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

Imagine being a legit theory for years, then being downgraded to “conspiracy theory”, only to bounce back even stronger less than a year later

DESIGNER BUGS: HOW THE NEXT PANDEMIC MIGHT COME FROM A LAB

“Why we need to take the threat of bioengineered superbugs seriously.”

By R. Daniel Bressler and Chris Bakerlee  Dec 6, 2018, Vox

This story is part of a group of stories called

Finding the best ways to do good.

This week, diplomats from around the world are meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, as part of an annual gathering of state parties for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The BWC has an important mandate: It prohibits the 182 countries that have signed on and ratified the convention from developing, producing, and stockpiling biological weapons.

The BWC, and the biosecurity community broadly, has historically been more focused on existing pathogens with clear potential to be used as biological weapons, such as anthrax and the agents causing botulism and Q fever. In addition, health security experts are worried about the “next big one” — the next global pandemic. Pandemic diseases are often zoonotic, meaning they jump from animals to humans. Zoonotic diseases like EbolaZika, SARS, and HIV are created when, say, the wrong pig meets up with the wrong bat — and then meets the wrong human.

The emergence of such diseases depends a great deal on spontaneous genetic mutations and circumstantial factors. So here’s a scary thought: Possible future pandemics may not depend on the chance meeting of different animal species and chance mutations, but may be deliberately designed instead. New tools from the field of synthetic biology could endow scientists with the frightening ability to design and manufacture maximally dangerous pathogens, leapfrogging natural selection.

The threat is very much on the minds of security officials. This past May, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (CHS) led an exercise involving former US senators and executive branch officials on how the country would respond to an international outbreak of an engineered pathogen. In this fictional scenario, a terrorist group constructed a virus that was both deadly and highly contagious. More than a year into the made-up pandemic, the worldwide death toll was soaring past 150 million, the Dow Jones had fallen by 90 percent, and there was a mass exodus from cities amid famine and unrest.

In biotech, the story of the past several decades has been one of exponential progress. Just 75 years ago, we were not even confident that DNA was the primary material governing genetic heredity. Today, we are able to readwrite, and edit genomes with increasing ease.

But biotechnologies are dual-use — they can be used for both good and ill. We fear that with even just current capabilities, an engineered pandemic could join the growing list of seismic changes made possible by biotechnological advances. Sufficiently capable actors could work to resurrect the deadliest pathogens of the past, like smallpox or Spanish flu, or modify existing pathogens such as bird flu to be more contagious and lethal. As genome engineering technologies become more powerful and ubiquitous, the tools necessary for making these modifications will become increasingly accessible.

This leads to the terrifying specter of independent actors intentionally (or unintentionally) engineering pathogens with the potential to inflict worse harm than history’s deadliest pandemics. No obvious physical or biological constraints preclude the construction of such potent biological weapons. According to biosecurity expert Piers Millett, “If you’re deliberately trying to create a pathogen that is deadly, spreads easily, and that we don’t have appropriate public health measures to mitigate, then that thing you create is amongst the most dangerous things on the planet.”

Mitigating this risk is shaping up to be one of the major challenges of the 21st century — not only because the stakes are high, but also because of the myriad obstacles standing between us and a solution.

The technologies that help us might also hurt us

Natural pandemics can be horrific and catch us completely off guard. For example, three years elapsed between the first officially documented US AIDS cases in 1981 and the identification of HIV as its cause. It took another three years to develop and approve the first drug treating HIV. While antiretroviral treatments now allow those living with HIV to manage the disease effectively (that is, if they can afford the treatment), we still lack a promising HIV vaccine.

Yet as ill-equipped as we may be to fight newly emergent natural pathogens, we are even less prepared to cope with engineered pathogens. In the coming decades, it may become possible to create pathogens that fall well outside the range of infectious agents modern medicine has learned to detect, treat, and contain.

Worse yet, malicious actors might build disease-causing microbes with features strategically tailored to thwart existing health security measures. So while advances in the field of synthetic biology will make it easier for us to invent therapeutics and other technologies that can defend us from pandemics, those very same advances may allow state and nonstate actors to design increasingly harmful pathogens.

For example, new gene-synthesis technologies loom large on the horizon, allowing for the automated production of longer DNA sequences from scratch. This will be a boon for basic and applied biomedical research — but it also will simplify the assembly of designer pathogens.

U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Grounds, Laboratory For Testing Biological And Chemical Weapons
A technician at the Smartman Laboratory facility at the US Army’s Dugway Proving Ground on August 15, 2017, in Dugway, Utah. Workers at this facility handle some of the deadliest biological and chemical agents on earth.

Compared to other weapons of mass destruction, engineered pathogens are less resource-intensive. Although malicious actors would currently need university-grade laboratories and resources to create them, a bigger obstacle tends to be access to information. The limits of our knowledge of biology constrain the potential of any bioengineering effort. Some information, like how to work proficiently with a specific machine or cell type, can be acquired only through months or years of supervised training. Other information, like annotated pathogen genome sequences, may be easy to access through public databases, such as those maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

If information such as pathogen genome sequences or synthetic biology protocols is available online, this could make it much easier for malicious actors to build their own pathogens. But even if they’re not online, hackers can also steal sensitive information from the databases of biotechnology companies, universities, and government laboratories.

Preventing damage from engineered pathogens is complicated by the fact that it takes only one lapse, one resourceful terrorist group, or one rogue nation-state to wreak large-scale havoc. Even if the majority of scientists and countries follow proper protocols, a single unilateral actor could imperil human civilization.

And some wounds can be self-inflicted. Between 2004 and 2010, there were more than 700 incidents of loss or release of “select agents and toxins” (i.e., scary stuff) from US labs. In 11 instances, lab workers acquired bacterial or fungal infections. In one instance, a shipment of a harmful fungus was lost — and, according to the FBI, destroyed — in transit. In a world in which well-meaning but sometimes careless biologists are creating dangerous organisms in the lab, such accidental release events could prove even more frightening.

A global problem

Like naturally occurring pandemics, engineered pandemics will not respect national borders. A contagious pathogen released in one country will emigrate. Actions that protect against engineered pathogens are an example of a global public good: Since a deadly engineered pathogen would adversely affect countries around the world, doing something to prevent them is a service that benefits the whole world.

A fundamental challenge of global public goods is that they tend to be underprovided. With global public goods, individual countries prefer to free ride over unilaterally providing global public goods if they can get away with it.

This doesn’t mean that countries won’t do anything to provide global public goods; they just won’t do as much as they should. For example, a country such as the United States will consider the potential damage an engineered pathogen could wreak on its 325 million people, and it will take actions to prevent this from happening. However, the actions it takes won’t be as extensive as they would be if it were to consider the toll an engineered pathogen could take on the planet’s 7.6 billion people.

To address this dilemma, world leaders created the Biological Weapons Convention in the 1970s. The BWC has the important goal of constraining bioweapons development; in practice, it has been ineffective at verifying and enforcing compliance.

Unlike the BWC, the major nuclear and chemical weapons treaties have extensive formal verification mechanisms. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), effective since 1970, verifies the compliance of signatories through the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a staff of about 2,560. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), effective since 1997, verifies compliance through the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013. It has a staff of 500. By contrast, the Implementation Support Unit for the BWC, the convention’s sole administrative body, currently has just four employees.

And bioweapons have specific characteristics that make verification and enforcement difficult compared to chemical and nuclear weapons.

Consider nuclear technology. Nuclear power plants require low levels of uranium enrichment (typically around 5 percent), whereas nuclear weapons require highly enriched uranium (typically above 90 percent). Highly enriched uranium requires large industrial facilities with precise centrifuges. When granted access, it is comparatively easy for inspectors to determine when a facility is being used for the production of highly enriched uranium.

Partly for these reasons, no country has ever developed nuclear weapons while being a party to the NPT. Of the nine nuclear weapons nations, the US, USSR (whose weapons are now exclusively owned by Russia), UK, France, China, and likely Israel had nuclear weapons before the treaty was enforced. India (first test in 1974) and Pakistan (first test in 1998) never signed the NPT. North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003, three years before its first nuclear test in 2006.

In contrast, bioengineered organisms require fewer resources and smaller facilities to make, and it is harder to readily distinguish between organisms that are being developed for scientific purposes from those that are being developed with malicious intent.

Historically, the BWC does not have a good track record of preventing the possession of bioweapons. The Soviet Union maintained a large bioweapons program after it signed on to the BWC in 1975. The South African apartheid regime held bioweapons in the 1980s and ’90s while being a party to the BWC.

