Joseph) – married Chaya Falkon
10. Yehuda Leib – married Rachel Hirshel Franco
11. Yosef Leib – married Daughter of Daniel Ha Levi (Witzenhausen)
12. Zalman Leib
13. Yannai Leib (Loewe)
14. Samuel Zvi Leib
15. Judah Loewe (Leib) the Maharal of Prague
16. Betzalel Loew
17. Hayyim (b.1450)
18. Rav Isaac Lubaton (Lubani/ Leib)
19. Bat Isaac married Prince Judah Lubani the brother of Solomon IV King of the Rubani, the Gadi and Mani; son of Reuben II Rubani; son of Solomon III Rubani (b.1380); son of Joseph II Rubani; son of David III Rubani; son of Judah I Rubani (b.1310); son of Solomon II Rubani;
20. Rabbi Isaac
21. Rabbi Betzalel
22. Rabbi Jacob
23. Rabbi Arya Zeev (Wolf)
24. Rabbi Jerahmiel
25. Rabbi Eleazer
26. Rabbi Leibush
27. Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman
28. Rabbi Nachman
29. Rabbi Joseph Kalonymus
30. Rabbi Eliyahu Hiyya married Druda daughter of Joseph ‘Bonnom’ Kalonymus
31. Rabbi Azarya (brother-in-law of Solomon Benveniste)
32. Lamiel
33. Ezekiel ben Azarya
34. Azarya ben Abraham (brother-in-law of Merwan ha Levi)married daughter of Rabbi Abraham ben Hiyya (brother of Nasi Moshe ben Hiyya ancestor of the Charlaps) and Bat Yehiel ben Joseph Nagid
35. Welf IV Duke of Bavaria (aka Abraham ben Azarya Halabu)
36. Azo II Marquis d’Este (aka Azarya ben Abraham Halabu)married Cunigunde of Bavaria
37. Albert Azo I (Abraham ben Azarya Halabu)married Osberta daughter of Othbert Marquis d’Este
38. Mar Azarya Halabu married Alberada Perfet daughter of Meshullam Bourchard Prefect of the Royal Hunt
39. Sarah Halabu married Mar Barzilay Halabu (Aleppo)
40. Mar Solomon ben Azarya of Aleppo (Halab)married Malka
41. Azarya Babylonian Exilarch
42. Solomon Babylonian Exilarch

Lady Fermoy who was Lady-in Waiting to the Queen Mother was from the Gill family another family of crypto Jewish Frankist origin. Lady Fermoy was Ruth Sylvia Gill and her paternal ancestors were David Gill who married Margaret Davidson in 1795. Margaret Davidson and David Gill are of Jewish origin families. The Marr and Smith families were also of Frankist origin. This Jewish Frankist origin has been covered up by the families over the generations. The whole story of Diana’s ancestors Theodore Forbes and Eliza Kevork are totally confused. Theodore was of a crypto Jewish Scottish family (recent DNA testing has demonstrated the Sephardi Jewish ancestry of the Forbes family)and he married Eliza Kevork (daughter of Jakob Kevork), an Armenian Jewess, according to the Jewish Armenian rites and they were the parents of John Jakob Forbes (Forbesian) who married Maria Rostowski.

Prince William and Prince Harry descend from Charlemagne many times over.Charlemagne was a Catholic of Jewish Davidic descent. Charlemagne’s Jewish name was David Kalonymus.

Sir Galahad and Dindaine Blanchefleur

1. Charlemagne (David Kalonymus)
2. Peppin III (Pappa)[married Judith (Bertrude/ Bat Yehudah)sister of Makir Todros]
3. Charles Martel (Kalman/Kalonymus/Kayl)[married Ruth (Rotrud)]
4. Peppin II (Pappa)[married Alpais]
5. Ansoud (married Ruth of Hesbaye)
6. Angelisel (Angus/Lancelot/Angselus)of Metz [married Rebbecca (St Begga)daughter of Peppin of Landen]
7. Arnulf (Aron ha Aluf} of Metz
8. Arimandus [married Ita of Baghdad]
9. Omer (Aumer) ha Ari of Sarras [married Ava ha Geveret]
10. Galahad (Walahad)King of Sarras [married Dindaine]
11. Lancelot (Angus/Angelus) of Cambernic Bryniach[married Elaine]
12. Princess Marchell of Dal Riata [married Angus(Anlach/Banlach/Ban) of Corbenic son of Nathan Todros [Tudwal] and Princess Corun]
13. High King Muredach of Ireland [married Princess Earca (Esther) daughter of King Erb]
14. Eochaidh (Eoghan/Owen)(b.435)
15. Niall Mor of the Nine Hostages High King of Ireland (born circa 415)
16. Eochaidh (Eochy Moyvone/Yohannan)Mugmedon High King of Ireland (b.380) married Ciaron (Ciarra) daughter of Mar Chasdai of Spain and Britiain
17. Muiredach (Meir Duach)II High King of Ireland(b.345) married Aioffe of Goloddin daughter of Rafael IX King of Gododdin
18. Ros Ruadhri of Dal Riata  (b.320)married Rafaela daughter of Rafael VIII King of Gododdin (Rosh Galuta Scotti)
19. Eochaidh of Dal Riata (b.300)married Fiona (Fianna Fiachu) daughter of Eochaidh Sbtrine son of Muredach I Tirech son of Fiachu Sbtine
20. Cairbre of Riata (b.280) married Ava (Havah / Hvarfaidh)
21. Conaire Mor (Fothad Canaan) of Dal Riata in Alba (b.260) married Mes Buachalla
22. Lughaidh (Loarne/ Luy Maccon) (b.240)married Devorah of the Gaeli(Votadini/Fothudain) [brother-in-law of Eochaidh Dublein father of the three Collas and Lughaidh was father of the three Fothads]
23 Cairbre Lifechair King of Ireland  (b.220)married Ethne (Edna/Aine) of Scotia daughter of Fionn(Gwyn)of Camelon (Cumhaill)son of Nathan Mar Ukba I (Nudd/Nectan) Exilarch
24. Cormac King of Leinster (b.200) married Ethne Milla daughter of  Aillill  Glas of Leinster son of Ross Ruad and Maga (sister of Oliol Olum)
25. Mar Angus (Eochaidh/Eoghan Mor)(born circa 181 AD)married Bera (Barbura)daughter of Art (Arthur/Artur/Dov)the Red Heber Lord and Swan Knight
26. Olioll Olum (Olum Fodla/Aillil)King of Munster married Sabina (Sabh/ Sarah/ Sarad)daughter of the Red Heber Lord Conn (Connchober/ Conn of the Hundred Battles/Conaire)
27. Mar Eoghan (Ugaine Mor/Johannan/Angus Og)Mor married Ciarra (Ciar/Caer)daughter of Athal Anubal [Atal Anubal = American (Atal or Atala) Lord of Mexico (Anahuac)]
28. Nathan(Mogh Nuada)the Dagda (Dayag Adon/Fisher Lord) (b. 120 AD) married Boann (Barbura/Edna/Eithne/Baine)daughter of Delbaeth son of Elada (Eliud)
29. Meir Duach (Rabbi Meir/Raibh Dearg) (b.99 AD) married Bruriah
30. Simeon Breac (R. Berechiah/Shimon the Blessed/Bres) (b.72 AD)
31. Adon of Glas (Adon Zerah)Lord of the Golus (Salog) (b.45 AD) married Eurgen (Johanna) daughter of King Caractacus and Venus Julia ( adopted daughter of the Emperor Claudius) daughter of King Metallanus of Lugdunum in Scotland
32. Nathan the Red (Nuada/ Nectan Ruada)married Fianna (Fiona) daughter of Elemar of the Milesians and Inda of Rhoda
33. Mar Gilead ben Joseph (Josephes) married Nessiyah Naire daughter of Nathaniel bar Tolmai
34. Mar Joseph of Arimathea and Glastonbury (Glas)married Yochanna (Elyab/Eurgen)
35. Mar Chunya of Babylon and Mara
36. Solomon II (Shalom/Sulam/Selim)Barbur (aka Silvanus Brabo/ Salvius Brabo/ Silvanus Ogam)Babylonian Exilarch, Nasi of Mara (Mari), Ruler of Sumer (Somerset)in Britian
37. Nathan Babylonian Exilarch married Claudia daughter of Tiberius Claudius Regillensis and Johanna (Europa/ Eurgen)
38. Mar Isaac of Sumer in Britian married Tamar

This the ancestry of King St. Louis IX of France.

1. King St. Louis IX of France
2. King Louis VIII the Lion of France
3. King Philip II Augustus
4. King Louis VII the Young
5. King Louis VI the Fat
6. King Philip I
7. King Henri I
8. King Robert II the Pious
9. King Hugh Capet of France
10. Duke Hugh the Great of France
11. Duke Robert of France, King of West Francia
12. Robert the Strong (Rutpert/Rutbert/Reuven)died 866 Count of Paris
13. Count Rutpert III of Wormsgau
14. Count Rutpert II of Wormsgau
15. Count Thurinbert of Wormsgau
16. Count Rutpert I (Robert) of Wormsgau and Hesbaye
17. Mille (Milo) Count of Neustre
18. Robert (Reuven) Duke of Hesbaye
19. Lievin (Lambert I/Levi) of Hesbaye
20. Warin (Aaron)Count of Paris and Poitiers
21. Bodilon Count and Bishop of Treves
22. Levi (Leuthar/St. Luitvin) Bishop of Treves [married Ruth daughter of King Clothaire II and Bertrude (Judith)]
23. Warin (Aaron/Guerin)Bishop of Treves
24. Leuthanus (Levi)of Metz [married Geberge/Geveret daughter of Aumeric (Omer)]
25. Arimandus (Archenbald/Aaron shel Arak) [maternal nephew of  Omer (Aumer) ha Ari of Sarras]
26. Lady Lynet (Lyones) married Gwalchafed (Gaheris/ Gareth) the Falcon of Summer son of King Lot.
27. Galahad (Walahad) King of Sarras Guardian of The Grail
28. Lancelot of the Lake

Maternal ancestry of St King Louis IX

Eleanor of Aquitaine the proud red-haired Jewess

1. St. King Louis IX of France
2. Princess Blanche of Castile [married King Louis VIII of France]
3. Princess Eleanor of England [married King Alphonso VIII of Castile]
4. Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine [married King Henry II of England]
5. Countess Aenor (Reyna) of Chatellerault [married Duke William X of Aquitaine]
6. Dangerosa of the Isle Bouchard [married Aimery I Viscount of Chatellerault]
7. Gerberge (Geberge/Geveret)[married Bartelemy [Mar Barzilay]of Isle Bourchard]
8. Reyna of Barcelona [married Sheshet Perfet]
9. Dame Agnes (La Senyora Bonadona)[married Orobed Barzel (Archambaud Borel)of Barcelona son of Mar Yosef Orobed and Druda Perfet bat Sheshet Bourchard]
10. Reyna of Barcelona [married Mar Shealtiel of Barcelona son of Mar Isaac]