Fearing that invasive verification by the BWC could compromise sensitive intellectual property and hurt the competitiveness of its cutting-edge biotechnology sector, the US chose to withdraw from negotiations at the BWC’s Fifth Review Conference in 2001. The US later rejoined those negotiations, but serious measures to improve the BWC’s verification and enforcement mechanisms have not been implemented, and the agreement remains largely ineffective.

Despite this concern about the invasiveness of verification, there is a growing consensus that the BWC must become more effective. The 2015 Bipartisan Report of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense, chaired by Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate, and Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security under George W. Bush, called for the vice president and the secretary of state to chair a series of meetings with relevant Cabinet members and experts to come to an agreement on verification protocols that would satisfy US concerns while adequately enforcing compliance with the treaty. The study led to the introduction of the National Biodefense Strategy Act of 2016, which is still awaiting a vote.

In September 2018, the Trump administration released a National Biodefense Strategy, though this document contained little specific information on how the US would strengthen the BWC and didn’t mention Cabinet-level meetings chaired by the vice president, as was recommended by the blue ribbon panel.

US Marines And New York Fire Fighters Take Part In Chemical Incident Drill In Penn Station
Emergency personnel walk down the aisle of an Amtrak train during a biological preparedness drill being led by members of the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF), a unit in the United States Marine Corps, at Penn Station during the early morning hours on September 22, 2012, in New York City. 

Some have questioned the seriousness of the threat posed by bioweapons. For example, in his recent book, Harvard University professor Steven Pinker suggests that “Bioterrorism may be [a] phantom menace.” He claims that terrorists wouldn’t weaponize pandemic pathogens, since their goal is typically “not damage but theater.” Others have suggested that even if terrorists wanted to engineer a pathogen as a weapon, they’d lack the requisite biological knowledge and practical know-how to get the job done.

While it is true (and quite fortunate) that these factors reduce at least the present risk of a biological attack, it is cold comfort. In the coming decades, it will only become easier for nonstate actors to acquire and deploy powerful biotechnologies for ill. And beyond terrorists, state actors also pose serious risks.

For example, Japan launched devastating bioattacks against China during World War II. Japanese Unit 731 dropped bombs filled with swarms of plague-infested fleas on Chinese cities, likely killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. The unit’s commander, Shiro Ishii, found plague to be a potent weapon because it could present itself as a natural epidemic and kill large numbers of people through person-to-person transmission.

In addition, the US had a bioweapons program from 1943 to 1969 that, among other things, made propaganda videos bragging about testing biological weapons on human subjects. The Soviet Union’s covert bioweapons program that it maintained after signing on to the BWC had more employees at its peak in the 1980s than Facebook currently has.

We don’t know what we don’t know — but here’s what we can do

Many questions remain unanswered when it comes to the potentially catastrophic risks posed by engineered pathogens. For example, what is the full spectrum of microbes that cause human disease? And which types of microbes would most likely be used as bioweapons? Research centers such as the Center for Health Security at Hopkins, the Future of Humanity Institute, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative are working hard to answer such questions.

But just because we don’t have answers to all the questions — and don’t even know all the questions to begin with — doesn’t mean there aren’t things we can do to mitigate our risks.

Thinking and acting globally

For starters, we should develop a process to address advancements in biotechnology in the BWC. Currently, the BWC lacks a dedicated forum where the treaty implications of new developments in biotechnology can be discussed. Other international agreements like the CWC have dedicated scientific advisory boards to track and respond to new science and technological changes. The BWC has no such board.

There’s some movement on this issue — the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted an event in Geneva earlier this week to discuss how the BWC can evolve to address rapid advances in biotechnology. Still, it is crucial to establish a permanent institutional capacity within the BWC to address biotechnological change.

This all connects to another priority: give the BWC’s Implementation Support Unit more resources. The four-person implementation support unit, the convention’s sole administrative body, has immense responsibilities that far exceed its current resources. These responsibilities include supporting and assisting nations as they implement the treaty, administering a database of assistance requests, facilitating communication between the parties, and much more.

But the resources remain minuscule, especially compared to other international treaties. The annual cost allocated to BWC meetings and its implementation support unit is less than 4.5 percent of the cost allocated to the CWC. This inadequate budget sends a grim signal about how seriously the world is currently taking the growing risks from bioweapons.

Another global priority should be finding ways to regulate dual-use gene synthesis technologies. To facilitate their research, biologists regularly order short, custom pieces of DNA from companies that specialize in their manufacture. In 2009, the International Gene Synthesis Consortium proposed guidelines for how gene synthesis companies should screen customers’ orders for potentially dangerous chunks of DNA, such as those found in harmful viruses or toxin genes. Most companies voluntarily follow these guidelines, and they represent 80 percent of the global market.

However, even companies currently applying recommended screening procedures only test whether ordered sequences match those of known pathogens. An engineered pathogen with a novel genome could potentially slip past this filter.

Presently, the gene synthesis market is expanding internationally and synthesis costs are falling. It is urgent that governments both independently and multilaterally act to mandate proper screening of sequences and customers. As Kevin Esvelt of MIT writes, “adequately screening all synthesized DNA could eliminate the most serious foreseeable hazards of biotech misuse by nonstate actors.”

Dealing with biorisk on the ground and in the lab

Beyond developing new global standards and practices, we need to adopt more flexible countermeasures to face off the threat of bioengineered pathogens. As noted in a recent CHS report, “One of the biggest challenges in outbreak response, particularly for emerging infectious diseases, is the availability of reliable diagnostic assays that can quickly and accurately determine infection status.”

Diagnostics based on cutting-edge genome sequencing methods could provide detailed information about all the viruses and bacteria present in a blood sample, including even completely novel pathogens. Meanwhile, as genome sequencing technology becomes less expensive, it could be more widely applied in clinics to provide unprecedented real-time insights into genetic diseases and cancer progression.

We also need to invest more in developing antivirals that hit a wider range of targets. Such broad-spectrum drugs may stand a better chance of slowing the proliferation of an engineered bug than treatments specific to single known pathogens.

And we should also develop “platform” technologies that allow rapid vaccine development. Currently, the process of designing, testing, and manufacturing a vaccine to prevent the spread of a new pathogen takes years. Ideally, we could immunize all at-risk individuals within months of identifying the pathogen. Accelerating vaccine development will require us to innovate new and likely unconventional technologies, such as vectored immunoprophylaxis or nucleic acid vaccines.

Even as we pursue and accelerate such research, we should also be mindful of the possibility of self-inflicted wounds. To avert a terrible accident, the international biomedical community should establish firmer cultural guardrails on the research into pathogens.

Currently, career advancement, financial gain, and raw curiosity motivate biologists at all levels to push the envelope, and we all stand to gain from their efforts. However, these same incentives can sometimes lead researchers to take substantial and perhaps unjustified risks, such as evolving dangerous strains of influenza to be more contagious or publishing instructions for cultivating a close cousin of the smallpox virus. It’s important for biologists to do their part to promote a culture in which this adventurous intellectual spirit is tempered by caution and humility.

Encouragingly, synthetic biology luminaries like Esvelt and George Church of Harvard University are doing just that, pioneering technological safeguards to mitigate accidental release risks and advocating policies and norms that would make 21st-century biology a less perilous pursuit. As the tools of synthetic biology spread to other disciplines, their example is one that others should follow.

Underlying the prescriptions above is the need to approach the problem with the sense of urgency it warrants. As our biotechnological capabilities grow, so too will the threat of engineered pathogens. An engineered pandemic won’t announce itself with a towering mushroom cloud, but the suffering of the individuals it touches will be no less real.

R. Daniel Bressler is a PhD candidate in the sustainable development program at Columbia University. His research is at the intersection of dual-use technologies, environmental change, and the capacity for collective action in the international system to deal with these issues. Find him on Twitter @DannyBressler1.

Chris Bakerlee is a PhD candidate in molecules, cells, and orgamisms at Harvard University, where he uses genetic engineering to study how evolution works. Find him on Twitter @cwbakerlee.

BONUS

SOURCE

Below are screenshots of the edits made by Vox.

Below are screenshots from Vox’s 2020 articles.

Vox was founded in April 2014 by Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Melissa Bell. Prior to founding Vox, Ezra Klein was a former Washington Post columnist where he worked as the head of Wonkblog, a public policy blog. Vox is run by Vox Media, a digital publishing network founded by Jerome Armstrong, Tyler Bleszinski, and Markos Moulitsas.

According to its website, Vox Media’s portfolio includes 13 other brands: Vox, New York Magazine, The Verge, The Cut, Eater, Vulture, The Strategist, Polygon, SB Nation, Intelligencer, Curbed, Grub Street, and Recode.” – Tech StartUps

“Think outside the Vox”

Silview.media

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 might be the biggest news since Covid and, four days later, no one is talking about it. So big it’s worth sounding war drums to cover it.
Some scientists say it’s a 1/3trillion coincidence, others say it’s nothing amazing. I propose a my own solution to this debate.

The facts:

In a new study, published only four days ago in Frontiers in Virology, researchers compared the SARS-COV-2 makeup to millions of sequenced proteins in a database, finding a coincidence that they deem as a 1/3trillion mathematical probability.
The other element of the coincidence is the notorious Moderna 2016 invention patent for a technology included in a precursor to the Covid mRNA vaccine, the cancer mRNA jab they were working on at the time.

The virus is made up of 30,000 letters of genetic code that carry the information it needs to spread, known as nucleotides.

We’ve discussed this here (long course):

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS: WE’VE NEVER SEEN A VIRUS ISOLATE, JUST A MEMO FROM CHINA ON A SERVER

And here (dumbed down course)

WHY THE CHINA LAB LEAK IS JUST ANOTHER BLATANT PSY-OP REINFORCING THE MAIN LIE FOR UTTER MORONS, EXPLAINED TO CHILD-MINDED ADULTS WITH MANY COLORFUL ILLUSTRATIONS

Analysis of the original Covid genome found the virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna, which has a total of 3,300 nucleotides.

The few scientists that have reacted to this discovery so far haven’t denied it.
But some denied its importance and relevance, stating simplistically that 19 nucleotides out of 3300 is not much and can be a natural coincidence, possibly driven by common evolutionary needs. Except the patent is not the fruit of natural evolution, it wouldn’t be patentable if it were natural.

Daily Mail reports:

“Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid’s furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome. 
Writing in the paper, led by Dr Balamurali Ambati, from the University of Oregon, the researchers said the matching code may have originally been introduced to the Covid genome through infected human cells expressing the MSH3 gene.  
Professor Lawrence Young, a virologist at Warwick University, admitted the latest finding was interesting but claimed it was not significant enough to suggest lab manipulation. He told MailOnline:
‘We’re talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides. ‘So it doesn’t mean very much to be frank, if you do these types of searches you can always find matches. ‘Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it’s the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment). ‘It’s a quirky observation but I wouldn’t call it a smoking gun because it’s too small. He added: ‘It doesn’t get us any further with the debate about whether Covid was engineered.’  
Dr Simon Clarke, a microbiologist at Reading University, questioned whether the find was as rare as the study claims. He told MailOnline:
‘There can only be a certain number of [genetic combinations within] furin cleavage sites. ‘They function like a lock and key in the cell, and the two only fit together in a limited number of combinations. ‘So it’s an interesting coincidence but this is surely entirely coincidental.’ 

Say what?!?!

“MailOnline has approached Moderna for comment.”

UDATE: Daily Mail couldn’t get a comment from Moderna, but Fox could. And it’s spectacular in its own very special way:

Moderna CEO scrambles to explain their 2016 invention patent containing SARS-Cov-2 elements

And I have reasons to think those guys suck balls and very likely this is the biggest news since Covid, hear me out:

This news is a perfect case study for a point I’ve been making for a long while: things in Universe exist in either of these three states:

  1. Natural occurrence beyond human influence aka COINCIDENCES

2. The aimed result of human deliberation and activity aka CONSPIRACIES.

3. A combination of 1. and 2. aka CONSPIRACIES GONE HAYWIRE, which I think describes 99% of human life experience.

And, based on history, lived or learned, pure coincidences are way more rare than pure conspiracies, or mixtures, so favoring coincidences over conspiracies is simply dumb and ignorant.

Thus,
Coincidence theorists are the ones who deserve the most scrutiny, mockery and ridicule.
In the human society, as opposed to nature, coincidence theories should be more seriously scrutinized than conspiracy theories.

It is crucial to find alternative ways to solve such a debate with means that are accessible to anyone that’s just a functional literate.

THE DISCUSSION

Is that nucleotide sequence a stunningly unlikely coincidence or just nothing special?

“One in three trillion” or “once in a while”?

How do we arbiter this high-expertise debate without having that expertise and without relying on pre-chewed opinions from dubious or biased experts?

I have a bachelor degree in journalism and public communication, and I’ve always been deeply interested in science even since before school. I have studied health (not just medicines) and physiology for my own understanding, use and benefit for over 20 years now. As a result, I haven’t used any medication in close to 15 years now. That’s where expertise ends for me. People with other occupations and passions need to be able to make their own minds on this because ‘expert’ nowadays is the politically correct term for whores.

I can’t calculate complicated probabilities, nor do I have the education and the practical experience of a virologist, as the majority of any media readership. But they don’t have my education either, and I bet you it’s just as useful.

So does this mean we can’t find a way to skin this cat and we have to take these conmen’s word?

Don’t be silly. This is SILVIEW.media

When it comes to chance and ‘probabilistics’, the most common reference is the lottery. Not so popular among the young ones, but I hope they have a grasp of it too. At least through some online games.

There are many models, I don’t play, I’ll just pick one that I remember from home.
It’s called “6 out of 49”. As the name suggest, from the numbers 1-49 they randomly pick 6 and you have to guess all of them. But they give you a decent prize even if you have five matches, because that’s extraordinary enough.


VERY IMPORTANTLY:
1. The order doesn’t matter.
2. The numbers don’t mean anything, they don’t have any function, nor do they make up a system.

There’s been years without any claim for the grand prize there. That’s how rare this coincidences are.

Now, in our dilemma we have a huge stream of only four characters, as the genome is made up of only four nucleobases: guanine, adenine, cytosine and thymine; in RNA, uracil is used in place of thymine.
They are symbolised with the letters A, C, G, T. Not by coincidence, they also form the name Gattaca.

So, in our genetic coincidence theory we have a stream of 3300 of these four elements and another one of 3000, and a fragment of 19 elements coincides between the two streams. Is that so amazing?

Maybe a superficial face value estimate, by the lottery model, “19 out of 3000” sounds insignificant, but that’s the wrong equation here.

Remember:
1. The order
2. The function

It’s not in the numbers, but in the succession and the function

As opposed to lottery, what surprises here is not that we have matching elements, but a massive matching sequence of elements.
That’s a whole new level of complexity.
We’re dealing with a mathematical combination of four elements taken 19 times. Now that mathematical function will yield a gigantic number of possibilities.

And then something takes things to a whole new level: the sequence is not just some random fragment from the character streams, it’s a full subsystem with its own functionality.

Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of Covid’s furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome. 

And it’s not just any function, they are debating if this is what makes it more contagious, as in ‘the capabilities they add to viruses through gain-of-function research’!

According to Medical News Today:

  • Scientists do not yet fully understand how individual mutations in SARS-CoV-2 variants influence contagiousness or disease severity.
  • To enter a human cell, the SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein must be activated. This happens following cleavage by an enzyme called furin.
  • Scientists have theorized that mutations at the furin cleavage site might play an important role in a variant’s ability to infect or replicate in human cells.
  • Contrary to expectations, the authors of a new study found that this mutation did not influence the ability of the virus to enter or spread between cells.
  • Some variants of concern, such as Delta and Omicron, also have mutations at the same furin cleavage site, and this study may help understand the changes in their contagiousness and ability to produce disease.

More so, here’s a study titled ‘Furin Cleavage Site Is Key to SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenesis’.

And guess what: The origin of SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site remains a mystery.

If it were a random coincidence, it wouldn’t have a meaning / function of its own, it would be… random.

How do you get from:

“Dr Simon Clarke, a microbiologist at Reading University, questioned whether the find was as rare as the study claims. He told MailOnline: ‘There can only be a certain number of [genetic combinations within] furin cleavage sites.
‘They function like a lock and key in the cell, and the two only fit together in a limited number of combinations. “

to:

“So it’s an interesting coincidence but this is surely entirely coincidental.” 

Daily Mail

Absolute non-sequitur. They literally demonstrated the opposite of their conclusion.
They simply count on you not critically analyzing things, just skimming headlines.

Because coincidence theorists are fucking dumb.

I mean, is it even theoretically possible if we factor in all the discussion above? What would be the likeliness? Sounds somewhere in the range of one in trillions to me. I’d personally round it up to an infinite.

While we can’t extract precise numbers with this method of reasoning, we can establish that this is the biggest lottery ticket ever won.

Disclaimer: this article does not imply that SARS-COV-2 exists in any other form and shape than a stream o characters on some computer hard drives. That’s all we’ve seen and analyzed here.

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



Remember when we were getting banned by their Big Tech lemmings for claiming have this capability? That was fun! 

It’s official: Gattaca is Earth, and Earth is no more. Ground-breaking news:

Published January 10, 2021, by Bloomberg TV.