Ancestry of Eleanor of Aquitaine

1. Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine
2. Countess Aenor of Chatellerault
3. Dangerosa of the Isle Bouchard
4. Gerberge of Barcelona
5. Sheshet Perfet Nasi of Barcelona
6. Gershon Nasi of Barcelona
7. Moshe Perfet (Hugues de Isle Bouchard)
8. Bouchard II d’Isle Bouchard (R. Sheshet)brother of Geoffrey Count of Gatinois married Reyna of Barcelona
9. Bouchard the Constable [Barburha Katzin/ Meshullam]Prefect of the Royal Hunt married Alberada of Lorraine
10. Aubri (Alberic)Geoffrei (Yofi Tzvi) Count of Gatinois Orleans married Adelinde Ava of Gatinois Orleans daughter of Aubri Count of Gatinois- Orleans and Ermensinde of Narbonne
11. Ava of Auvergne married Bouchard the Constable Prefect of the Royal Hunt  son of Aubri(Adalbert/ Aubri) Count of Gatanais son of Bouchard the Constable of Corsica who was the son of Warin of the Gatanais son of Ruthard (Reuben) the Elder (R1b-U152)
12. Makir Bernard II Count of Auvergne (Bouchard/ Beuve Cornebut)
13. Makir Bernard Count of Aurvergne married Ava daughter of Solomon Beuve Cornebut of the Spanish March
14. Warin (Aaron)Count of Macon and Thurgovie married Ava daughter of Hugh of Tours and Ava Schwanhilde of Paris and Metz
15. Lady Guibor (Witberga) of Narbonne [married William of Gellone II (Isaac Kalonymus)son of Nehemiah ha Makiri son of Makir Todros]
16. Lady Rolande of Hesbaye [married Gui Alberic (Guibelin/Gunderland/Yakar)of Narbonne son of Makir Todros]
17. Landrade (Wandrade) of Franks [married Sigrand of Hesbaye]
18. Rutrud (Ruth)Scwanhilde of Hesbaye [married Charles Martel]
19. Ruth of Franks [married Leiven (St Luitvin) Bishop of Treves]
20. Lady Doda of Metz and Potiers (b.650) married  Chrodobertus II Count Palatine of Neustria
21. Lady Kunza of Metz  (b.630)married  Warin (Aaron) count de Poiters
22. Lady Sigrade married Clodule of Metz Guardian of the Grail
23. Lady Dode of Franks married Arnold (Aron ha Aluf) of Metz
24.  Lady Bertrude (Judith) of Metz married King Clothaire II of Franks
25. Lady Geberge of France and Kent married Leuthanus (Levi) of Metz
26. Lady Ava ha Geveret married Omer (Sumer) ha Ari of Sarras son of Galahad
27. Aumeric (Ricaumer) ha Nasi] also called Amorai/Amr/Amwlad/Noah/Nowy/Mordred who married Gertrude (Givirah Judi) also called Ava daughter of Percival
28. King Arthur Mar of Britain brother of Mar Kafnai Babylonian Exilarch

Paternal ancestry of Eleanor of Aquitaine

Conversion of Duke William X the Saint of Aquitaine by St Bernard

1. Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine [married Henry II King of England]
2. William X Duke of Aquitaine
3. William IX Duke of Aquitaine
4. William VIII Gui-Geoffroi Duke of Aquitaine [married Hildegarde of Burgundy]
5. William V the Great Duke of Aquitaine [married Agnes of Burgundy]
6. William IV Duke of Aquitaine [married Emma of Blois]
7. William III Duke of Aquitaine [married Adele Gerloc of Normandy]
8. Eblaus Manzer (the Hebrew Bastard)Duke of Aquitaine[married Em Adelinde (Emilenne) of England]
9. Ramnulf II Duke of Aquitaine [Adelinde ha nesiya daghter of Bernard the Hairyfoot(Nasi Meshullam II)
10. Ramnulf I (Ramin ha Aluf)Duke of Aquitaine [married Blichilde of Maine]
11. Gerard Count of Auvergne {married Princess Hildegarde of Franks]
12. William of Gellone II (Isaac Kalonymus)
13. Theodric (Deitrich/Nehemiah ha Makiri)King of Saxony and Ripaurien (Duke Namon)
14. Makir Todros (Theodoric/Thierry/Aimeri de Narbonne) Jewish King of Septimania

Paternal Ancestry of King Henry II of England

1. King Henry II of England [married Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine]
2. Geoffrey Plantagenet count of Anjou {married the Holy Roman Empress Maud (Matilda)daughter of King Henry I of England]
3. Fulk V of Anjou King of Jerusalem [married Lady Erembourge daughter of Helias of Count of Maine the famous Swan Knight of Legend]
4. Fulk IV count of Anjou [married Bertrade de Montfort]
5. Aubri Geoffrey Ferreol Count Gatinois [married Ermengarde of Anjou daughter of Fulk III]
6. Geoffrey I Count of Gatinois [married Beatrix of Macon]
7. Bouchard d’Isle Bourchard Prefect of the Royal Hunt married Alberada of Lorraine
8. Adelinde Ava of Gatinois-Orleans married Aubri Geofrei Count of Gatinois son of Bourchard the Constable [Barbur ha Katzin] Prefect of the Royal Hunt [Meshullam]
9. Aubri Count of Gatiniois-Orleans and Fezenac married Erminsinde of Narbonne daughter of Alberic of Narbonne
10. Ava of Auvergne married Geoffrey Viscount of Orleans and Gatinois.
11. Ava of Paris married Hector of Auvergne son of Hunroch of Fruili
12. Ava Grimildis of Aquitaine married Letaud of Paris and Fezenac son of Count Bego (Begue) of Paris
13. William the Pious Duke of Aquitaine
14. Bernard of Septimania

The Davidic Prince Eliyahu Hiyya ben Aharon Barzillai ben Mar Eliyahu (Helias) is remembered in many different French legends as the Swan Knight. He married the heiress of Oldenburg by who he had a daughter Ermenbourge the grandmother of King Henry II of England; and a son Elimar who was Count of Oldenburgh.The German legend speaks of his father Aharon Barzillai (Warin)as Lohengrin and he is the father of Ida who was the mother of Godrey de Bouillon King of Jerusalem; and Beatrix who was the mother of Dietrich II of Cleves. Lohengrin is also known as Sire Lancelin of Beaugency.The secret of the Swan Knight is that he is a Jew of Davidic descent from the Exilarch’s of Babylon through the branch in Barcelona.The events of the lives of these two swan Knights and their family have become confused in the later accounts. Mar Aharon (Lohengrin)’s mother Bilhah Perfet (daughter of Meshullam Bourchard)was descended from Makir Bernard II of Auvergne whose mother Ava was the daughter of Solomon (Beuve Cornebut) whose mother Ruth (Rutrud) Schwanhilde was a daughter of Gerard the Swan Knight son of Warin of Metz who was a descendant of Lancelot and Perceval. Gerard Swan married Adalis a Princess of the Carolingian Dynasty through her mother Cunigunde.

Davidic Ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II.

1. Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain
2. King George VI
3. King Geroge V
4. King Edward VII
5. Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
6. Duke Ernest Anthony Charles Louis
7. Duke Francis Frederick Anthony
8. Duke Ernest Frederick
9. Duke Francis Josiah
10. Duke John Ernest
11.Duke Ernest of Saxe-Coburg
12. John Duke of Saxe-Weimar
13. John William Duke of Saxe-Weimar
14. John Frederick King of Saxony
15. John King of Saxony
16. Ernest King of Saxony (born 1441)
17. Frederick II King of Saxony
18. Frederick I King of Saxony
19. Frederick III Margrave of Meissen
20. Frederick II Margrave of Meissen (born 1310) married Matilde of Bavaria the daughter of Louis IV the Holy Roman Emperor
21. Frederick I Margrave of Meissen (born 1257) married Elisabeth of Lobdaburg-Arnshaugk the daughter of Elisabet d’Orlamuende, the daughter of Beatrix de Andrechs-Meranien, the daughter of Beatrice von Hohenstauffen, the daughter of Margerite de Blois, the daughter of Princess Alice of France, the daughter of King Louis VII of France and Eleanor of Aquitaine.
22. Albert I Landgrave of Thuringia (born 1240) married Princess Margaret of Sicily daughter of Frederick II the Holy Roman Emperor and his wife Princess Isabella of England (daughter of Isabella of Angouleme [wife of King John of England], the daughter of Alice de Courtney (sister of the Latin Emperor of Constantinople), the daughter of Elisabeth de Courtney, the daughter of Hedwig (Hawise) of Donjon, the daughter of Elisabeth of Donjon, the daughter of Elisabeth von Sponheim, the daughter of Hedwig of Saxony.
23. Henry Margrave of Meissen married Konstantie of Austria the daughter of duke Leopold VI of Austraia and his wife the Byzantine Princess Theodora Angelina the daughter of John Dukas and Zoe Angelina Doukaina (the daughter of  the Empress Euphrosyne Kamertera [wife of Emperor Alexius III Angelos], the daughter of Duka (Judith) Princess of Ethiopia [wife of Andronikas Komerteros Doukas], the daughter of Princess Gurandukt of Georgia [wife of Prince Mairari of Ethiopia], the daughter of  George IV of Georgia.
24. Dietrich (Theodoric)Margrave of Meissen married Jutte (Judith) of Thuringia the daughter of Hermann Landgrave of Thuringia and Sophie of Sommerschenburg (the daughter Luitgarde von Stade, the daughter of Richilda von Sponheim).
25. Otto Margrave of Meissen (born 1125) married Hedwig (Eva) of Brandenburg daughter of Albert I the Bear Margrave of Brandenburg and his wife Sophie of Winzenburg (the daughter of Hedwig von Istria (Evverstein) the daughter of Richilda von Sponheim, the daughter of Hedwig of Saxony, the daughter of Elica von Schweinfurt, the daughter of Geberga (Judith) of Ethiopia and the Khazars).
26. Conrad Margrave of Meissen [born 1098] married Luitgard von Ravenstein daughter of  Count Albert von Ravenstein and his wife Bertha von Hohenstauffen
27. Thimo Margrave of Kistritz married Ida of Nordheim daughter of Otto of Nordheim and Richenza of Swabia.
28. Dietrich II Margrave of Ostmark married Matilda of Meissen daughter of Eckhard Margrave of Meissen and his wife Swanhilde Billung of Saxony.
29. Count Dedi of Hassenger [b.1000] married Theitburga of Faucigny daughter of Emeraud I de Faucigny and Princess Algert of Ethiopia and the Khazars
30. Count Dietrich I of Hassenger [b.980] married Princess Judith (Gerberga) of Ethiopia and the Khazars daughter of Queen-Empress Judith (Gudit) of Ethiopia and the Falashas and her husband King Georgius Tzul (Zenobius / Zavid) King of the Khazars.
31. Countess Engletrude of Swabia married Count Dedi of Hassenger son of Dirk (Dietrich) II Count of Frisia and Holland and his wife Hildegarde of Flanders, son of Dirk (Dietrich) I Count of Frisia and Holland and his wife Geva (Gerberge/ Geveret), son of Gerulf (Gerolf) Count of Frisia and Holland, son of Rorgon (Roricon/Rorick/ Theodoric) Count of Maine, Rennes and Les Baux and his second wife Blichilde of Frisia, son of Gosselin (Gauzhelm) of Maine, son of Herve of Maine, son of Dietrich (Theodoric) of Maine, son of Herve Duke of Maine (723), son of Enkel King of the Radbads of the Rhone Valley, son of Elidyr the Rhodan (Radbad/ Eadgils?) Duke of Frisia (as Radbad I)(b.673 d.719) and his wife Celenion (Urenkelin) of Septimania, son of Sandde (Sandef/ Eadgils?) King of Calalus (b.655)Last King of Arthurian Calalus and Ruler of the Frisians. The traditional genealogy traces this lineage back to Petrus a disciple of St Joseph of Arimathea. This Petrus (Peredur) was a relative of St Peter (Shimon ben Yonah) of the Tribe of Zebulon.
32. Burkhard II (or III) Duke of Swabia [b.915] married Hedwig (Ava) of Bavaria
33. Burkhard I (or II) Duke of Swabia [b.884] married Reginlinde of Thurgovie daughter of Eberhard Count of Thurgovie and Gisela of Nullenberg
34. Burkhard Margrave of Raetian [b.860] (brother of Count Adalbert II Count of Thurgovie) married Luitgard of Saxony and Metz daughter of Gerard of Metz and Uda of Saxony
35.Judith (Hitta) of Auvergne [b.835] married Count Adalbert I (Alberic/Albert)Count of Thurgovie [b.825].
36. Count Makir Bernard II of Auvernge [b. 815]
37. Count Makir Bernard of Auvergne [born 795]
38. Count Warin d’Autun Count of Macon [born 779]
39. Count William of Gellone II (Isaac Kalonymus)[married Guibor of Narbonne]
40. Nehemiah Ha Makiri (Dietrich/Theodoric/Aymer le Chetif)Ruler of Autun, Riparien and Saxony (Duke Namon)[born 730]
41. Makir Todros (Theodoric/Aimeri)Western Exilarch and Jewish King of Septimania

Davidic Ancestry of Queen Victoria

1. Queen Victoria of Great Britian
2. Edward Augustus Duke of Kent
3. King George III
4. Frederick Lewis Prince of Wales
5. King George II Augustus
6. King George I Lewis
7. Ernest Augustus Elector of Hanover
8. George Duke of Brunwick-Luneburg
9. William Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
10. Ernest I Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
11. Henry II Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
12. Otto II Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
13. Frederick Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
14. Bernard I Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg
15. Magnus II Duke of Brunswick
16. Magnus I Duke of Brunswick
17. Albert II duke of Brunswick-Gottingen
18. Albert I Duke of Brunswick [born 1236]
19. Otto Duke of Brunswick
20. William of Winchester Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg [married Princess Helen of Denmark]
21. Henry V Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg [married Princess Matilda of England]
22. Henry X Duke of Bavaria
23. Henry IX Duke of Bavaria (born 1074)
24. Welf IV Duke of Bavaria (married Judith of Flanders)
25. Azo II d’Este Marquis d’Este (married Cunigunde of Bavaria)
26. Lady Othberta married Albert Azo I Marquis of Este son of Mar Azarya of Barcelona
27. Othbert II Este Count of Genoa
28. Othbert I Viscount of Este
29. Adalbert II Marquis of Este
30. Boniface IV Marquis of Este
31. Adalbert I Marquis of Este
32. Boniface III Count of Lucca
33. Boniface II Count of Lucca
34. Boniface I (Abu Aharon)Count of Lucca
35. Richbald beno Bernhard (Richard of Amiens and Metz)[married Ermengarde]
36. Bernard Naso (Nasi Mar Meshullam I Bera Natan)[married Dhoude daughter of Gerard Swan and Adalis]
37. William of Gellone I (Mar Nathan Kalonymus)[married Cunigunde of Franks daughter of Carolman and Gerberge]
38. Makir Todros (Theodoric/Aimeri d’ Narbonne)[married Alda of Franks daughter of Charles Martel and Rutrud (Ruth)Schwanhilde

EXTRA-BONUS:

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

DIIIING! The counter says the cover of this post is also original meme #1000 on http://truth-memes.com!
 Or just hit the “Memes” tab on our homepage.

Some of them are even 3D and you can order them to your door.

I know you need to hear about it because the traffic on that page is almost parallel with the one on Silview.media. which is totally strange to me, but fine, nevermind that. However, I want you too aboard.

I know my readers are actual grown-ups and rarely pleased with too much silliness, so I made the content with that in mind, most of the times. I made this for you and ended up with another audience. Now let’s mingle! 😉

As for the exhibit here, watch this explanatory video:


Actually, the meme is a sequel to the video, I’ll have to tie them up in one piece asap.
Many got put off by the clip title – “Proof Trudeau is many things but not a traitor” – and never watched it, but once you stick your head out of the box and check your assumptions, you realize these people never -pledged any allegiance to the ignorant plebs, which they can fool much easily than they can manage.

Take these as a trailer for one of the many projects I’m working on for you right now.

“We will resume our normal programming after these messages”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Every aspect of the Covid crisis has come with evidence of prescience and pre-planning. “Plandemic” is one of the most adequate buzzwords I’ve ever heard.
If it’s all planned, the release was planned too, which makes the current debate over the Covid origin retarded. If the cause was a virus (another oxy-moronic debate around “isolation in cultures”), then it didn’t come from animals, it didn’t escape from a lab, it was DISTRIBUTED. Whatever it was, virus, poison, psychosis, EMFs, it was DISTRIBUTED.
Better watch the water, the soil and the air!

This first video below was released April 15, 2020. About the same time Trudeau was claiming The Great Reset is a conspiracy theory.
Guess when the system was developed and read until the end to find out where it’s at now, I saved you a nice punchline!

How far back does this go?
Well, in January 2018, WEF was already spreading this brochure

Among the first to push the Bigger Brother – the Canadian Banksters Cartel, of course.

“The World Economic Forum acknowledges and is inspired by the leadership of our partners whose commitment to this project shows that this future is possible. In particular, we wish to thank Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport of Canada, and the entire team from the Government of Canada for having contributed to ensuring the research and prototype development has been grounded in pragmatic public-sector experience. Together, the World Economic Forum and Accenture, collaborating on Shaping the Future of Security in Travel, hope that this report and the prototype will gain momentum, encouraging public and private parties to pilot and scale this concept in the coming year.”

WEF – Jan, 2018

This quote above, from the aforementioned WEF brochure, shows that WEF’s collaboration with the governments of Canada and The Netherlands on this project extends way before 2018, into the research stages.

From earlier research we know the plan was launched in January 2016:

VACCINES AS GATEWAY TO DIGITAL ID, A CONCEPT LAUNCHED IN 2016, AT DAVOS, BY GATES AND PHARMAFIA

… and that’s most likely when Canada’s royal minions joined in. In March 2016 they were already featured in the earliest brochure of the project:

The Forbes picked up on it, but only in January 2019, yet who was there to care and pay attention? I, for one, was busy enjoying free travel, having nothing and being happy. But Schwab had to take all that from us and replace it with this dumb livestock management app that won’t ever stick on living humans, soulless NPCs only:

Paradigm Shift: Biometrics And The Blockchain Will Replace Paper Passports Sooner Than You Think

Forbes, Jun 28, 2019,12:07pm EDT

Known Traveller Digital Identity
Biometrics and blockchain are the keys to the future of traveler identification. GETTY

Crossing international borders without a physical passport may become a reality for some travelers in less than a year. On Wednesday, the World Economic Forum and the governments of Canada and the Netherlands launched a pilot program for paperless travel between the two countries at Montreal’s largest airport.

The new initiative, called Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI), is the first platform to use a traveler-managed digital identity for international paperless travel, giving travelers control over when and how their personal data is shared. The identity data normally stored on a chip on a passport is encrypted and securely stored in a digital wallet on a traveler’s mobile device. 

Whereas traditional ID systems are managed by centralized authorities, KTDI is based on the blockchain — specifically, Linux’s Hyperledger Indy, a distributed ledger purpose-built for decentralized identity. This is the secret sauce behind the paradigm shift toward a system where travelers — not government agencies or travel brands — control access to their personal data.

“We’re all wildly frustrated by data hacks, data breaches, our identities being stolen — and that’s largely a result of where our identity data is stored today,” says David Treat, a managing director and global blockchain lead at Accenture, the technology advisory partner on the KTDI project.

“The excitement around digital identity underpinned by blockchain and biometrics is that there is now a solution pattern crystallizing where users can be in control of their own data,” says Treat. “They can decide with whom they want to share it, and for how long, and revoke that access at a later point.”

Right now, our personal data is stored many siloed data structures surrounded by supposedly secure perimeters. But if hackers manage to break into them — as they frequently do — they get all the data.

Every time you book a plane ticket, pass through an airport security checkpoint, or reserve a stay at a hotel, your personal data ends up being stored somewhere. By the end of a trip, your information might wind up in dozens of different siloed data stores, where it might remain indefinitely. “Travelers have no control over it. They are essentially handing over a set of data and they have very little visibility as to what happens to it after that,” says Treat.

With KTDI, a traveler might give an airline — or, eventually, a hotel or rental car company — access to specific pieces of personal information for a finite amount of time. When the transaction is finished, the access is revoked.

“It’s very different from today’s world where an airline or hotel will accumulate data over time and hold on to it, and create this big honey pot of information,” says Treat. Instead, the philosophy behind KTDI is more transactional, where information is stored for a user-approved period of time. “When it’s no longer needed, it’s then no longer stored,” says Treat.

So what might a journey might look like for a traveler using KTDI in the future?

To get started, you would download a mobile wallet, enroll for the first time, and establish your profile. Then, in advance of an international flight, you might decide to share your personal information with border authorities and airlines. Now the airport and airline are expecting you. Once you arrive at the airport, you can go through the security checkpoint and board the plane using biometrics to confirm your identity, without any need for a physical passport. After your flight, you might decide to revoke access to your personal data from the airline.

Meanwhile, over time, a tamper-proof digital ledger would be created through the accumulation of authorized transactions by trusted partners such as border agencies and airlines. This establishes a “known traveler status,” which is a reusable digital identity that makes it possible for more streamlined future interactions with governments, airlines and other partners.

This is not just a theoretical concept. Along with the governments of Canada and the Netherlands, partners — including Air Canada, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Montreal-Trudeau International Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol — will be testing the KTDI initiative throughout 2019, with the first end-to-end paperless journey expected to take place in early 2020.

The Forbes piece actually follows the official launch of KTDI two days earlier, as marked by this WEF press-release published from Toronto:

World Economic Forum consortium launches paperless Canada-Netherlands travel pilot

Jun 26, 2019

  • The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with the governments of Canada, The Netherlands and industry partners, launches the first ever passport-free pilot project between the two countries.
  • The Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) initiative addresses rising aviation travel demand – expected to grow to 1.8 billion passengers by 2030
  • The KTDI pilot offers greater control over personal information, putting passengers in charge of when and how data is shared through a ‘traveller-managed digital identity’
  • Read more on the project here

MONTREAL, June 26, 2019 /CNW/ – The World Economic Forum and the governments of the Netherlands and Canada launch the first pilot project for paperless travel between the two countries today at Montreal Airport.

Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) is the first platform to use a traveller-managed digital identity for international paperless travel. It will be integrated with partner systems and tested internally throughout 2019, with the first end-to-end paperless journey expected to take place in early 2020.

The pilot initiative is a collaboration between government and industry – border authorities, airports, technology providers and airlines – to create an interoperable system for secure and seamless travel.

“By 2030, international air travel is expected to rise to 1.8 billion passengers, up 50% from 2016. With current systems, airports cannot keep up,” says Christoph Wolff, Head of Mobility, World Economic Forum, “This project offers a solution. By using interoperable digital identities, passengers benefit from a holistic system for secure and seamless travel. It will shape the future of aviation and security.”

KTDI provides a frictionless travel experience for passengers while allowing them to have greater control over their personal data. The identity data that is usually stored on a chip on a passenger’s passport is instead securely stored and encrypted on their mobile device. Passengers can manage their identity data and consent to share it with border authorities, airlines and other pilot partners in advance. Using biometrics, the data is checked at every leg of the journey until arrival at the destination, without the need for a physical passport.

Passengers establish a ‘known traveller status’ over time through the accumulation of ‘attestations’ or claims that are proven and declared by trusted partners, such as border agencies and recognized airlines. The result is a reusable digital identity that facilitates more streamlined and tailored interactions with governments, airlines and other partners.

“Canada is pleased to collaborate with the World Economic Forum, the Government of The Netherlands and our industry partners to enhance aviation security and make international air travel safer by testing new and emerging technologies,” said the Honourable Marc Garneau, Canada’s Minister of Transport. “The Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot project will help facilitate seamless global air travel and benefit the world economy by enhancing the traveler experience, while ensuring that cross-border security is maintained.” 

This KTDI pilot project is a perfect example of the importance of public-private partnership in implementing innovations in the aviation sector and border management and I am honoured that we are engaging in this pilot from the Netherlands,” said Ankie Broekers-Knol, Minister for Migration, The Netherlands.

The governments of Canada and the Netherlands are joined by Air Canada, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, YUL Montreal-Trudeau International Airport, Toronto Pearson International Airport and Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. This pilot group is supported by technology and advisory partner Accenture, with Vision Box and Idemia as technology component service providers.

KTDI technology

KTDI is based on an interoperable digital identity, linked directly to government-issued identity documents (ePassports). It uses cryptography, distributed ledger technology and biometrics to ensure portability and to safeguard the privacy of personal data. The system’s security relies on a decentralized ledger platform that all partners can access. This ledger provides an accurate, tamper-proof record of the travellers’ identity data and authorized transactions.

Notes to Editors
Read more on the KTDI project 
Read the Forum Agenda 

From Accenture we find out that this thing was developed under the ID2020 partnership we’ve been long talking about

Strangely, it took them to March 2020 to issue a specifications guide:

Where is the project now?