More info:

Pfizer Deepens Commitment to Genetic-Drug Future

10 Jan 2022 (Bloomberg)

“Pfizer Inc. deepened its commitment to the genetic approach to disease underpinning its Covid-19 vaccine on Monday, striking deals that will give access to three smaller companies’ technology in the area.” 

Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/pfizer-deepens-commitment-to-genetic-drug-future-with-deals

Remember this?

I rest my case.

Also worth checking these older reports:

WE WRITE NEW DNA USING RNA ONLY – STAR SCIENTIST FINANCED BY EPSTEIN, DARPA AND SCHWAB’S WYSS INST.

RNA USED TO ALTER DNA, BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOR (BIOHACKING P.2)

PFIZER / BIONTECH AND BILL GATES / CHINA ARE LIKE TWO COUPLES OF SWINGERS IN A PERPETUAL ORGY


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

Stupidity leads to inflated ego, which leads to bragging and ruining months and months of brainwashing efforts from The Great Reset Politburo.

UPDATE: THIS VIDEO LED TO THE DELETION OF OUR THIRD YOUTUBE CHANNEL, EVEN THOUGH IT’S SOURCED FROM YOUTUBE AND THEIR TOP AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES!

ORIGINAL 2H VIDEO:

We all knew this, but it’s good to have it on video from this inbred horse’s mouth. The funny part is that the Covidiocracy is already in panic mode, writing the most inane ‘debunks’, which can be, for the largest part, summed up as “you didn’t hear what you’ve just heard, you heard what we tell you you heard”. They’re literally trying to do Jedi mind tricks on us and I bet there’s weakminded Pharma-junkies out there that will fall for their potato-grade hypnosis.

I can’t stress enough that 95% figure and how easy it was to crash it.

Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division and membr of the Bayer/Monsanto board, made these statements at the 2021 World Health Summit in Berlin. on October 24th.

Informed consent had the fate of an Epstein sex slave buried on his island. No one is even looking for it.
Without it, the whole Covidiocracy is just genocide and war crimes, covidiots’ masks are soaked in blood, and their survival now depends entirely on the mass ignorance.
While ours depends on mass-enlightenment.

Silview ‘SILVIEW’ Costinescu

There’s not much to add, if you want to learn more about Bayer’s dark past, suffice to say they made Zyklon-B, the gas allegedly used in the nazi camps, and more recently have acquired Monsanto. After that, they’ve become more discrete, but they still have their hands in everything that feeds you and everything that treats the diseases you got from their food and their pesticides.
And, of course, they’re top tier members of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, at the forefront of transhumanism and The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
But here’s more info:

COVID, HITLER, BLM, THE GREAT RESET – MANY BRANDS, ONE CARTEL. AUSCHWITZ PERFECTED AND GLOBALIZED

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

… and I’ll give you some more perspective on it after you watch it.

NEW YORK, NY (PRWEB) APRIL 30, 2012

<<The 2045 initiative has received the blessing and support from the Dalai Lama, as it prepares to announce the second Global Future 2045 Congress, being held in New York, June, 2013.

Dmitry Itskov, founder of 2045, met His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, in his residence in Dharamsala, a small mountain town in northern India.

They discussed the three major steps of 2045 Avatar Project. First, the creation of a human-like robot dubbed “Avatar A,” and a state-of-the-art brain-computer interface system to link the mind with it. Next, it be created a life support system for the human brain, which connects to the “Avatar A,” turning into “Avatar B.” The third step, named “Avatar C”, is developing an artificial brain in which to transfer one’s individual consciousness with the goal of achieving cybernetic immortality.

Creating the “Avatar C” through developing an artificial brain and understanding the nature of human consciousness, says the Dalai Lama, could be attainable, and would be a great benefit to future development of science.

“In the last few years, scientists now begin to show an interest about consciousness, as well as brain specialists, neuroscientists, who also begin to show interest about consciousness or mind. I feel that over the next decades modern science will become more complete,” said the Dalai Lama. “So up to now the matter side of science has been highly technical, highly advanced, but the mind side has not been adequate. This project, definitely, is helpful to get more knowledge.”

Several months ago, DARPA – the Pentagon’s research arm – announced their own plans on creating a militarized avatar project, serving as a soldiers surrogate on the battlefield.

“My project has very different, humanitarian goals – it involves technologies that could mark a transition for humanity, with endless benefits in the future. But already in the next few years, we will be able to enhance the life of those who are disabled, radically improving their living standards. This is just the beginning. It’s my goal to ensure it is affordable and accessible for all people – not just for the elite and the military,” said Itskov.

The Dalai Lama also agreed that it is crucial to discuss the ethics behind these types of progressive technologies. “We should carry out these experiments with a full sense of responsibility and respect for life that will only benefit humanity, benefit others.”

Itskov has been reaching out to spiritual leaders to start a dialogue about how they could reach harmonious integration with scientists. “It’s important to establish a bridge between scientists and spiritual leaders for a successful transition to a new phase for humanity,” he said.

The 2045 initiative held its first Global Future 2045 Congress in Moscow, in February 2012. There, over 50 world-leading physicists, biologists, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers met seeking to develop a strategy for further development of the humankind. The initiative’s goal is to create a network with the world’s leading scientists who are focused on the development of cybernetic technology with the ultimate goal of transferring human’s individual consciousness to an artificial carrier. The network will act as an investment hub, contributing to various projects around the world.>>

This Dalai Lama acting like the Asian Pope, has officially been sponsored by Soros’ foundations some years ago. Maybe he still is, I can’t be bothered… Asset for hire, anyway.

Some of you may actually remember this story, the Russian billionaire who launched the 2045 Initiative got a lot of airtime in Western media about 10 years ago and then, again, in another media campaign, about five years later. And you probably thought what I thought: another Bill-Gates-wanna-be trying to buy some social or political relevance with a media stunt. But I’ve changed my perspective since. Twice.

I’ve first changed my perspective on this when I started to learn it’s not as far-fetched as it initially looked, from a scientific standpoint.

Forbes called this an ‘uber-sci-fi plot’ just to admit, a few paragraphs later, that DARPA is already on its way:

Take DARPA, the U.S. military’s blue-sky research agency, as an example. They’ve got their own “Avatar” program, with the ambitious goal of creating robots to operate as mind-controlled surrogates for human soldiers. Emerging research suggests that such a venture might one day succeed, given that scientists are making impressive strides towards brain-mediated limbs and exoskeletons, as well as robots able to respond to human vocal cues and movements. Itskov’s ideas (at least, stages two through four), however, essentially eclipse even the most cutting-edge elements of that ongoing research.

Forbes

Secondly, I’ve changed my mind just recently, when YouTube recommended a video about this and I’ve looked back at it with a late 2021 mindset and awareness.

What I’ve noticed now is that 2045 looks like a younger, more unhinged and reckless version of Klaus Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution / Great Reset / Transhumanism.

Everyone in Western media framed it as “crazy rich Russian wants to make billionaires immortal’. That’s like commenting on the manicure of a finger that points at the moon,
Less than 5% of the ad deals with immortality / life extension.

THE REST OF THE 95% IS ABOUT BUILDING A NEW MANKIND, A NEW SPECIES AND A NEW SOCIETY. FOR ALL, AS A WAY TO AVERT A CATASTROPHE.
AS IF SCHWAB VISITED PUTIN AND MIXED TOO MUCH VODKA AND COKE.

All Schwab’s tropes are there, from nanobots to the Internet of Bodies and beyond, we even have “bodies made of nanobots”, all the Borg is there…

What I also know now is that we’re closer, technically, to the objectives, but far from keeping up with the 2045 agenda, and I suspect no one really hoped for more, it was just for the flashy graphics and the tv buzz. They knew better at all times. The ‘roadmap to immortality’ was never meant to be followed, that was a bait for normies, the switch must have been the rest of the message, an 7 minutes ad for Transhumanism followed by a huge media campaign.

You can’t sell Western Transhumanism in Russia, especially when delivered by a freaky German and his pedo-nerdish lemmings. You have to give it the local touch and add Russian pride to it. Well, everyone got served.

<<The Russian Cosmists were late nineteenth and early twentieth century thinkers, whose philosophy, according to anthropologist Anya Bernstein, proposed a “unique combination of scientific and occult ideas.” Cosmist writings were banned during the Soviet period, but those who protected their works were devoted to the idea of “transcendence of space, time, and the body, mastery of nature, settlement of the outer space, and even the resurrection of the dead.”

They were also, it’s worth noting, very, very into being Russian.

In the book The Russian Cosmists author George Young writes that many Cosmists believed their philosophy could satisfy the “Russian soul” and considered their ways of thinking to be patriotic. Cosmist theology — it has more than a tinge of the religious to it — centers around the idea of a bold, happy future controlled by Russia.