When international travel resumes, Canada’s borders and airports will be very different

Airports are at capacity with just 5 per cent of pre-COVID traffic because of pandemic measures

Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Jun 12, 2021

Once international travel resumes, self-serve check in terminals like these at Ottawa International Airport will become part of a more hands-free travel experience. (The Canadian Press/Justin Tang)

Just as the 9/11 attacks did 20 years ago, the COVID-19 pandemic will transform the way people travel internationally — with hundreds of millions of dollars in new government spending planned for modernizing border security and updating public health measures at airports.

In the recent federal budget, the federal government announced $82.5 million to fund COVID-19 testing infrastructure at Canadian airports and another $6.7 million to buy sanitization equipment for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

Ottawa also has earmarked $656.1 million over five years to modernize Canada’s border security.

Daniel Gooch, president of the Canadian Airports Council, said the country’s flight hubs still have no clear idea of what is expected of them. 

At the heart of the move to touchless travel is a trial the federal government is undertaking with the World Economic Forum and The Netherlands called the “Known Traveller Digital Identity” project, or KTDI.

The project began with the publication of a white paper back in 2018 and was seen as a way to modernize air travel by moving passengers through airports faster. That white paper said that a new, touchless system was needed as the number of international air arrivals was expected to increase 50 per cent from 2016 to 2030.

With international travel almost at a standstill now, the technology is seen as a way to facilitate a return to pre-COVID levels of air traffic.

The touchless travel experience

Under the KTDI plan, a digital form of identification is created that contains the traveller’s identity, boarding passes, vaccination history and information on whether they’ve recovered from COVID-19. Travellers with KTDI documentation would still have to face a customs officer, but all other points of contact in an airport could become touchless. 

“We’re still talking about a world where you’ll need to carry your passport because it is an international border,” said a senior CBSA official, speaking on background.

“We’re not talking about replacing your passport. But the number of times you have to take out that document, or your boarding pass, to substantiate who you are and where you need to be, gets reduced.”

Passengers wear face masks as they wait to go through security at Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montreal. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)

The official said the KTDI program is still in its early stages and technological issues are still being worked out. He said that privacy protections would have to be in place before any such system could be launched.

“It’s not like the Government of Canada holds that information in a central place, or airlines hold it in a central place, or border agencies hold it in a central place,” the official said. “It’s the traveller themselves that holds their own information.”

Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated travellers

A CBSA spokesperson told CBC News that the $656.1 million federal investment in border security modernization over five years will fund other “digital self-service tools” that will “reduce touchpoints” and create more “automated interactions” at Canadian airports 

The CBSA said more information on those measures will be released to the public “in the coming weeks.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is attending the G7 summit in the United Kingdom this weekend, where leaders are expected to discuss international vaccination certification — a so-called “vaccine passport”.

The federal government has signaled already that Canadians who have been fully vaccinated will be allowed to re-enter the country without having to stay in a government authorized quarantine hotel. Confirming the validity of those travellers’ vaccination status will require some kind of vaccine passport like the KTDI program. Canada’s airports like that idea. 

Fully vaccinated Canadians can soon skip hotel quarantine

The federal government says it will soon ease restrictions for fully vaccinated Canadians and permanent residents returning from international travel. 2:14

“We’re really leaning on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. That’s a place where you can have some differentiation of the travel experience to make it a little smoother, a little bit more pleasant for those who have been vaccinated. But we don’t know yet what the government’s plans are for that,” Gooch said.

Once a traveller’s vaccination can be verified, Gooch said, they can be treated differently — perhaps by giving them a single test upon arrival or before they depart, rather than the multiple tests required now. 

While the exact changes to international travel are still being worked out, Gooch said the travel experience going forward will be very different from the past.

“Maybe you don’t see an individual at all as you walk through the customs hall,” he said. “Your verification is done through your facial ID, which is connected to your Known Traveller Digital Identification, which is connected to your digital health information and your digital travel documentation.

Paperless Travel Pilot Outlines Best Practices for Digital Travel Experience

18 Oct 2021, by Madeleine Hillyer, Media Relations, World Economic Forum, mhll@weforum.org

  • World Economic Forum releases findings from its three-year Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot for paperless, cross-border travel
  • COVID-19 has heightened the need for digital travel credentials, such as vaccination or COVID test certificates, that can be verified across borders
  • The pilot indicates that a fully digital travel experience is possible but further progress is needed in the areas of governance, legal, global public-private collaboration and technology standards to drive wider adoption
  • Read more on the Known Traveller Digital Identity pilot findings here

New York, USA, 18 October 2021 – The World Economic Forum today releases findings from its digital passport pilot project which indicate that a fully digital travel experience is possible. However, further collaboration is needed to progress towards globally accepted and verifiable digital travel credentials.

The Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI)initiative, which was started in 2018, has worked with the governments of Canada and the Netherlands plus private-sector partners to pilot digital travel credentials for paperless travel between two countries. Lessons from this pilot are particularly relevant today as COVID-19 has underscored the need for verifiable digital credentials in cross-border travel.

A new white paper, Accelerating the Transition to Digital Credentials for Travel, is the result of collaboration between the World Economic Forum, Accenture and industry and government partners. It draws on lessons from the KTDI pilot and is intended to serve as a playbook to guide decision making and help assess important considerations in the use of verifiable digital travel credentials across borders.

“Creating digital travel credentials that work across borders is not an issue of technology but an issue of governance,” said Lauren Uppink, Head of Aviation, Travel and Tourism, World Economic Forum. “The learnings from the Forum’s KTDI consortium demonstrates that while the technology for the next stage of digital-first travel is ready, thoughtful collective action is what truly enables the design and effective implementation of global governance structures, ensuring that digital travel credentials are easy to use, trustworthy and verifiable across borders.”

“The pandemic has highlighted the urgency for trusted, widely-accepted, privacy preserving digital travel credentials,” says Christine Leong, Global Lead for Blockchain Identity & Biometrics, Accenture. “Leveraging digital travel credentials would provide a much more secure way of sharing verifiable information, leading to greater assurance for travellers, shorter airport processing time, and greater efficiency for airline and border staff. To achieve this, governments and private sector organisations must collaborate to bring about a seamless, paperless and contactless travel continuum for all. The time to work together is now.”

Lessons from the KTDI pilot

The KTDI project established that two major, often misleadingly polarized, technology approaches to verifiable digital identities can work together. Working with governments and technology partners, the consortium found that public key infrastructure (PKI) and decentralized digital identity can co-exist and address the digitalization of various parts of a travel journey.

Furthermore, the pilot project found that these technologies can and must be integrated within existing systems to accelerate adoption and scale.

Interoperability and collaboration were other key areas for progress identified during the KTDI pilot. For paper passports, interoperability already exists as all participating member states agree to follow the specifications through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)’s governance and trust frameworks.

Such an agreement for the specifications of digital travel credentials is not as widespread yet, but the adoption of traditional passport specifications shows that the benefits of using digital credentials in travel cannot be realized through isolated or one-off approaches.

The KTDI project

The first cross-border pilot for digital travel identification, the Known Traveller Digital Identity (KTDI) project, has been piloted with government partners from Canada and the Netherlands, along with a consortium of technology, private sector and other partners. The KTDI partners have designed and built the first government-led, public-private ecosystem to test the vision of safe and seamless cross-border travel. This vision aimed to reduce touchpoints by using emerging technologies, including biometrics and decentralized identity, and inform the future development of a globally accepted decentralized identity ecosystem.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has affected KTDI pilot efforts, it has also created an opportunity to further analyse how decentralized digital identity and PKI-based approaches could work together or work in sync. Although the initial pilot employed a decentralized identity approach to trial trusted digital credentials, KTDI could in the future expand to incorporate additional verifiable credentials such as COVID-19 vaccination certificates, as well as PKI-based digital credentials.

SOURCE

Moreover, while government officials claimed that vaccine passports only included details pertaining to whether someone has received a COVID vaccine, some claim it  functions as a tracking app, with border patrol receiving notification of one’s estimated arrival time well before a traveller gets there.
Liberals in Canada have also suggested utilizing tracking via digital IDs to hunt down the unvaccinated during future pandemics to get them their shots.

Counter Signal, April 14, 2022

Travelling from one concentration camp to another will be as joyless as the camps. You can’t escape if there’s no “outside”.

PUNCHLINE

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Elon Musk is not trolling Twitter right now, he’s trolling you.
I wonder if “Technocracy Gray” and “NPC Gray” are the same nuance.
You’ll understand if you pay close attention below.

LATER ADDAGIO TO EVERYTHING BELOW

INTRODUCING JOSHUA HALDEMAN, ELON MUSK’S GRANDFATHER WHO WROTE A PAGE OF HISTORY IN CANDA

Joshua N Haldeman, DC: the Canadian Years, 1926-1950

Authors:

Joseph C Keating

Scott Haldeman, University of California, Irvine

Dr. Scott Haldeman is a board certified Neurologist in active clinical practice in Santa Ana, California. He currently is a distinguished Professor at the University of California, the Chairman of the Research Council for the World Federation of Chiropractic and the Founder/President of World Spine Care.
Accomplished in his own right, he also happens to be the uncle of one of the worlds great innovators, Elon Musk. Read how the young Musk spent time on the Haldeman family farm in Saskatchewan. Both Scott’s father and his grandmother (Musk’s great-grandmother) were chiropractors. In fact, Almeda Haldeman became Canada’s first known chiropractor in the early 1900’s.

Source Regina Leader-Post

Abstract

Born in 1902 to the earliest chiropractor known to practice in Canada, Joshua Norman Haldeman would develop national and international stature as a political economist, provincial and national professional leader, and sportsman/adventurer.

A 1926 graduate of the Palmer School of Chiropractic, he would maintain a lifelong friendship with B.J. Palmer, and served in the late 1940s as Canada’s representative to the Board of Control of the International Chiropractors’ Association. Yet, he would also maintain strong alliances with broad-scope leaders in Canada and the United States, including the administrators of the National and Lincoln chiropractic schools.

Haldeman, who would practice chiropractic in Regina for at least 15 years, was instrumental in obtaining, and is credited with composing the wording of, Saskatchewan’s 1943 Chiropractic Act. He served on the province’s first board of examiners and the provincial society’s first executive board.

The following year Dr. Haldeman represented Saskatchewan in the deliberations organized by Walter Sturdy, D.C. that gave rise to the Dominion Council of Canadian Chiropractors, forerunner of today’s Canadian Chiropractic Association. As a member of the Dominion Council he fought for inclusion of chiropractors as commissioned officers during World War II, and participated in the formation of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which he subsequently served as a member of the first board of directors.

Dr. Haldeman also earned a place in the political history of Canada, owing to his service as research director for Technocracy, Inc. of Canada, his national chairmanship of the Social Credit Party during the second world war, and his unsuccessful bid for the national parliament.

His vocal opposition to Communism during the war briefly landed him in jail. His 1950 relocation of his family and practice to Pretoria, South Africa would open a new page in his career: once again as professional pioneer, but also as aviator and explorer. Although he died in 1974, the values he instilled in his son, Scott Haldeman, D.C., Ph.D., M.D. continue to influence the profession.

INTRODUCING TECHNOCRACY INC. AND THEIR TRILATERAL COMMISSION CONNECTION

TECHNOCRACY INC. defines itself as “a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It is a Continental Organization. It is not a financial racket or a political party. Technocracy Inc. operates only on the North American Continent through the structure of its own Continental Headquarters, Area Controls, Regional Divisions, Sections, and Organizers as a self-disciplined, self-controlled organization. It has no affiliations with any other organization, movement, or association, whether in North America or elsewhere. Technocracy points out that this Continent has the natural resources, the physical equipment, and the trained personnel to produce and distribute an abundance. Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate. Technocracy declares that this Continent has a rendezvous with Destiny; that this Continent must decide between Abundance and Chaos within the next few years. Technocracy realizes that this decision must be made by a mass movement of North Americans trained and self-disciplined, capable of operating a technological mechanism of production and distribution on the Continent when the present Price System becomes impotent to operate. Technocracy Inc. is notifying every intelligent and courageous North American that his future tomorrow rests on what he does today. Technocracy offers the specifications and the blueprints of Continental physical operations for the production of abundance for every citizen.”

In their Introduction to Technocracy, published in 1933, the movement’s leaders declared that the “riff-raff” of outdated social institutions was blocking progress and politicians should be swept aside, just as alchemists and astrologers had previously given way to science. Traditional economics, obsessed with arbitrary pricing mechanisms rather than rational production, was nothing more than the “pathology of debt”.
“In contrast to the devious ways of politics, the fumbling methods of finance and business . . . we have the methods of science and technology,” the movement’s manifesto declared. “Modern common sense is now calling upon physical science and technology to extend the frontiers of their domain.”

Financial Times

“Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission embarked on a New International Economic Order based on Technocracy. Brzezinski called this the “Technetronic Era” in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages. History now reveals the original Trilateral strategy and the means by which they have carried it out” – Patrick Wood

The Trilateral Commission and Technocracy (2013 presentation)

This film below was produced by Technocracy Inc. itself, to document their so called “Operation Columbia”, or, as I call it, “The original Trucker Convoy”.
According to some sources, this operation is what landed Elon Musk’s grandfather in prison. Briefly, for no apparent reason.
We found out about the Rockefeller – Technocracy link.
This movie brings proof the movement was also backed by The Masonic Temple (as admitted at min 6:42).

Drawing direct lines from the info above to the current world order is simpler than toasting a sandwich, but if you have difficulties, use the Search Box on the main page of our website to find all the missing links, they’re all here.

I will continue to add resources and revelations here, so if you come back later, you will most likely find more value and details. However, the bottom line here won’t change: Elon Musk is just another elite silver-spoon fed baby, Bill Gates with a better PR and understanding of human psyche.

The more Technocracy propaganda you watch, the more it overlaps with the Great Reset

Technocracy 101 – self-presentation film
What is Technocracy? 1981 tv panel
Jacques Fresco explains why he left the organization
Fresco’s “Venus Project” is another precursor to Elon Musk’s “Martian Technocracy”. It’s not a coincidence.
Technocracy Origins / Replacing money with energy certificates
Carbon taxes anyone? This is why energy oligarchs like the Rockefellers loved and adopted Technocracy.
Clip from James Corbett’s documentary film “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”

 “[Musk is] like Beelzebub, popping up every time the worlds of government funding, military research and Bilderberg technocrats collide.”

James Corbett

I leave the closing word to our friend James Corbett:

<<When our good friends at DARPA hold a Robotic Challenge, Musk is there.

When the World Government Summit convenes, Musk is the star attraction.

Need someone to pimp transhumanism? Musk is only too happy to explain the potential dangers of AI, and to present his solution: We must merge with the machines so that we’re not “irrelevant” when the robots take over. (And, oh yeah, he happens to have a company that’s working on the first “neural lace” mind-machine merger technology).

Yes, wherever the globalist fat cats meet to discuss technocratic ideas for the future, it’s a safe bet that Musk will be within spitting distance. But the part of this story you may not know is that Musk’s technocratic proclivity is not just a happenstance of character; it’s in his genes. You see, Elon Musk is the grandson of Joshua Haldeman.

Never heard of Joshua Haldeman? He may not be remembered today, but he was a notable figure in his day. An American by birth, Haldeman moved to southwest Saskatchewan in 1906 at the age of four. During his eventful time in the Canadian prairies, Haldeman helped found the province’s first chiropractic association, he “waged a public health campaign against Coca-Cola,” and, depending on whether you trust the Canadian Chiropractic Association or The Financial Times, he was either the “research director” or the “party leader” of the Canadian branch of the Technocracy Party (or maybe both?).

As I’ve discussed on The Corbett Report many times now, technocracy was a movement that gained popularity in the 1930s which sought to construct a system for scientifically engineering society. In the technocrats’ vision, the world would be divided into regional units called “technates” which would be run by “technocrats”: scientists, engineers, economists and others with specialized knowledge of specific technical fields. According to this ideology, economic (and thus societal and even geopolitical) turmoil could be eliminated when consumption and production are perfectly balanced by a cadre of learned technocrats with access to total oversight of all economic data.

The idea was ludicrous. The type of technology that would have been required to properly administer this technocracy—technology for monitoring every industrial process, every product and every transaction in the economy—simply did not exist when the idea was first conceived. But that didn’t stop the technocrats, or the visionary leader of what became Technocracy, Inc., a fully-fledged movement/political party/cult complete with a uniform (a “well-tailored double-breasted suit, gray shirt, and blue necktie, with a monad insignia on the lapel”) and a mandate to salute the movement’s leader on sight.

As viewers of Why Big Oil Conquered the World will know, that leader—Howard Scott—was a charlatan, and he was quickly disgraced when it was discovered he had “padded his resume” and falsely claimed engineering credentials which he did not possess. But that didn’t stop the technocracy movement, which gained a large following in the tumultuous 1930s in the United States and Canada.

The Canadian branch of the party at least gained enough attention to be banned by the government of Canada as a subversive organization of revolutionaries who, it was feared, would attempt to overthrow the government. This caused the disillusioned Haldeman to give up on Canada altogether. He packed up his things and moved his family to South Africa, which is where his grandson, Elon Musk, was born.

This connection is not just tangential. It tells us something about Musk’s roots and his vision. And it tells us that when he is preparing “to build the Martian Technocracy” he is not using that word in a careless way. He knows exactly what it means.>>

The coming technocracy

As 2020 draws to a close, one trend among nations most severely hit by COVID-19 bears some discussion. It is that democracies are evolving into technocracies, by which I mean a form of governance where those with political power are appointed on the basis of their scientific expertise. It would be hard to deny that scientists have assumed a role in political decision making unparalleled in recent memory. The French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy was the first to raise the issue of medical power. He argued that the influence of doctors and scientists was predicated on several misconceptions—that progress in controlling the pandemic was not based on an accumulation of discoveries, but on a series of corrected errors; that there was no scientific consensus on what course of action to take, only a “non-stop quarrel”; and that a “doctrine of hygienics” made health an unhealthy obsession. Initially, I thought he had stretched his critique too far. Scientists didn’t create this pandemic; they didn’t ask to be the servants of political decision making. On the contrary, many who found themselves in front of television cameras looked profoundly uncomfortable. Several had had to endure wholly unfair attacks in more libertarian media. But as the response to the pandemic unfolded, it has become all too clear that the work of scientists has put a powerful constraint on political action. Presidents and prime ministers now fear to step outside the boundaries set by science. Technocracy is replacing democracy.

Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments. We have already seen how mathematical modelling has shaped precautionary “circuit-breaks”, regional tiering, and strategies for testing and case detection. But the reach of science goes beyond the day-to-day management of the outbreak. Tzvetan Todorov, in his 2006 book In Defence of the Enlightenment, asked what kind of intellectual and moral base should we seek to build our communal life in an age where God was dead and our utopias had collapsed. He turned to “the humanist dimension of the Enlightenment” that was based on three principles. First, autonomy—“giving priority to what individuals decide for themselves”. We should seek “total freedom to examine, question, criticise, and challenge dogmas and institutions”. Second, the end purpose of that freedom should be humanism: “Human beings had to impart meaning to their earthly lives.” And third, universality. “The demand for equality followed from the principle of universality.” Knowledge was to be a critical force in this project. And the “emancipation of knowledge paved the way for the development of science”. But science can all too easily be corrupted into scientism, which then becomes “a distortion of the Enlightenment, its enemy not its avatar”. Danger comes when political choices are equated with scientific deductions, when good is only derived from truth. At that moment, a society comes to believe that the world is completely knowable. Experts are sought not only to set political objectives, but also to formulate moral norms. At that moment, democracy is in jeopardy.

Todorov quotes the chemist and politician Antoine Lavoisier—“the true end of a government should be to increase the joy, happiness, and wellbeing of all individuals”. Will the slide towards technocracy, the increasing power of unelected scientific elites, bring better opportunities to achieve such an end? One advantage of technocracy is already clear. The worst excesses of political populism have been blunted. We have all seen how a politics based on the exploitation of discontent, disaffection, and dissatisfaction divides nations and leaves tens of thousands of citizens vulnerable to a pathogen that exploits inequality, accentuates poverty, and abuses the excluded. A technocracy is a powerful corrective force to this manipulation of the political process. But such an evolution carries dangers too. Scientists are not accountable to the publics they hope to serve. The next few years will see the crisis of COVID-19 continue in various social, economic, and political forms. Will the newly fashioned technopolitics be able to adapt to the needs of a battered citizenry? One hopes so. But with a degraded and distrusted political class, the passing of power to science could prove to be a dangerous subversion of what is left of our atrophied democratic values.

Elon Musk exposed by Greg Reese
I rest my case

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This damning op ed just came out on the most prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) and shocked a lot of people.
But, as I’ll show you, there’s been even more shocking and more based research out there pointing the same direction ages ago, and it’s been largely overlooked. So maybe it’s time to stop the awe and start going after the blind sentinels we’re paying to safeguard our body of knowledge that keeps us alive.

Oh my, oh my!
How do these academic fucktards (don’t excuse my accuracy) expect anything “evidence-based” to fare in a post-truth world where men are pregnant and virus isolation is done “in cultures”?! I mean, evidence was an endangered species on Planet Science even before woke science and the macarenavirus…
What can the price of evidence be in an economy where “a patient cured is a customer lost”?!
How do they discover hot water in 2022 and expect to maintain a prestige?!

Whatever the answers may be, we can use this and the references I’ll add after to awaken any NPC that still exhibits signs of intelligent life trapped inside:

The illusion of evidence based medicine

BMJ 2022; 376 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o702 (Published 16 March 2022) Cite this as: BMJ 2022;376:o702

  1. Jon Jureidini, research leader1,  
  2. Leemon B. McHenry, professor emeritus2

Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors

The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.

The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.

The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.

The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.”

Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10

Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to “mark their own homework” rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.

Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available. The open and transparent publication of data are in keeping with our moral obligation to trial participants—real people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigour. Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: McHenry and Jureidini are joint authors of The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 2020). Both authors have been remunerated by Los Angeles law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman for a fraction of the work they have done in analysing and critiquing GlaxoSmithKline’s paroxetine Study 329 and Forest Laboratories citalopram Study CIT-MD-18. They have no other competing interests to declare.
  • Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed

References

    1. Steinman MA, 
    2. Bero LA, 
    3. Chren MM, 
    4. Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med2006;145:284-93. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008 pmid:16908919CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
    1. Mukherjee D, 
    2. Nissen SE, 
    3. Topol EJ. Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. JAMA2001;286:954-9. doi:10.1001/jama.286.8.954. pmid:11509060 CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
    1. Doshi P. Pandemrix vaccine: why was the public not told of early warning signs?BMJ2018;362:k3948doi:10.1136/bmj.k3948. FREE Full Text Google Scholar
    1. Jureidini J, 
    2. McHenry L, 
    3. Mansfield P. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of Study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med2008;20:73-81doi:10.3233/JRS-2008-0426. CrossRef Google Scholar
    1. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery.Basic Books, 1959. Google Scholar
    1. Bok D. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education.Princeton University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  1. IntraMed. Criteria Used to Develop Influence Score. 2008. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/drug/docs/#id=shbn0225
  2. Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesis—Learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30:8-24.
    1. Popper K. The Poverty of Historicism. Routledge, 1961: 154-5. Google Scholar
    1. Howick J. Exploring the asymmetrical relationship between the power of finance bias and evidence. Perspect Biol Med2019;62:159-87. doi:10.1353/pbm.2019.0009 pmid:31031303 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

As you can see, their references range mostly from classical to old. Experienced tinfoil hats must already be yawning by now, but they’re not the primary target for this piece.

Here are some really good comments on this from Bret Weinstein:

Now let me provide some more reading recommendations along this line.