“If Cosmism is viewed by its prominent adherents as the most Russian and therefore most significant current of thought running from the nineteenth through the twenty-first century, outside Russia the movement and the figures associated with it are all but unknown,” writes Young. “The Western transhumanists, the cryonicists, the immortalists, and certain new age spiritual movements share some Cosmist idea and practices and present the closest foreign analog.”

OG Cosmist thinker Nikolai Federov.Wikimedia

A resurgence in the popularity of the Cosmist ideas and writings in Russia has led Bernstein to question whether the way of thinking is now “a nationalist movement, indeed, a new Russian idea.” She points to the recent firing of the editor of the journal Russian Planet for failing to use the platform to reflect Russia’s preeminence as a cultured nation. The firing offense? He didn’t reference the Cosmists enough.

Bernstein also raises the point of Vladimir Putin. While neither President Putin or the Russian government has ever offered official support of the Cosmist way of thinking, some truthers have taken to analyzing the Russian leader’s public statements. In a December speech the President announced, “We all want the same thing: well-being for Russia. So the relations between business and the state should be built on the philosophy of the common task, partnership, and equal dialogue. The Philosophy of the Common Task was the title of collected works of Cosmist icon Nikolai Fedorov so in the words of conspiracy theorists everywhere, you do the math. Actual endorsement notwithstanding, a philosophy that encourages cracking the code to live forever certainly seems on brand for Putin. Some cartoonists have joked that Putin supports Cosmist/transhumanist initiatives so that he can extend his life enough to keep running for President.

While Putin has stayed mum on his Cosmist leanings, other Russians blurring the line between Cosmist and transhumanism have been more upfront with their support of a cyborg future. Russia 2045 is the project of millionaire media mogul Dmitry Itskov, whose initiative to replace biological bodies with artificial avatars may seem insane but not not-insane enough to not be profiled in the business section of The New York Times.

In a hype video that would make Michael Bay proud, Russia 2045 declares that our civilization has become like an “uncaptained ship sailing on rough seas with neither chart nor compass.” What society with our imperfect biological bodies need is the technology that will extend our lives — and could very well mean that we live forever. While the organization’s website notes that a “100 percent guarantee of implementation within a specific time cannot be provided” it does encourage people to start thinking about what robotic avatars they will prefer — a robotic copy of a human body with a brain-computer interface, a robotic body that will carry your head once your first body runs out of steam, or a “completely non-biological” body and brain onto which your consciousness has been uploaded.

Russian-identifying martial-artist Steven Seagal is a supporter of the 2045 project, and personally wrote to Vladimir Putin requesting that he support what he describes as a “social movement.” Inverse has reached out to Seagal to see if his support for the project still stands.

“For me it is obvious that this initiative will strengthen Russia’s position in world science, [and] underline Russia’s role in the international community as the country claiming leadership in setting and solving global problems for the betterment of mankind,” writes Seagal in his letter.

Bernstein proposes that Cosmism has the possibility to strengthen Russian national identity in the same way the country got jazzed about Eurasianism in the early 2000s. But with its’ blending of occult-like philosophies and reliance on technology it’s still very taboo in more conservative circles, especially among the Russian Orthodox church who aren’t ready to concede that transhumanism is the “religion of the 21st century.”

Part of the underlying tenets of Cosmism is that Russia will have a active role in controlling the future; of managing the cosmos — basically the most Kremlin-ready philosophy ever.>> – Inverse Mag

You’re nowhere on this map yet, but on the other ones…

And while many people still regard Russia through 50year old Cold War lenses and think Putin is opposed to the new global regime, I know better.

Davos and the WEF are filled with Russians, their Cyberpoygon is organized by a Russian bank and cybersecurity company in Russia, and I’ve shown you earlier that Klaus Schwab refers to Putin as a former disciple and early member of his youth organization, the ‘Young Global Leaders’.

Also, when 2045 got launched, it only took a celebritard like Steven Seagal to get prime-minister Putin’s support.

In Dmitry Itskov’s own words:

“On 16 May, 2011 Hollywood actor and martial arts master, Steven Seagal, publicly endorsed our movement and personally proposed that Mr. Putin consider a partnership with the “Russia 2045” movement.  Later we sent the prime minister a letter requesting that he support the international scientific research center which we are now establishing that will specialize in extending human life and improving its quality using cybernetic technology.  As a result a panel discussion was held at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and protocol that supported several initiatives of the 2045 Movement.

We have merely proposed that the Russian authorities consider partnering with our movement because participation in such a project is strategically important for our country.  However, “Russia 2045” has never been a project personally initiated by Vladimir Putin, nor has it ever been an initiative of any other ministry of the Russian government.  The goal of our project is to create accessible cybernetic technology to radically extend the lives of all people.  It has never been connected to the secret machinations of influential politicians and wealthy businessmen.

We believe that the goal of bringing about the immorality of all mankind may require the help of not just government and its leader, but the help of the whole international community.  We are now seeking the partnership of Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations, as well as other nations and organizations and will openly announce any kind of partnership on our movement’s website.”

Wham-bam, spasiba m’am!

Bottom line, 10 years later:

No one seems stressed with that roadmap

No notable scientific progress emerged from all this.

What has emerged was a ton of buzz for Transhumanism and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with click-baits for both the East and West. Russians were surely made more aware of it, and they got sold a globalist agenda while their patriotism seemed to be catered, at a superficial glance.

Also, Russia appears as having technological ambitions and capabilities that rival or get ahead DARPA’s, it all sounds much like the space race during the Cold War.

Doesn’t seem likely that this is by accident or took anyone by surprise.

AND THIS IS, LADIES AND GENTS, LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE THE COGNITIVE WARFARE I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN MY PREVIOUS REPORT.

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


You thought Magnetogenetics are scary? Optogenetics are a similar thing, but using light instead of electromagnetism, non-invasive and non-detectable. Both stem from DARPA’s BRAIN Initiative.
And you may be able to avoid EMF radiation, but you can’t avoid light.

(BIOHACKING P.6)

This actually touches on a wide array of concerns, from LEDs to vaccines, The Great Reset and the smart grid.
I am very confident that if you pay attention to this video presentation from start to end, you will spend one hour, but you will save incommensurably more hours of guessing, wondering and researching. Not just the many hours I spent doing this, but the many more hours I learned where to look for and how to connect things.
You’re still supposed to not take my word and do your own research, but this will give you some of the best tips on the topic.

Oh, so much wow! just hours after putting this out I find out they will be spraying us with viruses. Shocker!

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

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

FOIA RELEASE: REMOTE MIND CONTROL LINKED TO DARPA’S BRAIN MAPPING. IN 2018

MAGNETOGENETICS, CO-FINANCED BY DARPA, GATES, ROCKEFELLERS, ZUCKERBERG! ISN’T THIS WHY VAXXERS TURN INTO FRIDGE DOORS AND MAGNETS STICK ON THEM?!

HOW CAN PATTERNED ILLUMINATION BE USED IN OPTOGENETICS EXPERIMENTS?

Brain Control With Light: It’s Possible With Optogenetics

Lighting the Brain

Karl Deisseroth and the optogenetics breakthrough.

By John Colapinto, The New Yorker, May 11, 2015

By rendering individual neurons photosensitive Deisseroths technique brings a once unthinkable level of precision and...
By rendering individual neurons photosensitive, Deisseroth’s technique brings a once unthinkable level of precision and control to experiments designed to determine how the brain processes information and drives behavior.

DARPA Awards $21.6M to Develop Optogenetic ‘Read-Write’ Neural Interface

July 24, 2017, Biosciences

Ehud Isacoff of the Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging (MBIB) Division is the project lead on a $21.6 million grant awarded to UC Berkeley as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA’s) Neural Engineering System Design program. The team led by Isacoff, director of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at UC Berkeley, aims to develop a novel brain-machine interface that uses light to monitor and modulate the activity of thousands to millions of individual neurons in the cerebral cortex.

To communicate with the brain, the team will first introduce a gene encoding a fluorescent protein into neurons, making the cells flash when they fire an action potential. This will be accompanied by a second gene encoding a light-activated protein that stimulates neurons in response to pulses of light. The reading device Isacoff’s group is developing is a miniaturized light field microscope, which captures light through an array of lenses and reconstructs images computationally in any depth of focus. For the writing component, they are developing a means to stimulate groups of neurons by projecting three-dimensional light patterns onto them.

The researchers’ goal during the initial four-year funding period is to create a prototype device using model organisms—such as zebrafish larvae and mice—in which neural activity and behavior can be simultaneously detected and controlled. But DARPA’s ultimate goal is to accelerate the development of biocompatible neural implants for use in humans to compensate for sensory deficits or to control prosthetic devices. Read more from the UC Berkeley News Center.

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

An MIT scientist helps with the concocts and Oprah with the promo

Remember the outrage at the recent news that China uses popular pregnancy tests to harvest DNA from around the world? Hardly.
You probably remember even less about this story. It has been first revealed by The Intercept in 2016, at the peaks of the Trump hysteria (first edition), so no one paid it any real attention, even though a good chunk of mainstream media picked up on it, I even found it on CBS News.
Now we’re in the middle of the Afghanistan ‘debacle’, but I hope some of us learned a few things in the meantime and will receive this as it deserves, because first fires shot landed in no-man’s land and you can bet a finger this business model has since been improved and diversified.

SOURCE

Below you have the original Intercept article that broke the story:

CIA’S VENTURE CAPITAL ARM IS FUNDING SKIN CARE PRODUCTS THAT COLLECT DNA

by Lee Fang
The Intercept, April 8 2016, 1:04 p.m.

SKINCENTIAL SCIENCES, a company with an innovative line of cosmetic products marketed as a way to erase blemishes and soften skin, has caught the attention of beauty bloggers on YouTube, Oprah’s lifestyle magazine, and celebrity skin care professionals. Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that the firm has also attracted interest and funding from In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The previously undisclosed relationship with the CIA might come as some surprise to a visitor to the website of Clearista, the main product line of Skincential Sciences, which boasts of a “formula so you can feel confident and beautiful in your skin’s most natural state.”

Though the public-facing side of the company touts a range of skin care products, Skincential Sciences developed a patented technology that removes a thin outer layer of the skin, revealing unique biomarkers that can be used for a variety of diagnostic tests, including DNA collection.

Skincential Science’s noninvasive procedure, described on the Clearista website as “painless,” is said to require only water, a special detergent, and a few brushes against the skin, making it a convenient option for restoring the glow of a youthful complexion — and a novel technique for gathering information about a person’s biochemistry.

clearista-1

A screen grab from the Clearista website.

In-Q-Tel, founded in 1999 by then-CIA Director George Tenet, identifies cutting-edge technology to support the mission of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and provides venture funding to help grow tech firms to develop those solutions.

“Our company is an outlier for In-Q-Tel,” Russ Lebovitz, the chief executive of Skincential Sciences, said during an interview with The Intercept. He conceded that the relationship might make for “an unusual and interesting story,” but said, “If there’s something beneath the surface, that’s not part of our relationship and I’m not directly aware. They’re interested here in something that can get easy access to biomarkers.”

Still, Lebovitz claimed he has limited knowledge of why In-Q-Tel selected his firm.

“I can’t tell you how everyone works with In-Q-Tel, but they are very interested in doing things that are pure science,” Lebovitz said. The CIA fund approached his company, telling him the fund shares an interest in looking at DNA extraction using the method pioneered by Skincential Sciences, according to Lebovitz.The CIA fund has described human skin as a “unique, underutilized source for sample collection.”

Beyond that, Lebovitz said he was unsure of the intent of the CIA’s use of the technology, but the fund was “specifically interested in the diagnostics, detecting DNA from normal skin.” He added, “There’s no better identifier than DNA, and we know we can pull out DNA.”

Perhaps law enforcement could use the biomarker extraction technique for crime scene identification or could conduct drug tests, Lebovitz suggested.

Carrie A. Sessine, the vice president for external affairs at In-Q-Tel, declined a media interview because “IQT does not participate in media interviews or opportunities.”

(Officials at the venture capital firm have, in fact, given interviews in the past.)

Though In-Q-Tel operates in the open, it has often kept key details of its activities out of public view, beyond required annual reports. After a SecureDrop source told The Intercept about a gathering in San Jose for In-Q-Tel executives and start-up companies backed by the fund, The Intercept attempted to attend, but was denied access.

Skincential Sciences was among several presenting companies.

The shroud of secrecy around In-Q-Tel belies a 17-year effort to build ties between the CIA and the biggest names in Silicon Valley. Gilman Louie, a video game executive known for publishing best-sellers such as Tetris, Falcon, and Civilization II, was brought on as the first chief executive of In-Q-Tel. The popular mapping tool Google Earth was created around technology developed by Keyhole Corp., an In-Q-Tel-backed company that was later acquired by Google.

physiological_intelligence-3

A graphic from the “IQT Quarterly” summer 2010 issue on the new modalities in sampling and sensing collection.

Graphic: IQT Quarterly

Still, little is publicly revealed about the use of In-Q-Tel-backed ventures and their relevance to the goals of intelligence agencies. Many of the fund’s investments are not publicly revealed. The fund is reviewed by the CIA’s inspector general and reports directly to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which frequently conducts business through classified briefings.

David Petraeus, while serving as the director of the CIA in 2012, remarked, “Our partnership with In-Q-Tel is essential to helping identify and deliver groundbreaking technologies with mission-critical applications to the CIA and to our partner agencies.”

Despite the association with computer and satellite technology, In-Q-Tel also maintains a long-running interest in developing advanced genetic analysis, biological technologies for detection and diagnostics, as well as research into what is known as physiological intelligence, which, in a 2010 article, the fund described as “actionable information about human identity and experience that have always been of interest to the Intelligence Community.”

The article, which is no longer available on the fund’s website but is preserved by a cache hosted by the Internet Archive, argues that advances in medical research into biomarkers can be leveraged by intelligence agencies for a variety of uses, from airport security to next-generation identification tools.

A diagram in the article calls human skin the body’s largest organ and a “unique, underutilized source for sample collection.” The author, Dr. Kevin O’Connell, then a “senior solutions architect” with In-Q-Tel, notes, “The DNA contained in microorganisms in a person’s gut or on a person’s skin may contain sequences that indicate a particular geographical origin.”

clearista_process

A screen grab from the Clearista website describing the resurfacing process of its product.

Image: Clearista.com

In-Q-Tel has invested in several companies working in this realm, in addition to Skincential Sciences. In 2013, In-Q-Tel publicly announced a strategic partnership with Bio-NEMS, a firm that developed a semiconductor device used to analyze DNA for a variety of diagnostic and human identification applications. Claremont BioSolutions, a diagnostics firm, and Biomatrica, a firm that specializes in preparing biological samples for DNA testing, are also backed by In-Q-Tel.

Skincential Sciences did not start out as a beauty company. The firm was founded in 2010 as DX Biosciences, which was developed around a patent by a team of scientists including Dr. Samir Mitragotri of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Mitragotri has published research into the use of biomarkers as a “window to body’s health.”

The company gained early backing from Frontier, a venture capital company, among other investors.

While the technology has potential for a variety of medical diagnostics, including early melanoma detection, Lebovitz said the company quickly realized it had immediate value as a cosmetic. The application of the detergent developed by the firm could be used easily to diminish blemishes and dark patches on the skin. And unlike similar treatments at aesthetic spas, the technology developed by Dr. Mitragotri and his colleagues did not require acid or any discomfort.

In 2013, the firm relaunched and recapitalized as Skincential Sciences, with Clearista as its primary brand of beauty products.

Lebovitz says he intends to continue developing the technology so that it may be medically relevant, but he is also focusing on breaking into the multibillion-dollar skin care market. While Skincential has won measured success for its Clearista brand products by landing coverage on television and through social media, the company has not yet been able to compete with mainstream skin care companies.

Jamie Walsh, a blogger who runs Glam Latte, a beauty website, endorsed a Clearista product on her YouTube channel, noting that with only one application of the cream, her skin improved and was “glowing.” Walsh said Skincential Sciences sent her the product for a testimonial, and noted that like many independent brands, she did not know about the company’s funding.

Skincential hopes to license its product with a major distributor, or even one day become acquired by a larger beauty company. “We’ll take any of those,” said Lebovitz.

The chief executive noted that he is proud of the In-Q-Tel support, calling the fund “great partners.”

At the gathering in February for In-Q-Tel portfolio companies, Lebovitz joined a crowd that included a number of In-Q-Tel executives, along with senior members of the intelligence community. Presenting speakers included Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, and John Maeda, design partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a leading Silicon Valley investment firm.

“Not only was I the odd man out,” Lebovitz said, “but almost every woman at the conference wanted to come up to me to talk about skin care.
– The Intercept

FAST FORWARD TO 2021

Nothing changed on this stage, the show goes on undisturbed. Here’s some coupons for you!

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

How can you call yourself “intelligent” when you can’t understand simplest concepts like “consent” and you’re completely disconnected from human nature and feelings?
What better proof that the system is broken than the broken souls it produces industrially?

Fake news from Breitbart, Tucker didn’t tie him to human engineering, Tucker observed he’s so tied he barely speaks about anything else. More evidence below

You may have seen this show, yet Carlson gave you but a peak. I give you more than you can carry.
Warning: The only people who will not lose sleep over this are those who paid attention to this scandal when it started, almost a decade ago, highest echelon elites and the pseudo-people who clap at Jimmy Kimmel’s IQ-19 brainfarts.

This video has been recorded in 2013, but the guys was already making waves since 2012, see below.

Note from TED’s YouTube channel, under this video: Comments are disabled on this video. We made this difficult decision for the TED Archive because we believe that a well-moderated conversation allows for better commentary from more people and more viewpoints. Studies show that aggressive and hateful comments silence other commenters and drive them away; unfortunately, YouTube’s comment moderation tools are simply not up to the task of allowing us to monitor comments on so many videos at once. (We’d love to see this change, YouTube.) So for now, if you’d like to comment on this talk, please use Facebook, Twitter or G+ to discuss with your networks”

Dude’s credentials are almost as spectacular as his talk. Meaning this is what it takes to prosper in the scientific environment lately.

2007

He’s always been this freaky and obsessed with shortening people, he must be the polar opposite of tall.

The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making

by S. Matthew Liao , Julian Savulescu , and Mark Sheehan

“As a general point, it is entirely conceivable that in some natural, social, or psychological circumstances, having a normal body may be a disadvantage. In H.G. Wells’ short story “The Country of the Blind,” Nunez, a mountaineer in the Andes, falls and comes upon the Country of the Blind. Nunez has normal vision, but in this society of blind people, he is disadvantaged, and he eventually consents to have his eyes removed. Similarly, in a world of loud noise, being able to hear could be a disadvantage. In the case of apotemnophilia—a body dysmorphic disorder in which the patient feels incomplete possessing all four limbs—doctors justify amputation by reasoning that the patient’s psychology demands it. In Ashley’s case, having a normal-sized body could be a disadvantage.”

SOURCE

2012

Bioengineer humans to tackle climate change, say philosophers

Posted by Leo Hickman, Wednesday 14 March 2012 @ theguardian.com

Authors defend controversial academic paper saying their online critics have misunderstood nature of philosophical inquiry

Leo blog : Xbox game Deus Ex which is bio-modification of humans
Screen grab of a character from the computer game Deus Ex : Human Revolution, which is about bio-modification of humans. Photograph: deusex.com

Earlier this week, The Atlantic ran an eye-catching, disturbing interview with a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University called S. Matthew Liao. He was invited to discuss a forthcoming paper he has co-authored which will soon be published in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

But within just a few hours of the interview going live a torrent of outrage and abuse was being directed towards him online. As I tweeted at the time, the interview was indeed “unsettling”. Liao explained how his paper – entitled, “Human Engineering and Climate Change” – explored the so-far-ignored subject of how “biomedical modifications of humans” could be used to “mitigate and/or adapt to climate change“. The modifications discussed included: giving people drugs to make them have an adverse reaction to eating meat; making humans smaller via gene imprinting and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis”; lowering birth-rates through “cognitive enhancement”; genetically engineering eyesight to work better in the dark to help reduce the need for lighting; and the “pharmacological enhancement of altruism and empathy” to engender a better “correlation” with environmental problems.

Both the interview and the paper itself include a prominent disclaimer. As the paper says:

To be clear, we shall not argue that human engineering ought to be adopted; such a claim would require far more exposition and argument than we have space for here. Our central aim here is to show that human engineering deserves consideration alongside other solutions in the debate about how to solve the problem of climate change. Also, as we envisage it, human engineering would be a voluntary activity – possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored health care – rather than a coerced, mandatory activity.

However, that wasn’t enough to prevent an extremely hostile reception to such ideas. Climate sceptics were the first to vent their anger. Somewhat inevitability, terms such as “eugenics”, “Nazis” and “eco fascists” were quickly being bandied around. One sceptic blogger said that the “sick” Liao and his co-authors should be “kept in Guantanamo”. Another said the paper “presages the death of science, and indeed the death of reason, in the West”.

But prominent environmentalists were also keen to denounce the paper. Bill McKibben tweeted that the paper contained the “worst climate change solutions of all time”. Mark Lynas tweeted that he thought it was an “early April Fool”. It was hard to disagree.

So, were the philosophers who co-wrote the paper surprised by the reaction? Or had all their critics misunderstood what they were trying to achieve? I contacted each of the authors in turn, and a co-editor of the journal, and asked them.

Liao was the first to respond:

First, I think that our paper/position is being grossly misrepresented by some people online. As we specifically say in our paper, a) we are not necessarily endorsing any of the solutions we have canvassed; and b) if these solutions were available, it should be up to individuals to adopt them voluntarily. Ross Anderson, the writer of the Atlantic interview, also makes this clear.
Secondly, the term “eugenics” often gets brought up whenever people mention human enhancements. This is unfortunate because my co-authors and I are positively against any form of coercion of the sort the Nazis had done in the past (segregation, sterilization, and genocide). The way the term ‘eugenics’ is used by some of the people who are against our proposal, it seems that voluntary use of contraception would be a form of eugenics.
Finally, many people who are against our proposal explicitly deny that climate change is really a problem. Given this, it is not surprising that they would find our solution to what they perceive as a “non-problem” incredible. Indeed, some of these people have also said that encouraging people to drive less is an overreaction to climate change. Our paper is intended for those who believe that i) climate change is a real problem; and ii) who, owing to i), are willing to take seriously geoengineering. All bets are off if someone doesn’t accept i).

I then sent the following questions to Liao’s co-authors, Dr Anders Sandberg and Dr Rebecca Roache, both based at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. (Roache was at the institute when the paper was first being drafted 18 months ago, but has since left to be a “full-time mum”.)

Has your paper been misrepresented online? If so, how and why?

Sandberg: Most reactions are not based on what we actually wrote. People who comment on anything online have usually not read it, and then people comment on them, and so on. You are lucky if people remember the original topic, let alone any argument.
People seem to assume we are some kind of totalitarian climate doomsters who advocate biotechnological control over people. What we are actually saying is that changing our biology might be part of solving environmental problems, and that some changes might not just be permissible but work well with a liberal ethics.
Climate change and many other problems have upstream and downstream solutions. For example, 1) human consumption leads to 2) a demand for production and energy, which leads to 3) industry, which leads to 4) greenhouse gas emissions, which lead to 5) planetary heating, which leads to 6) bad consequences. One solution might be to try to consume less (fix 2). We can also make less emissive industry (fix the 3-4 link), remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (reduce 4), geoengineering that cools the planet (reduce 5) or adapt to a changed world (handle 6). Typically people complain about the downstream solutions like geoengineering that they are risky or don’t actually solve the cause of the problem, and say we should go for upstream solutions (where a small shift affects the rest of the chain). So, what would be the most upstream solution? Change human desires or consumption. While this can be done partially by persuasion and culture, there are many strong evolved drivers in human nature that act against it. But we can also affect the drivers.
For example, making people smarter is likely to make them better at solving environmental problems, caring about the environment, adopting a more long-term stance, cooperate better and have fewer children. It is of course desirable for a long list of other reasons too, and many people would freely choose to use enhancements to achieve this even if they cared little about the world. If there was a modification that removed the desire for meat, it would likely have not just green effects but also benefit health and animal welfare – again many might decide to go for it, with no external compulsion.

Roache: Yes. We argue that it might be worth considering making available some seemingly bizarre solutions to climate change, for people to use or not as they wish. We have been represented as arguing – among other things – that people should be forced to adopt these bizarre measures for the good of the environment. I imagine that this is partly because people assume that nobody would dream up such bizarre solutions to climate change unless they believed that they should be implemented. Philosophers, however, spend a lot of time discussing views that they do not necessarily endorse – it’s part of the learning process.

What do you say to those who are claiming you and your fellow authors are “eco Nazis”, “eugenicists” etc, for publishing this paper?

Sandberg: Well, none of us are deep greens or totalitarian. We are fairly typical liberal academics thinking about the world. In fact, in my normal work with global catastrophic risks at the Future of Humanity Institute, climate change is at the lower end of concern. Certainly a problem, but unlikely to wipe out humanity. That probably disqualifies me from being an eco Nazi.
Certainly one can imagine nasty governments imposing various green policies on the population, forcing them to act in ways that benefit the environment. But our paper doesn’t give them any particular ethical support: if you are willing to infringe on people’s reproductory liberty, why not just prevent them from consuming as much as they want? Green totalitarianism might be possible, but it is hardly moral – because it is totalitarian and doesn’t respect individual rights.
Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them.
I think parents should be allowed to select genes for their children (“liberal eugenics” in the term of Nicholas Agar) – the reason eugenics in the past has been such a bad thing was because it was 1) coercive, 2) imposed centrally by the state, and 3) often based on bad science. If one can avoid these problems I do think it could be useful: in that sense I am an eugenicist. However, I suspect other technologies are going to change our species faster than genetics.

Roache: I say that they haven’t read the paper! We explicitly state that we do not endorse coercion, and that we envisage human engineering to be a voluntary activity. The solutions we discuss may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but that does not entail they are not worth exploring.

Did you predict this level/type of response?

Sandberg: A bit. When I wrote the paper I felt I was to some extent trolling – I admit I was delighted when some of my normally rather bio-radical colleagues protested against the idea after a presentation we gave here in Oxford. I was a bit more surprised that the blogosphere and popular press took notice of the paper.
The problem with arousing emotions is that most people then become very stimulus-response driven. They don’t think very deeply about the issue, they react instead. We hoped the paper would be exciting enough to stimulate discussion but not to preclude thinking.
You could claim this paper is a reductio ad absurdum of the idea that we should aim for upstream solutions to environmental problems rather than downstream solutions. I’m not convinced about that: there might indeed be win-win enhancements that are both good for us individually, for society and for the environment, and they should be supported. What the paper does is to take environmental goals and collide them with some common bioethical intuitions (the sacredness of the natural, that human biology must not be touched, etc.) – that hopefully produces an uncomfortable itch that will stimulate some real thinking about what we want to give prioritiy. Could there be ethical reasons not to do things that would help the environment? Could there be environmental needs so pressing we would be forced to budge our biological policies?

Roache: It was always a possibility. Our normally unflappable bioethicist colleagues were shocked by the idea of human engineering, so the wider public was bound to find it ghastly. The fact that we presented it as a response to the widely-discussed problem of climate change is also relevant here: it’s not unusual for philosophers to write about wacky and horrifying ideas, but non-philosophers are rarely interested in them because they often have no obvious bearing on real life. For example, I was working on this paper at around the same time as I was working on a paper about whether it is conceptually possible for more than one person to inhabit a single body; but the publication of the latter passed without comment from the Daily Mail.

Ultimately, what were you trying to achieve with the paper? Are
people interpreting it too literally, namely, believing you personally
would advocate for these ideas?

Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it – and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea… they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics.
The core idea is that we should not imagine that our biological nature is exempt from being part of a potential solution to environmental problems. In our opinion methods of changing people, habits, technology or the environment are all possible approaches, and what matters is whether they work, have good effects, are acceptable and practical, not what kind of method they are.
My personal view is that human engineering on its own is unlikely to fix climate change. The methods we mention are all too weak, indirect and slow. But thinking about out-of-the-box approaches is useful: too much of the climate debate has been forced into doctrinaire camps where any consideration of alternatives is heresy. Big complex problems are unlikely to have simple and neat solutions: we need to investigate (and perhaps use) a lot of approaches.
I do think that in the long run humanity has to become posthuman if it wants to be truly sustainable. I have a little essay about it here:
http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/03/a_really_green_and_sustainable_humanity.html
But this is not feasible for the next few decades, at the very least.

Roache: We wanted to encourage people to think about a group of solutions to climate change that have so far been ignored, despite the fact that in many cases it would be scientifically possible to implement them. Human engineering may seem bizarre and unrealistic, but this does not mean it could not turn out to be feasible and promising: telephones, “test tube babies”, and personal computers are all important aspects of modern life that were once regarded as bizarre and unrealistic. Of course, human engineering may ultimately be unworkable; but this should be because it is impossible to implement, or because its costs outweigh its benefits. It should not be rejected merely because, at first glance, it seems unappealing. And discussing it is itself valuable: it is by exploring and assessing potential responses to a problem that we make progress towards solving it.

I also asked Benjamin Hale, assistant professor of philosophy and environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and co-editor of Ethics, Policy & Environment, why the paper is being published and whether the journal anticipated this sort of response. He said:

We accept submissions from scholars across the academic community. The article went through the same double blind peer reviewed process that all of our articles go through. We haven’t received any questions on it yet. You’re our first. By publishing this article, we are not endorsing it at all. We have circulated the paper widely and are publishing between seven to nine critical responses from ethicists across the field.
The things I’ve seen written on it so far appear to miss the point. The article was clearly not a positive policy proposal. Instead, it was a series of Swiftian philosophical thought experiments more designed to contextualize actively discussed schemes like geoengineering, written by a professor who is not otherwise engaged with the climate community. In the same issue, we will be publishing several other articles critical of geoengineering.

In total, the responses indicate that both the authors and journal stand squarely behind the controversial paper and believe its critics have woefully misinterpreted its contents and the reasons for publishing it. One thing is sure: they have certainly been successful in courting attention (not to be sniffed at in the world of academic publishing, or any form of publishing, for that matter).

But if their aim was to generate a pensive, wide-ranging philosophical debate on the subject of human engineering and climate change I’m not convinced they have been successful. Well, not yet at least, if the online reaction is anything to go by. There remains a danger, too, that the paper will be used in the future as a stick to attack any suggestion of environmental action: “Let them do this, and this will be next on their agenda.” However, I agree with the authors that we should not fear debating such ideas – even if the end result is that we still roundly reject them.

2015

2017

He returns to TED with optogenetics and other DARPA-funded nightmares. Remember optogenetics, because you’ll hear a lot about it in the near future, at least from us.

Also this shameless thing:

2018

SOURCE

2021:

Tucker Carlson: Is Google Funding “Human Engineering” Scientific Research?

 Fox News
On Date June 23, 2021

TUCKER CARLSON: How many other dangerous, potentially world-altering experiments are going on right now, in this and other counties, funded by the secretive daisy-chain of government health agencies, and powerful NGOs? Experiments you’ve never heard of but that could change your life forever? If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious, and oops, they escaped from a lab, what else are they doing? You’re not supposed to ask of course. You’ve been commanded to “trust the science,” and get back to watching Netflix. Only a Neanderthal asks questions. That’s been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it, it’s all good. But why should that continue? Now that we know liars and moral pygmies — people like Tony Fauci, and the soulless bots at Google HQ — and running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.

For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the “World Science Festival.” A few years ago, the conference featured a professor of bioethics and philosophy at New York University named Mathew Liao.

Liao is among the most influential bioethicists in the world — a fact that will amaze you. Liao explained that climate change can be solved with something called “human engineering.”

MATTHEW LIAO: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical robust framework I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically. But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems, one thing is climate change. Climate change is a really big problem we don’t really know how to solve it but it turns out we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.

Here’s a tip: anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with them. And you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”

Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause. People aren’t bridge improvements. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul. People are living beings. They’re alive. They can’t be engineered. Liao the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this. He outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in the Journal of “Ethics, Policy & Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem, of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers, it turns out. How can we get people to stop eating hamburgers? Not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something, if they believed they did it, if they didn’t believe you, they didn’t. But it turns out that’s too time-consuming. The new model is we just use pharmaceuticals. Your kids are getting uppity? Dope them out, and they’ll obey. Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the sight of red meat. Given that climate change is an “existential threat,” that’s limiting our time on earth to 20 years, or 12 years, or 6 months, or pick your exaggeration, it’s hard to imagine a pill like that would soon become mandatory. Sound like a dystopian fantasy? It’s not. Liao is deadly serious. He said so at the “World Science Festival.”

MATTHEW LIAO: So here’s a thought, we have this intolerance for example I have milk intolerance, some people on intolerant to fish so possibly we can use human engineering to make it the case where we are intolerant to certain types of meat, certain types of bovine proteins, so that’s something we can do through human engineering, possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.

TUCKER CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.

Again, says the bioethicist, “human engineering” is the answer. But wait a second, you ask. Human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we decide this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again? True. But bioethicists have short memories apparently. And in any case, climate change is a pressing emergency. We don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.

So here’s an idea, said Liao at the World Science Festival: let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now. A race of dwarfs. They’d eat less, and be cheaper to transport. And that would reduce greenhouse gasses.

MATTHEW LIAO: So it turns out the larger you are, think of the lifetime of greenhouse gas emissions that are required, the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people right. But if we are smaller just by 15cm, I did the math that about mass reduction of 25%, which is huge. And 100 years ago we’re all on average smaller, exactly about 15 cm smaller. So think of the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children. So that’s something we can do.

Imagine if we had smaller children. Little tiny children. Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gasses. Think about how easy it would be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children. And we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. In fact, it’s less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now.

This is what science looks like when it’s been completely decoupled from wisdom, decency and Christianity. It’s a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real. In fact, Google might be funding it right now.

Same day Carlson picked on him and he responded with this tweet, guess what else he spent two hours on?
Discussing anti-natalism on YouTube with the Romanell Center for Clinical Ethics, who has three subscribers. Numerically.
As the name suggests, anti-natalism is hardcore eugenics that would make Hitler frown.

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