The very same BMJ, almost 10 years ago:

Education And Debate

Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1189 (Published 29 May 2003)

“Twisted together like the snake and the staff, doctors and drug companies have become entangled in a web of interactions as controversial as they are ubiquitous (box). As national drug bills rise at rates that vastly exceed those of inflation (fig 1), this entanglement and the subsequent flows of money and influence are attracting increasing public and academic scrutiny.

Studies from several countries show that 80-95% of doctors regularly see drug company representatives despite evidence that their information is overly positive and prescribing habits are less appropriate as a result.1 2 Many doctors receive multiple gifts from drug companies every year, and most doctors deny their influence despite considerable evidence to the contrary.3 Industry interactions correlate with doctors’ preferences for new products that hold no demonstrated advantage over existing ones, a decrease in the prescribing of generics, and a rise in both prescription expenditures and irrational and incautious prescribing, according to a recent analysis of the ethics of gift giving.4 The number of gifts that doctors receive correlates with beliefs that drug representatives have no impact on prescribing behaviour.3

Accepting meals and expenses for travel or accommodation for sponsored educational meetings is common despite evidence that this is associated with an increase in formulary requests for and prescribing of the sponsor’s drug.2 3 Most doctors attend company sponsored events providing continuing medical education, 2 yet evidence shows that these preferentially high-light the sponsor’s drug.3 Many professional societies rely heavily on industry sponsorship, …”

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 2013, Vol. 14, No. 3: 590-610, Posted: 20 Jun 2013 Last revised: 11 Apr 2020

Donald W. Light – Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine ; Center for Migration and Development; Institute for Advanced Study

Joel Lexchin – York University

Jonathan J. Darrow = Harvard Medical School

Date Written: June 1, 2013

Abstract

Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.

Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’

BBC, 22 February 2017

Test tubes
Image caption,Scientists attempting to repeat findings reported in five landmark cancer studies confirmed only two

Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.

This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

From his lab at the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

“The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results.”

You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies’ findings.

Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.

“It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr Errington.

Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.

Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.

“I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it’s me, maybe I didn’t run my study well, maybe I’m not cut out to be a scientist.”

The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo’s science, but with the way the scientific literature had been “tidied up” to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says.

“The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

“What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”

The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: “It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

She says it’s about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”

Top of a copy of Nature magazine
Image caption,Scientific journals can play a role in helping improve the reliability of reporting

For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.

It’s introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.

“Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper,” says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.

“It is a big problem, but it’s something the journals can’t tackle on their own. It’s going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers.”

But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.

“The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”

Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper’s central hypothesis before publication.

“Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”

Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we’re wasting both time and money.

“It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It’s a regrettable situation, but I’m afraid that’s the situation we find ourselves in.”

“UP TO 90% OF THE PUBLISHED MEDICAL INFORMATION IS FLAWED” – PSYCHOLOGY TODAY

“Can any medical research studies be trusted?” – Psychology Today

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Abstract

Background

The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.

Methods and Findings

We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Ferric C. FangR. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall arturo.casadevall@einstein.yu.edu

October 1, 2012 | 109 (42) 17028-17033 | https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Abstract

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.

The number and frequency of retracted publications are important indicators of the health of the scientific enterprise, because retracted articles represent unequivocal evidence of project failure, irrespective of the cause. Hence, retractions are worthy of rigorous and systematic study. The retraction of flawed publications corrects the scientific literature and also provides insights into the scientific process. However, the rising frequency of retractions has recently elicited concern (12). Studies of selected retracted articles have suggested that error is more common than fraud as a cause of retraction (35) and that rates of retraction correlate with journal-impact factor (6). We undertook a comprehensive analysis of all retracted articles indexed by PubMed to ascertain the validity of the earlier findings. Retracted articles were classified according to whether the cause of retraction was documented fraud (data falsification or fabrication), suspected fraud, plagiarism, duplicate publication, error, unknown, or other reasons (e.g., journal error, authorship dispute).

Retracted scientific paper persists in new citations, study finds – Illinois University, JAN 5, 2021

“Pharmaceutical companies often manipulate the word innovation for rhetorical purposes and seldom develop clinically superior drugs, thus corrupting the R&D process. He cited studies indicating that over the past 30 years, on average fewer than 2 major clinical advances and 7-13 superior drugs were developed each year, compared with the 85-90 drugs that are developed with few or no advantages. With 113,000 deaths a year caused by adverse drug reactions just in hospitalized patients and 2.5 million serious reactions, Professor Light believes there is an epidemic of harmful side effects from drugs that often have few offsetting advantages.”

“The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and an Epidemic of Harms” – Donald Light Harvard seminar

Conflicts of Interest as a Health Policy Problem: Industry Ties and Bias in Drug Approval – Harvard University 2014

“A staggering 94% of surveyed physicians acknowledged receiving financial compensation of some form from pharmaceutical companies, ranging from small perks such as free gifts and meals to stipendiary speaking invitations and salaried positions as industry consultants.”

Drug Companies and Medicine: What Money Can Buy – Harvard University, 2009

The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT”

Summary Points

  • Some 1500 documents revealed in litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals.
  • Dozens of ghostwritten reviews and commentaries published in medical journals and supplements were used to promote unproven benefits and downplay harms of menopausal hormone therapy (HT), and to cast raloxifene and other competing therapies in a negative light.
  • Specifically, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth used ghostwritten articles to mitigate the perceived risks of breast cancer associated with HT, to defend the unsupported cardiovascular “benefits” of HT, and to promote off-label, unproven uses of HT such as the prevention of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, vision problems, and wrinkles.
  • Given the growing evidence that ghostwriting has been used to promote HT and other highly promoted drugs, the medical profession must take steps to ensure that prescribers renounce participation in ghostwriting, and to ensure that unscrupulous relationships between industry and academia are avoided rather than courted.

Introduction

In recent litigation against Wyeth, more than 14,000 plaintiffs brought claims related to the development of breast cancer while taking the menopausal hormone therapy Prempro (conjugated equine estrogens [CEEs] and medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA]). Some 1500 documents revealed in the litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals. These documents became public when PLoS Medicine and The New York Times intervened in the litigation. Both intervenors successfully argued that ghostwriting undermines public health and that documents proving the practice should be unsealed.

In this Policy Forum article, I use these documents, which are available through PLoS at http://www.plosmedicine.org/static/ghostwriting.action or at the Drug Information Document Archive at http://dida.library.ucsf.edu/documents.jsp to show how industry uses ghostwriters to insert marketing messages into articles published in medical journals. As a paid expert witness, I had access to these documents during the litigation but I have received no payment for researching or writing this Policy Forum.

Hormone Therapy History

In 1942, Premarin (CEE) became the first FDA-approved treatment for hot flashes. Promotional efforts implied that estrogen could preserve youth and health. By the early 1970s, physicians, under the mistaken impression that menopause was an endocrine disease similar to hypothyroidism, were prescribing estrogen to millions of asymptomatic women. In 1975, an eight-fold increase in endometrial cancer was linked to estrogen use, and estrogen sales decreased [1].

After adding a progestin pill to counteract estrogen-induced endometrial cancer, hormone “replacement” therapy (HRT; now properly termed menopausal hormone therapy, or HT) became popular in the 1980s. Through the 1990s, HT was touted to prevent cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, colon cancer, tooth loss, and macular degeneration [1]. Prempro, which combined CEE and the progestin Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate), was approved in the U.S. in 1995. In 1998, the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS), a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in women with cardiovascular disease, found no benefit of HT for preventing cardiovascular events [2]. In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a large RCT in healthy women, demonstrated conclusively that HT failed to prevent cardiovascular disease, increased the risk of breast cancer and stroke, and reduced fracture risk [3],[4]. Later analyses revealed that HT increased the risk of dementia [5] and incontinence [6].

Today, despite definitive scientific data to the contrary, many gynecologists still believe that the benefits of HT outweigh the risks in asymptomatic women [1],[7][8]. This non-evidence–based perception may be the result of decades of carefully orchestrated corporate influence on medical literature.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Energy / resources scarcity is an essential myth to maintaining your slavery or whatever you call the status-quo. It’s the core justification for redistribution of goods and wealth, for high prices, for the existence of management mega-structures such as the government or even the WEF.
It’s the main tool elites use to maintain dominance and dispelling it would free humanity forever.

Every day we’re pushed to take Pharmafia’s medical advice at face value, without critical examination, because they are the alleged ultimate experts in what they are selling.
But the same logic is considered flawed by conflicts of interests when applied to tobacco industry. Or oil industry.
In fact, both Pharmafia moguls and oil moguls monetize official narratives based on fear of energy or health scarcities.
 John Catsimatidis is no Rockefeller, but he became a billionaire in both oil and retail industry. He makes more money if you believe oil is a rare, finite and precious commodity. Even his retail stores tax this ignorance. But in a recent interview on Fox news, he decided to spill the beans.
This is akin to a Pharmafia CEO saying “a patient cured is a customer lost”.
And no one raised an eyebrow, because people are blind to what they don’t understand.
In case you wondered why the world looks like a planetary Auschwitz.

ORIGINAL VIDEO SOURCE

As for the science of regenerable non-fossil mineral oil, see our earlier report:

OIL IS NOT “FOSSIL” – THE SHORT COURSE

In fact, my friends, as opposed to 1922, we know now that matter and everything is essentially energy in this Universe, so the mission is not extracting it from a deposit or from atoms, that’s antiquated AF, we need to think it in terms of converting one form of energy to another. Through very complicated processes, we now convert coal and oil, combined with other forms of energy, in plastic, heat or goods.
But, if you kept up with science lately, we’re at a technological level where we can convert almost anything in anything.

Dare to dare more:

Why would we be limited to the terrestrial resources? We’re bathing in energy that comes to us from this energy-made Universe. We can sit on our asses wherever we like on Earth, capture and convert energy to suit our needs.

IT’S NOT INFINITE GROWTH ON A FINITE PLANET.
IT’S INFINITE GROWTH IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE MADE OF ENERGY.

Infinite energy for everyone would mean the definitive end for the status quo and a free humanity. Unleashing the gods. The current Olympus won’t like that, but it’s just a matter of time. I’d love to witness it in my lifetime though.

This is THE SECRET that can tear down the Planet Prison walls just by going viral.

Very Related:

BILLIONAIRES – MOST INVESTED PEOPLE IN CLIMATE ALARMISM

Later addendum, as demanded by some feedback:

Research this alternative view on established historical facts, see how it checks out:

People regard the Rockefellers as Oil Moguls / Oligarchs / Oilgarchs.
But they regard themselves as energy and resources monopolists. “Competition is sin”, remember?
Today’s green oligarchs killed the greener and more efficient ethanol fuel because they couldn’t monopolize and control it, as they did with oil. This even led to the alcohol prohibition in US.
Other attempts, like hemp oil, met same fate.
As the new communist oligarchies in USSR and Latin America, plus some of the Arab friends, were slipping out of their control and establishing themselves as independent providers, the Rockefellers saw themselves losing the total grip on the energy market.
So they rebranded themselves as “green”, they established themselves as dominant in that field and narrative, then they started to do to their own oil industry what they did to ethanol. For the exact same reasons.
Except this time, instead of the alcohol prohibition we get the climate hysteria and an everything-prohibition soon.

Here’s a prequel to the main story:

Addendum #2

“Green” elites know EVs run on blood batteries, killing people even before they hit the road


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

Everything you didn’t like about Pentagon’s DARPA, CIA’s In-Q-Tel, and more, but with funds stolen from Queen’s subjects and European peasantry.
The business of high-tech slavery is the future and the future is now! Advanced by slave work of course.

UK to host world-leading Nato Defence Innovation Headquarters

From: UK Ministry of Defence, Published 5 April 2022

The UK will partner with Estonia on the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) programme to maintain NATO’s technological edge.

The United Kingdom, in partnership with Estonia, will host the European HQ of a programme for NATO allies to accelerate, test, evaluate and validate new technologies that address critical defence challenges and contribute to Alliance deterrence.

Announced today by the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) will see transatlantic cooperation on critical technologies and help NATO work more closely with industry and academia.

The UK’s accelerator will be twinned with a new accelerator in Tallinn, Estonia to encourage the sharing of expertise, explore the use of virtual sites to trial vehicles, including autonomous ones, and test cyber innovations.

As hosts, the UK and Estonia will:

  • Support start-up companies with funding, guidance and business expertise through twinned accelerator networks.
  • Offer the use of ‘deep tech’ test centres to assess technological solutions to military problems, utilising the Defence BattleLab.
  • Work with NATO to develop a virtual marketplace to connect start-ups with trusted investors, as well as a rapid acquisition service to connect products to buyers at pace.

UK Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace said:

The UK and Estonia are two of the most innovative countries in NATO and our hosting of DIANA will harness that innovation for the benefit of all Allies tackling future military threats.

The UK has a vibrant tech community, combining the academia, financiers, and high-tech start-ups that make it an ideal place to develop the next generation of military technologies.

Estonia was the natural partner for the UK given its international leadership in cyber, autonomy and AI, and our close partnership forged through the Enhanced Forward Presence.

Ranked in the world’s top ten innovative universities, Imperial College London will bring together academia, industry and government by hosting the headquarters of DIANA and a DIANA Accelerator at the Innovation Hub (IHUB) in the White City Innovation District, in a space shared with the UK’s Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), Major Defence Contractors and The US Department of Defence’s Tri-Service Office.

Supported by DASA, the UK and Estonia DIANA HQ is expected to be operational from July 2022. DIANA is essential to delivering the NATO 2030 vision and ensuring that the Alliance develops the military capabilities needed to deter and defend against existing and future threats.

Estonian Defence Minister, Kalle Laanet.

The goal of DIANA is to support deep technologies companies that contribute to defence. It will bring together talented innovators with new technologies end-users in the area of defence. We are very glad to see that the good cooperation we have with the UK will expand even further and also encompass our universities and private sector more,

Cooperation between the UK and Estonia is working well on every level because we have a common understanding of defence policy. Good relations with Allies is a cornerstone of Estonian defence policy, and a successful start to this programme for us is a sign that this cornerstone is strong.

Co- Director, Institute for Security Science and Technology, Imperial College London, Professor Deeph Chana, said:

As one of the top STEM-B universities in the world, in one of the most diverse cities, Imperial College London is uniquely placed to power a progressive, responsible and holistic dual-use security and defence technology innovation program by hosting DIANA. Coordinated through our Institute for Security Science and Technology and Business School we’re committed to working on disruptive research and innovation to reduce insecurity and to deal with global threats and challenges.

DIANA will support all seven of the key emerging and disruptive technologies that NATO has identified as priorities: artificial intelligence, big-data processing, quantum-enabled technologies, autonomy, biotechnology, hypersonics and space.

She is Estonia’s Prime Minister

What the Estonian Ministry of Defense has to say on this:

Estonia chosen as one of the initiators of the NATO DIANA future technologies programme

5. April 2022 – 19:13

At the NATO summit last June in Brussels, NATO leaders decided to create an innovation accelerator – the DIANA (Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic) programme will allow Allies to join their strengths in developing and adopting new and breakthrough technologies in the area of security and defence.

In cooperation between the Estonian ministries of defence, foreign affairs, and economic affairs and communication, Estonia and the United Kingdom submitted a bid for the programme, which was approved in full at the proposal of the NATO Secretary General. Together with the UK, Estonia is set to create the DIANA European headquarters, a NATO start-up accelerator will be founded in Estonia, and several existing testing sites for new technologies will be added to the DIANA accelerator network.

“The goal of DIANA is to support deep technologies companies that contribute to defence. It will bring together talented innovators with new technologies end-users in the area of defence. We are very glad to see that the good cooperation we have with the UK will expand even further and also encompass our universities and private sector more,” commented Minister of Defence Kalle Laanet. “Cooperation between the UK and Estonia is working well on every level because we have a common understanding of defence policy. Good relations with Allies is a cornerstone of Estonian defence policy, and a successful start to this programme for us is a sign that this cornerstone is strong.”

“Estonia and the UK are two of the most innovative nations in the Alliance, hosting respectively the most unicorn firms per capita, and the most unicorns in total. With Estonia’s impressive leadership in cyber, autonomy and AI, and the close partnership forged through our enhanced Forward Presence (eFP), they were a natural partner for the UK on this important initiative,” said UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.

“Trust in this Estonian initiative is a sign of our good reputation in creating favourable ecosystems for start-up innovation and developing new technologies. The fact that DIANA will be launched both in Estonia and the UK is an example of cooperation at work – both domestically between ministries, universities and the private sector, as well as across borders,” added Minister of Foreign Affairs Eva-Maria Liimets.

DIANA is a highly ambitious cooperation format that will bring together civil and military experts to develop and implement dual-use technologies in member states as well as across the transatlantic Alliance.

In addition, Estonia will participate at the negotiations for the founding of a NATO innovation fund. The objective of the fund is to support dual-use deep technology start-ups with investments, by offering trusted capital and creating additional opportunities for growth. States that have decided to join the fund will formalise the agreement at the NATO summit set to take place at the end of June.

Going forward, Estonia will continue preparations for the launch of the DIANA programme in 2023.

Additional information: press@mod.gov.ee

“Dual use” as in vaccines / bioweapons, I shall add.

Here’s a clue on how much DIANA’s future victims will be paying for it. This will be just launch money:

Defence sector innovation: NATO to invest €1B in startups

 THE RECURSIVE, 24 JUNE 2021  3 MINS READ

us-army-soldiers-army-men-54098

NATO, the intergovernmental defence alliance between 30 European and North American countries, launches a €1B fund and an accelerator targeting deeptech startups in the defence sector. The goal is to leverage the innovation capabilities of startups to develop the next generation of war machines. Part of NATO 2030, the move follows a period of concern for Alliance leaders regarding China’s increased reliance on tech for its military strategy.

At the end of two virtual meetings in early June, Foreign and Defence ministers agreed on the need to reinforce the transatlantic defence partnership between Europe and North America amid intensifying global competition. We need to sharpen our technological edge (…) We see that new and disruptive technologies, such as autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and big data are really changing the way our militaries are going to operate in the future,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said.

The Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) is to become the center point for countries in the alliance to coordinate and cooperate on developing new technologies. DIANA will add offices and test centers throughout Alliance countries. 

“The goal is to have DIANA reach initial operating capability (IOC) by 2023,” David van Weel, assistant secretary-general for emerging security challenges, added in a virtual roundtable with reporters, following the 31st annual summit on June 14 in Brussels.

Planning to stay ahead of the curve is particularly important, as China has been investing heavily in new technologies to strengthen its military power and fuel its ambition to become a leader in the use of AI. The defence accelerator is also a recognition from European and North American leaders of the prevalence of disruptive technologies – and a decision to harness their unique potential to strengthen common defence strategies. 

How startups benefit from NATO’s initiative

For startups, this will be an opportunity to work together with the government sector and academia towards accelerating the achievement of national security and transatlantic collaboration goals. “Sometimes a technology company may not realize that their product could be viable for the defence community,” David van Weel said. Startups will also benefit from entering a network of stakeholders that can help them develop and get funded.

DIANA will be supporting startups working on either of the seven key emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) that NATO deems critical for the future: AI, big-data processing, quantum-enabled tech, autonomy, biotechnology, hypersonics, and space.

The accelerator includes a trusted capital marketplace that will enable funding opportunities for companies by connecting them to pre-qualified investors. Additionally, startups will receive support through a venture capital fund. The NATO Innovation Fund has been set up to support companies developing dual-use and key tech that could serve the Alliance. The fund will be an opt-in for member countries and would be underwritten by about €70M per year. Van Weel added that NATO would be looking for a partner from the private sector to help run the daily business operations of the fund.

DIANA is unique to NATO’s innovation efforts in that it has been built with the needs of the startup community in mind. It specifically targets early-stage startups rather than larger companies and traditional defence firms, in order to harness their unique ability for innovation.

IF YOU’RE NAIVE ENOUGH TO THINK THIS IS ABOUT DEFENSE, AND NOT THE INSANE DAVOS TRANSHUMANIST AGENDA…

… I will bring to your attention the fact that NATO has already adopted its own “Agenda 2030”, titled “NATO 2030”, and both of these are just “The Great Reset for Different Niches of Dummies” in their specific lingo. That’s all they are.
Proportionally, “NATO 2030” talks about climate change about as much as “The Great Reset”.

Also note how NATO presents itself more and more as a business accelerator.
Transhumanist businesses with a multinational army funded by half a billion unsuspecting dupes and NPCs in NATO countries and beyond. What could go wrong, right?

NATO hopes to launch new defense tech accelerator by 2023

DEFENSE NEWS,  Jun 22, 2021

Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gives press conference at the NATO summit in Brussels on June 14, 2021. (Photo by FREDERIC SIERAKOWSKI/BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images)

STUTTGART, Germany — In less than two years, NATO hopes to have its own, modified version of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) up and running.

Alliance members agreed at the 31st annual summit, held June 14 in Brussels, to launch a new initiative dubbed the Defence Innovation Accelerator of the North Atlantic, or DIANA, meant to speed up trans-Atlantic cooperation on critical technologies, and help NATO work more closely with private-sector entities, academia and other non-governmental entities.

The goal is to have DIANA reach initial operating capability (IOC) by 2023, David van Weel, assistant secretary-general for emerging security challenges, said at a Tuesday virtual roundtable with reporters. By next year, the hope is to have “the initial parts … starting to come up into fruition,” he added.

In the long term, DIANA will have headquarters both in North America and in Europe, and link to existing test centers throughout NATO member countries that will be used for “validating, testing, and co-designing applications in the field of emerging and disruptive technologies,” van Weel said. DIANA will also be responsible for building and managing a network meant to help relevant startups grow and support NATO’s technology needs via grant programs.

The focus will be on national security and defense purposes, and DIANA will not ask for or solicit companies’ intellectual property, van Weel noted.

While he singled out artificial intelligence, big-data processing, and quantum-enabled technologies, DIANA is meant to support all seven of the key emerging and disruptive technologies — or EDTs — that NATO has identified as critical for the future. The other four include: autonomy, biotechnology, hypersonics and space.

Sometimes a technology company may not realize that their product could be viable for the defense community, he added.

One key component of DIANA will be a trusted capital marketplace, where smaller companies can connect with pre-qualified investors who are interested in supporting NATO’s technology efforts. Ensuring that investors are vetted ahead of time will allow NATO to ensure “that the technology will be protected from illicit transfers,” van Weel said.

The fund is modeled after a The U.S. Defense Department set up its own trusted capital marketplace in 2019 as a tool that then-DoD acquisition czar Ellen Lord said could help encourage domestically based venture capitalists to fund national security and defense projects. That marketplace served as inspiration for the announced NATO trusted capital marketplace, per the alliance.

Members also agreed for the first time to build up a venture capital fund to support companies developing dual-use and key technologies that could be useful to NATO, and which will be optional for member-nations to participate in. The NATO Innovation Fund, as it’s called, would have a running time of about 15 years to start, and would be underwritten by about 70 million euro (about $83 million) per year, per van Weel.

The goal is not for NATO headquarters or for its member-nations to run the innovation fund, he noted. “The actual running of a venture capital fund, we believe, should be done by companies that have a broad range of experience in the field.” He cited the U.S.-based capital venture firm In-Q-Tel as an example of the type of partner NATO would seek to run the “day-to-day” business of the fund.

“I read somewhere that NATO is not a bank—we’re not,” van Weel said. “But it will be the nations providing the funds, and giving the general direction.”

These two initiatives of a technology accelerator and innovation fund are “hopefully going to … bring the alliance forward into the 21st century,” van Weel said.

NATO has previously invested in information technology (IT) and software through the NATO Communications and Information Agency (NCIA), but the difference with the innovation fund, and DIANA, is that the alliance wants to better connect with early-stage startups, rather than larger software companies or traditional defense firms, van Weel said.

“DIANA is not about taking over innovation for the NATO enterprise,” he said. “It’s a different community, and requires different funding mechanisms and different types of engagement.”

These two initiatives have been long awaited and demanded by NATO observers, and versions of both a “DARPA-like” technology accelerator and an alliance-wide investment bank were included in a 2020 list of recommendations by NATO’s advisory group on emerging and disruptive technologies.

But it is still early days. While the IOC goal is 2023, “step one is we want to know from allies what they want to offer to DIANA,” van Weel said. Once the NATO Innovation Fund has its participating members, for example, a charter will be set up that will lay out the funding models, rapid contracting processes, and leadership guidelines.

“We are trying to do this as fast as we can,” van Weel assured, but then noted, “we do want to get it right, because … with the startup community, you only get one chance.”

If you want to deepen your understanding of the situation and the context here, also read:

EVERYTHING WE PUBLISHED ON DARPA

BOMBSHELL! GERMAN & UK DEFENSE WORK ON MASSIVE “HUMAN AUGUMENTATION” PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN POPULATION! SWEDEN AND FINLAND INVOLVED TOO

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This document has been published by NASA in July 2001, only a few months before 9/11. And it took 12 years to get some spotlight. Ten more years and we see it coming to life. And now it dwarfs the Great Reset in terms of revelations and implications.

Figuring out The Great Reset was like in those cartoons where some people celebrate killing Godzilla just to discover it was a baby Godzilla, and a raging Godzilla-mom is approaching fast. This is how I felt bumping into this:

Dennis M. Bushnell, “Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]” (sic), NASA Langley Research Center (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), July 2001, 113 pp.; PDF, 1400357 bytes, MD5: c833f3fbc55d07fe891f5f4df5fb2f57. The aforesaid PDF was found on the US Department of Defense’s Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) website, as archived by the following Internet Archive URL: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20031224161719/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001testing/bushnell.pdf

Dennis M. Bushnell is the Chief Scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center. The following is a biography page for him:

Joe Atkinson, “Dennis Bushnell”, NASA Langley Research Center (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Mar. 21, 2013. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/snapshot_DBushnell.html

Bushnell’s above presentation was given on August 14, 2001 at the 4th Annual Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium and Exhibition organized by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) and held at the Rosen Centre Hotel (formerly the Omni Rosen Hotel) in Orlando, Florida. For information on that, see the following page in which the above presentation is available:

“The 4th Annual Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium & Exhibition: Emerging Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements, 13-16 August 2001”, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020409151859/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001testing/index.html ,

See also the following announcement page for this conference:

“4th Annual Testing and Training Symposium and Exhibition: A National Partnership, on August 14-16, 2001 in Orlando, FL at the Omni Centre Hotel”, National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA).

The following is the conference proceedings:

Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium and Exhibition (4th Annual): Emerging Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements Held on 13-16 August 2001 (on CD-ROM), National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), Aug. 2001; National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Issue Number: 1014.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140212003319/http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=ADM002244

The text on each page stating “Future Strategic Issues, 7/01” within the above PDF refers to the document’s finalization date of July 2001. The creation date of the above PDF is given as Thu 13 Dec 2001 08:48:04 AM EST, which possibly refers to when the PDF was created from a Microsoft PowerPoint file (.ppt), as it looks like the document was perhaps originally a PowerPoint file.Addeddate 2014-02-11 00:44:28Identifier FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t05x4vt08Ocr ABBYY FineReader 9.0Ppi 300Scanner Internet Archive HTML5 Uploader 1.5.1Year 2001

Dr. Dennis M. Bushnell is the Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. He is responsible for Technical Oversight and Advanced Program formulation for a major NASA Research Center with technical emphasis in the areas of Atmospheric Sciences and Structures, Materials, Acoustics, Flight Electronics/Control/Software, Instruments, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics, Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion, Computational Sciences and Systems Optimization for Aeronautics, Spacecraft, Exploration and Space Access .
44 years experience as Research Scientist, Section Head, Branch Head, Associate Division Chief and Chief Scientist. Technical Specialties include Flow Modeling and Control across the Speed Range, Advanced Configuration Aeronautics, Aeronautical Facilities and Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion .
Author of 252 publications/major presentations and 310 invited lectures/seminars, Member of National Academy of Engineering , Selected as Fellow of ASME, AIAA and the Royal Aeronautical Society, 6 patents, AIAA Sperry and Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Awards , AIAA Dryden Lectureship, Royal Aeronautical Society Lanchester, Swire and Wilber and Orville Wright Lectures, ICAS Guggenheim Lecture, Israel Von Karman Lecture, USAF/NASP Gene Zara Award, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement and Outstanding Leadership Medals and Distinguished Research Scientist Award, ST Presidential Rank Award,9 NASA Special Achievement and 10 Group Achievement Awards, University of Connecticut Outstanding Engineering Alumni, Academy of Engineers ,Pi Tau Sigma and Hamilton Awards, Univ. of Va. Engineering Achievement Award , service on numerous National and International Technical Panels and Committees and consultant to National and International organizations. DOD related committee/consulting assignments include USAF Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, BMDC, ONR, Intelligence Community/STIC, AFOSR, NRAC, NRC, WL, LLL, HASC, NUWC, DARPA, AGARD, ARL, IAT, AEDC, JANNAF, NAVSEA, Air Force 2025, AFSOC, Sandia, SAB, Army War College, ACOM Joint Futures, SOCOM, TRADOC, SEALS, JFCOM, IDA, NDU, DSB and Army After Next.
Reviewer for 40 Journals and Organizations, Editor, Volume 123 of AIAA Progress Series “Viscous Drag Reduction in Boundary Layers.”
Responsible for invention/ development of “Riblet” approach to Turbulent Drag Reduction, High Speed “Quiet Tunnels” for Flight-Applicable Boundary Layer Transition Research, Advanced Computational Approaches for Laminar Flow Control and Advanced Hypervelocity Airbreathing and Aeronautical Concepts with revolutionary performance potential. Contributions to National Programs include Sprint, HSCT/SST, FASTSHIP, Gemini, Apollo, RAM, Viking, X15, F-18E/F [patent holder for the “fix” to the wing drop problem],Shuttle, NASP, Submarine/Torpedo Technology ,Americas’ Cup Racers, Navy Rail Gun, MAGLEV Trains and Planetary Exploration.
B.S. in M.E. degree from University of Connecticut with Highest Honors, Distinction, University Scholar (1963), M.S. degree in M.E. from University of Virginia (1967).U.S. Govt. ST.

SOURCE
Dennis Bushnell sits in front of a wall filled with his awards and recognitions in Building 1212.

A voracious reader, Bushnell casually tosses around those kinds of facts. The shelves in his office are jam packed with titles like “The Singularity Is Near,” “Warped Passages,” “The Elegant Universe” and “The World in 2050.”
One of his hobbies is to go to thrift stores and buy big bags of cheap books. Fiction, non-fiction: he reads whatever he can get his hands on.
“It’s just more input,” he said. “I’m an info junkie.”

NASA

Besides these “very military” preoccupations, Bushnell is also obsessed with climate change, which seems to be the focus of about half his scientific efforts.
“From Moon landing to Climate change.”.. Quite some title for a bio!

The only notable mention of this paper that I’ve found so far in media is this one from 2020 Counterpunch:

The War on You: How the Pentagon is Militarizing Social Control

SEPTEMBER 11, 2020

BY T.J. COLES


Neoliberalism benefits the few and makes life for the many increasingly impossible. Big data and blanket surveillance give state and corporate intelligence confidence that they can pre-empt and manage mass, social reactions to neoliberalism. This article is an excerpt from my new book, The War on You.

TARGET: “EVERYONE”

In 1997, the U.S. Space Command published its Vision for 2020. The Vision says that military force is necessary to “protect” U.S. trade and investment. Colonial forces repelled Native American attacks, Navies enforced sea-based commerce, the Air Force had the advantage of the “high ground.” In modern times, space is an additional domain of warfare. The technologies that we take for granted—cargo tankers, computers, e-commerce, drones, GPS, the internet, jet aircraft, touchscreens, and the satellites that make these things possible—were developed in the military sector with public treasure before their transfer to private, for-profit corporations. This, says the Space Command, will lead to “Full Spectrum Dominance.”

A few years later, Dennis M. Bushnell, the chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, gave a presentation based on the work of a host of powerful U.S. (and other) institutions, including: the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joint Forces Command, the National Research Council, and many others.

Entitled Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025], the PowerPoint presentation anticipates: a) scenarios created by U.S. forces and agencies and b) scenarios to which they might have to respond. The projection is contingent on the use of hi-technology. According to the report there are/will be six Technological Ages of Humankind: “Hunter/killer groups (sic) [million BC-10K BC]; Agriculture [10K BC-1800 AD]; Industrial [1800-1950]; IT [1950-2020]; Bio/Nano [2020-?]; Virtual.”

In the past, “Hunter/gatherer” groups fought over “hunting grounds” against other “tribal bands” and used “handheld/thrown” weapons. In the agricultural era, “professional armies” also used “handheld/thrown” weapons to fight over “farm lands.” In the industrial era, conscripted armies fought over “natural resources,” using “mechanical and chemical” weapons. In our time, “IT/Bio/Bots” (robots) are used to prevent “societal disruption.” The new enemy is “everyone.” “Everyone.”

Similarly, a British Ministry of Defence projection to the year 2050 states: “Warfare could become ever more personalised with individuals and their families being targeted in novel ways.”

Read the rest of the article on Counterpunch.

“KNOWLEDGE DOMINANCE”

The war on you is the militarization of everyday life with the express goal of controlling society, including your thoughts and actions.

A U.S. Army document on information operations from 2003 specifically cites activists as potential threats to elite interests. “Nonstate actors, ranging from drug cartels to social activists, are taking advantage of the possibilities the information environment offers,” particularly with the commercialization of the internet. “Info dominance” as the Space Command calls it can counter these threats: “these actors use the international news media to attempt to influence global public opinion and shape decision-maker perceptions.” Founded in 1977, the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command featured an Information Dominance Center, itself founded in 1999 by the private, veteran-owned company, IIT.

“Information Operations in support of civil-military interactions is becoming increasingly more important as non-kinetic courses-of-action are required,” wrote two researchers for the military in 1999. They also said that information operations, as defined by the Joint Chiefs of Staff JP 3-13 (1998) publication, “are aimed at influencing the information and information systems of an adversary.” They also confirm that “[s]uch operations require the continuous and close integration of offensive and defensive activities … and may involve public and civil affairs-related actions.” They conclude: “This capability begins the transition from Information Dominance to Knowledge Dominance.”

ALSO THIS: :

“Copy/paste NPC from fact-check website can’t find anything” is a debunk these days. On Planet Tardia.
This thing is in dude’s official bibliography. With the NASA logo on it and the timestamps in the document. What else?

And these are my earlier Borg references:

THE INTERNET OF BODIES AKA THE BORG IS HERE, KLAUS SCHWAB SAYS (BIOHACKING P.5)

Now let’s compare our notes with what more aware people warned us long ago.

TruthStream Media never disappoints, here they are, as far back as 2013, and it’s pretty guaranteed to blow your mind:


Dated same year, when this kinda broke out in the public attention for the first time, there’s interview with Deborah Tavares made by actor Trevor Coppola for Anthony J. Hilder. It was posted on Hilder’s YouTube channel on July 23, 2013. The video was filmed at Conspiracy Con 2013, which was held over the weekend of June 1-2 that year in Milpitas, California.

Next, in 2017, former Navy Seal and scientist turned occultist and friend of Timothy Leary, Dr Richard Alan Miller uses the NASA documents as starting point for an even wider and more mind-blowing discussion. It seems all over the place ag times, but it all comes together nicely and there’s a few very interesting connections, prophecies and revelations for everyone, worth going through all of it even when we don’t buy all of it.
Anyway, you know our motto: Trust no one, research everything.

Perfect for longer car trips:

“Remember: If you want to now what’s gonna happen next, watch Hollywood!”

Dr Richard Alan Miller u

Hollywood and CIA News Network, I’d add…

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

A FEW HOURS LATER…

Second batch of Pfizer files they didn’t want you to see: natural immunity stronger and more

SOURCES

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/will-measles-parties-retu_b_14479732

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/jul/26/healthandwellbeing.health

Published April 1st, 2019

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER