I’m only bringing up Germany and Norway here, but MEP Cistian Terhes revealed in a recent interview that there are thousands of similar situations spread all over Western Europe. Immigrant families are the preferred target, but anyone can fall pray to the new predatory “Child Protection” Services and NGO’s in the new woke Europe.
Norwegian Nightmare: ‘Barnevernet’ Preys On Children and Parents
One of the first things you notice about Norway when you visit is how beautiful it is. But there is a very dark side of Norway that most of the world knows nothing about. It’s called Barnevernet, and it can be as cold and brutal as the Norwegian winter.
Barnevernet means “child welfare.” It’s Norway’s network of local child protection service offices. But to its victims, Barnevernet means anything but protecting children.
‘Barnevernet’ Takes American Children
After moving to Norway from Atlanta for her husband’s employment, American mother Natalya Shutakova’s three American-born children were taken by Barnevernet two months ago for alleged child mistreatment.
Shutakova and her Lithuanian husband were jailed for 24 hours and told they could get two years in prison for discussing the case. They’re waiting to hear if they will lose custody of their children for good. All three are American citizens.
Foreign Families at Special Risk
Foreigners living in Norway seem especially at risk of having their children taken by Barnevernet.
Video on YouTube shows police tackling Kai Kristiansen outside his home while his mother films it and pleads, “Would someone please help us. Barnevernet is here in our home and they’re trying to take our son. I’m Canadian.”
Barnvernet moved in after the Kristiansens started homeschooling Kai because he received death threats at school.
It was Barnevernet that took the five children from Romanian and Norwegian parents Marius and Ruth Bodnariu in 2016.
Barnevernet claimed the reason was that the parents were spanking. But an investigation revealed the real reason was officials believed the children were being ‘indoctrinated’ into Christianity by their parents. Worldwide outrage forced the Norwegian government to return the children. The Bodariu’s escaped from Norway and have filed suit before the European Court of Human Rights.
Norway Clogs the Docket for Child Welfare Cases at the European Court of Human Rights
The government of Norway has in the past defended the work of Barnevernet against what it called “wild accusations.” But if there’s not a problem, why does a nation of only five million people have 26 cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights, and 17 of the last 18?
Observers say that’s a staggering number of child welfare cases for one of the smallest nations in Europe.
“There are 26 cases in total at this stage and will probably rise to 30 by within a few months,” says Marius Reikerås, a Norwegian human rights council before the European Court of Human Rights.
Reikerås told us, “There is something severely wrong going on in Norway that you are taking children out of the well-working families. We’re not talking about child abuse and we are not talking about alcoholism or drug abuse. We are talking about, in general, about normal families that have all the capabilities to provide good care for their children.”
Norwegian Expert: Shut Barnevernet Down
Einar Salvesen, a Norwegian psychologist who has been an expert witness in Barnevernet court cases since 1995, says Barnevernet needs to shut down immediately.
“You need to close down all the offices,” Salvesen old us. “It’s 400 offices. It has become a system of evil in too many cases much more and more cases than we want.”
In 2013, Barnevernet took American citizen Amy Jakobsen Bjørnevåg’s one-and half-year-old son Tyler because he was one pound underweight. She phoned the Obama White House pleading for help. But she got no help. six years later, her son Tyler has been passed from foster home to foster home and has had his name changed at least twice. And Amy alleges that he has been tortured.
“We do have paperwork that says that he was tied to the bed because he kept standing up in his crib calling for “mommy,” Bjørnevåg told us. “It isn’t enough that he’s been calling for you. And they completely ignore it. And they do everything to make him stop calling so they cut all contact. That’s their solution instead of working with families.”
Member of European Parliament: Barnevernet a “Monster”
Czech Member of the European Parliament Tomáš Zdechovský has battled Barnevernet, and he calls it a “monster.”
“I think that they made a lot of mistakes and they are still doing a lot of mistakes,” Zdechovský said, “And this monster is really functioning without any control of somebody.”
Expert calls it “Child Trafficking”
Reikerås believes Barnevernet has not been reigned in because this is about a lot of money, and he’s not afraid to call it “child trafficking.”
“Because we see that billions and billions of dollars are being put into this system each year,’ Reikerås says. “And, of course, a lot of people are profiting big time from this governmental pot that you can see. So, saying that this is a form of child trafficking? Absolutely. My opinion is yes.”
Norwegian Government: We’re trying to Fix It
We presented these charges to Norway’s Ministry of Children and Families and it told us that Barnevernet is in the process of being reformed for the, “…strengthening of legal safeguards for both children and their parents.”
But it’s unclear whether Norway is serious about reform. It expelled a Polish diplomat this year for trying to defend Polish families in Norway from Barnevernet.
The U.S. government has so far done nothing about attacks against American families by the Norwegian government.
A Mother Loses Hope
Amy continues to lose in court and wonders if she will ever regain custody of her son.
“I would do anything to hold him in my arms at least one time, for him to have some sort of sense of where he comes from and his background and his family, that there is a whole family that loves him and misses him.”
Response from Norwegian State Secretary Jorunn Hallaråker at the Ministry of Children and Families to CBN News:
Protecting children from neglect, maltreatment, violence, and abuse, and securing their wellbeing is one of the most important tasks for my Government. Our system is child-centric and the best interest of the child is the guiding principle.
The Child Welfare Act underlines that children should grow up with their parents. The Act places great importance on family ties and continuity in the child’s upbringing.
An important feature of the Child Welfare Service is that it is a help service and the vast majority of measures offered in order to help the families, are voluntary assistive measures within the home.
Placing a child in alternative care without the consent of the parents is always a measure of last resort. A child can only be placed in alternative care if it suffers neglect, violence or abuse.
However, child welfare cases involve difficult dilemmas. There is often a conflict between what is best for the child and the rights of the parents.
You refer to the present cases handled by the European Court of Human Rights. We take these proceedings very seriously. We are currently working with the Attorney General in preparing the cases for the Court. I underline that all of these cases have already been thoroughly considered by the Norwegian courts.
The assessment of Norwegian practice before the European Court of Human Rights may highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the Norwegian Child Welfare System and thus enables us to develop and improve it.
We are constantly working to improve the Child Welfare System. There are a number of processes handling with different aspects of the system, among others a proposal for a new Act on Child Welfare Services was sent on public hearing this spring, a competence development strategy has been introduced, and the staff capacity of the Child Welfare Services has been strengthened. I believe these measures will improve the decisions made, and help to ensure that children and families receive the right help at the right time.
As concerns the individual cases you refer to, I cannot comment upon these.
The Government is constantly working to improve the Child Welfare System. There are a number of processes handling with different aspects of the system. For example:
The Act on Child Welfare Services is currently under revision. A Committee has performed a scrutiny of the child welfare legislation in relation to a human rights perspective.
Based on the Committee’s report, a proposal for a new Act was sent on public hearing in April 2019. The proposal suggests, among other, further strengthening of legal safeguards for both children and their parents.
A competence development strategy has also been introduced for the municipal child welfare services for the period 2018–2024. Improved education as well as measures targeting both management and employees in the child welfare services, will enhance quality of practice and decisions.
Also, the staff capacity of the Child Welfare Services has been strengthened in recent years. From 2013 to 2018 there has been an increase of almost 1300 employees.
To gain more knowledge about the handling of child welfare cases the Government attained a report from an independent board with a revision of more than 100 care orders and interim orders in emergency cases.
The report is recently published, and it showed that in general, the removal of the children from the families involved was necessary in order to protect the children. It also showed that the situations leading up to a placement of children in alternative care were all grave, and not insignificant family problems. However, the report also showed deficiencies in some services, and that there is room for improvement.
The Norwegian child welfare system is based on several legal safeguards. For example:
The threshold for issuing a care order is defined by law, in the Child Welfare Act.
The Child Welfare Services prepare care order cases for the County Social Welfare Board. However, a care order may only be issued by the County Social Welfare Board.
The Boards are independent and impartial decision-making authorities, with the same procedural rules as a regular court.
The decisions of the Board can be appealed to the regular courts.
The County Governor at regional state level serves as a control mechanism. The Governor inspects the work of the Child Welfare Service, and parents can make complaints about the work of the Child Welfares Service to the County Governor.
The child has the right to be heard in all decisions that affect him or her, and the views of the child shall be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
Parents have important legal rights in care order cases. They are entitled to free legal aid, a due process (to be heard, bring witnesses/evidence). Parents can once a year file for a revocation of the care order to have the child returned.
Undoubtedly, Bollywood’s best contribution is Mrs Chatterjee Vs Norway
Does a child primarily belong to a state or to a foster family, or do children all over the world have a god-given, inalienable right to be raised, protected, and provided for by their biological parents?
This is the contentious issue raised by the Bollywood film Mrs Chatterjee Vs Norway. In the last couple of decades, the Norwegian child welfare agency, known notoriously as “Barnevernet”, has been judged by the European Court of Human rights for violating children’s rights by forcing a separation between parents and children, in more than a dozen cases.
The Human Rights Court is also right in its judgements reiterating that it is the responsibility of the state to hinder child abuse. But once investigation about child abuse is completed and if parents are not found guilty, then the state has the responsibility for restoring the family relations between parents and children to its fullest. Having caused parental alienation, the state cannot then conclude that the children are better off in an adoptive family.
Several times, European countries like The Czech Republic and its embassy have also taken up the issue of Chech families residing in Norway. The Norwegian ambassador in the Czech Republic has been disinvited to a diplomatic meeting for not restoring mother-child relationship, even after the Czech mother was found not guilty of violating her children or abusing them.
The laws in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were intentionally formulated to stop parents and school authorities from beating children on the pretext of maintaining discipline in the class or silence at home. The laws were also meant to prevent abuse and neglect of children whose parents become alcoholics, drug addicts, or are sexual predators. So the intention of the state is genuine and in the rarest of rare cases one does see examples of sexual abuse, slapping, or other forms of physical punishment, which are considered a violation of a child’s right in Nordic countries.
Families moving to Scandinavia should be told that the laws of the countries here do not permit physical punishment in the name of strict upbringing of children. Children can be persuaded to behave responsibly, and children do behave responsibly if one takes the time and practices patience.
Shouting, screaming, and chastising children is not a healthy form of pedagogical approach. All this is worth appreciating. Similarly, gurus and spiritual leaders should not be permitted to go kissing children on lips and tongues. Children should be seen as individual entities and should be protected from all kinds of abuse in the name of religion, blind worship, discipline, and strict parenting.
But how does this give a psychologist the right to deprive a parent who has never beaten his child, or never done any harm to a child, of the right to have contact with his children? By the force of a single report, a psychologist can evaluate parental abilities and allow child welfare agencies to send children to foster homes. Later, some of them get adopted by Scandinavian white parents. This seems more like a blatant act of racism rather than protection of children’s rights.
Barnevernet in Norway, Familieretshuset in Denmark, and The Child Protection Act, known as the “LVU” in Sweden, are feared by immigrant communities. Sweden has seen large-scale protests by immigrants against what is being referred to as kidnapping of children, and protesters have claimed that immigrants are disproportionately targeted. The method seems to be simple. The child is separated from the parent for a period, and after some time the family court and the Child Protection Services conclude that it is in the best interest of the child not to have contact at all with its parent
The Scandinavian countries are known for their generous welfare system, where women have the same rights as men. But seldom is it known that women are giving birth to children at an average age of 30, and this makes pregnancy difficult, and in many cases impossible. Every tenth couple needs help with artificial insemination, and yet, being blessed with a child is not a guarantee to all families. As a result, the post-modern Scandianavia societies are seeing a rise in the number of childless families. There is a growing concern among immigrant families that their children are taken away from them to be given away to childless families by using these draconian laws.
Mrs Chatterjee Vs Norway has highlighted this conflict and also shown that government and diplomacy can be used in a positive way. Especially when parents are helpless and devastated after such an experience. All psychologists ought to know that it is extremely traumatising for both children and parents to lose contact with each other, and it cannot be compensated by better material conditions.
The film is based on a true story of an Indian mother, Sagarika Chakraborty, who fought the child welfare system alone to get her children back. After an arranged marriage, Sagarika had moved to Norway with her husband and, according to her own version, her husband was physically abusing her. He later abondoned her, leaving Sagarika alone in the fight to recover her children. When mothers like Sagarika ask for help, the authorities should stop the husbands from beating their wives and not by separating the children from their mothers. Separating a child from its mother is a gross violation of both a child’s right to a family as well as mother’s right to have contact with her child. A mother who had lost contact with her children in Denmark told me that it hurt more to lose her children than suffering the pain of physical abuse from her husband.
Sushma Swaraj, the former foreign minister of India, understood the dilemma of a mother and gave the Indian diplomacy a valid boost for its mission by supporting Indian mother’s fight to get reunited with their children.
Sushma Swaraj, the Indian mother Sagarika Chakraborty, who fought the case and won the right to get reunited with her children, and all those who helped her in her struggle in India and abroad, are true heroes. This is how battles for human rights ought to be fought in today’s world.
Bollywood should also get credit for making a film based on reality, and finally the scene of emotional outpours was a courtroom and not the Swiss mountains or the Spanish beaches. The Indian film industry and its legendary, unforgettable songs have united India, and still play a great role in creating an atmosphere of peace and harmony.
The Indian and Pakistani diaspora abroad, along with their brethren from other Asian and Middle Eastern countries, can once again witness the transformation of the Indian cinema, which portrays and gives voice to their struggle abroad.
A few years ago, a Pakistani immigrant to Denmark, said to me, why don’t you make songs like, “ Maine ma ko dekha hai, Ma ka pyar Nahin dekha”? A song that depicted the dilemma of losing contact with your biological mother in India. These songs from Bollywood struck a chord of resemblance, stressing that Asians do share the value of respecting mother-child relationship.
Similarly, Mrs Chatterjee Vs Norway in a globalized, digital world expresses that Asians across national boundaries are getting united in in the dissemination of a new narrative, that the bond between mother and child or father and child is an inalienable part of our culture, and we are willing to fight for its nobility.
Sagarika Chakraborty, the real-life Mrs Chatterjee of ‘Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway’, writes: Don’t dismiss it as fiction, I lived this story
The Norwegian Ambassador has written that “a mother’s love in Norway is no different from a mother’s love in India.” But my love, which came out in the form of anguish at the prospect of losing my children forever, was used as a reason to take my children away
XSagarika Chakraborty and Rani Mukherjee. (Screenshot)
Written by Sagarika Chakraborty
Twelve years ago, my two-year-old son and five-month-old daughter were taken away by Norway’s child welfare agency, Barnevernet. It made all kinds of accusations against me. Under pressure from the Indian government, Barnevernet returned my children to India in the care of my brother-in-law, even though he was just a 26-year-old bachelor.
I fought back. I went to the Indian authorities and submitted myself for evaluation.
I proved myself. The Indian child welfare committee found me to be a fit mother. Its order was confirmed by the Kolkata High Court. The children have now been with me for ten years. The world can see how well they are doing.
But even though I have proven myself in every way, Norwegian officials continue to malign me. In his article in The Indian Express (‘Norway cares’, March 17), the Norwegian Ambassador has said that in his country, children are not taken away for reasons like hand-feeding or co-sleeping. But Barnevernet’s own report of the time says that my son “does not have his own bed” and that I was “force feeding” him. It says that things improved in foster care because “previously he had to be fed, but now he eats by himself” and “he now sleeps in his own bed in his own room”. If these are not the reasons, then why are they mentioned?
Barnevernet accused me of being violent against my husband when I shouted at him for not doing enough to save our children when care workers threatened to take them away.
This accusation of me being violent was so absurd that when we first appealed against the removal of our children, the County Committee said that the babies should be returned to us. The County Committee said, “The mother was frightened when she understood that the Child Welfare Services might place the children away from the home.” It ruled that there was no emergency situation before the care workers came to our home and the problem only arose after they threatened to take the children away.
We thought we had won, but Barnevernet got a stay order from the Stavanger District Court. The Court said that the removal of the children was correct because I had “screamed and howled” when caseworkers said they were taking away the custody of the children. The explanation that I was reacting to these threats of the care workers was rejected by the Court saying that even though my behaviour was a reaction to the understanding that Barnevernet could place the children outside the home, it was still right to have kept them away as my reaction was “incompatible with the care of small children”.
The Norwegian Ambassador has written that “a mother’s love in Norway is no different from a mother’s love in India.” But my love, which came out in the form of anguish at the thought of losing my children forever, was used as a reason to take my children away.
After the Indian courts restored my children to me, I qualified in computer engineering and business management. I have been working for several years in different multinational software companies. I provide for my children all by myself. Yet Barnevernet had called me mentally unfit. Can a mentally unfit person meet all these challenges?
The Norwegian government had been quiet since my fight ended and my children returned. Only now, with the release of Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway, a movie chronicling my story for global audiences, have they once again belittled my truth. How can the Ambassador comment on the movie’s depiction of my story and condemn it as fiction, when I lived this story? I implore everyone to go and watch the movie to witness my truth as well as educate themselves about what continues to happen to Indian parents globally.
update june 2023: can’t even count how many links of media and citizen reports I received about child abductions and trafficking by government authorities around the world
From everywhere and from all walks of life, I got stuff like this, but especially from the Commonwealth / EU and their spheres of influence.
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
A 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 Israel, that: “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 Destiny, Itrace 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.”
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
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
IF YOU’RE READING THIS, YOU’RE PROBABLY TARGETED BY A GOVERNMENT OR TWO. SO I MADE SOMETHING FOR YOU. SEE DETAILS / ORDER
In an increasingly baby-minded world, I had to pull out the crayons again. I feel embarrassed for the human race that I have to explain this and so many people need to see it.
“On the legal blog Dorf on Law, in an article by Sherry F. Colb, a Cornell University law professor. Colb argues that, because eugenics is defined as “a movement . . . aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race,” it is inapt to call selective abortions “eugenic,” because a woman who chooses abortion after a Down-syndrome diagnosis “understands that she is thereby doing virtually nothing to alter the human genome.”
But Colb ignores another meaning of the adjective “eugenic”: “relating to or fitted for the production of good offspring.” Though the term “eugenics” undoubtedly evokes a program of controlled, selective breeding to reshape a population, it is entirely accurate to describe as “eugenic” an individual choice to eliminate a child deemed “unfit,” even in just one instance.
Colb concludes with this argument:
What if everyone pregnant with a DS fetus terminates? What then? Do we want to live in a world in which DS people are extinct? No. There is no question but that people with DS, like people with all sorts of other challenges, enrich our world and teach us to tolerate those who differ from ourselves. It would indeed be sad if the world contained no one with DS. But just because we want a group of people in the world does not entitle us to conscript individuals to create such people in their wombs.
But of course, forbidding abortions chosen on the basis of disability cannot rightly be described as “conscripting individuals to create such people in their wombs.” When a pregnant mother receives a prenatal Down-syndrome diagnosis, she has already created a human being who might have Down syndrome (though such tests have been known to be wrong). Forbidding a woman from actively killing her unborn child based on its disability is not the same thing as conscripting her into creating that child.
That defenders of legal abortion are reduced to such arguments is telling. In the end, it doesn’t matter much whether we can rightly label certain abortions “eugenic” or whether one side of the debate has the most accurate history of racial discrimination and population control.
What matters is that, in Ohio, lawmakers have laid down a marker establishing that it is wrong and therefore that it is now illegal to end the life of an unborn human being simply because he or she is diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality. Supporters of abortion refuse to respond to this argument, because to do so would expose the logic of all abortion, which, regardless of disabilities, grants some human beings the power to declare the lives of others not worth living.”
Gates conducted an interview with Bill Moyers on PBS to explain the rational for his charitable contributions:
MOYERS: You could have chosen any field, any subject, any issue and poured billions into it and been celebrated. How did you come to this one? To global health?
GATES: The one issue that really grabbed me as urgent were issues related to population… reproductive health.
And maybe the most interesting thing I learned is this thing that’s still surprising when I tell other people which is that, as you improve health in a society, population growth goes down.
You know I thought it was…before I learned about it, I thought it was paradoxical. Well if you improve health, aren’t you just dooming people to deal with such a lack of resources where they won’t be educated or they won’t have enough food? You know, sort of a Malthusian view of what would take place.
And the fact that health leads parents to decide, “okay, we don’t need to have as many children because the chance of having the less children being able to survive to be adults and take care of us, means we don’t have to have 7 or 8 children.” Now that was amazing.
So Gates is interested in improving health because he believes that would reduce the amount of people on the planet. His goal is not to help people but to eliminate them. He states that if people are healthy that they will want fewer kids but he doesn’t offer evidence to support this and frankly it doesn’t appear to make much sense. Why would a sick person who could die at anytime want to have kids if they knew there was a good possibility they wouldn’t be around to support the child? Does Gates really believe this or is this just his cover story so not arouse any suspicions about his true motivations? Gates also admits that he notes that he previously shared the opinion with Malthus that health should not be improved because that would encourage population growth. If you remember Malthus wanted villages built near sewage to encourage disease. Now he doesn’t disagree with Malthus that population growth is bad he only disagrees on how to reduce population.
I don’t believe that Gates’ actually thinks that improving health reduces population. I think that he is using global health as a stalking horse to eliminate population. Gates’ could donate money to provide basic healthcare to poor Africans like Doctors Without Borders, he could build hospitals, and he could help provide low cost health insurance to the millions who can’t afford it. Bill Gates money could be spent improving access to safe drinking water and providing sanitation services. His money is spent on any of this noble The elites of the world choose to spend the tax dollars of the American middle class on contraceptives, abortions, and vaccines. Kenyan gynecologist Dr. Stephen Karanja observed, “USAID and other Non-Governmental organizations funded mainly by the U.S. Government have targeted our people with a ruthlessness that makes one shudder. Our health sector has collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, most of which are supplied with American money.”
“Many are maimed for life. The hypertension, blood clots, heart failure, liver pathology and menstrual disorders cannot be treated due to the poor health services…. Malaria is epidemic in Kenya. Mothers die from this disease every day because there is no chloroquine, when instead we have huge stockpiles of contraceptives.” – SOURCE – I used this not for authoritativeness, but for logic and because it very much speaks my mind too. And I fact-checked it.
IT WORKS BOTH WAYS, AS YOU BALANCE AND STEER IT. SOURCE
THE AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON IT
Population Control is GENOCIDE
(This interview with Sister Aset was first published in Global Africa Pocket News (GAP News) Vol. 1, No. 7 Sept. 1994. It was submitted to Caribbean Times in January ’96 but never published) #14 SOURCE
What is population control?
The United Nations Population Fund would like us to believe that it is a benign process of ‘voluntary’ application of ‘family planning’ to control the ‘rate of growth’ of the world’s ‘sustainable’ population within ‘manageable’ levels in relation to the amount of ‘food’ and ‘consumable goods’ the earth can produce. That is as far from the truth as the divide between the very richest and the very poorest people on this planet. The truth is that population control is the process by which Global Europe (whites, Caucasians, Aryans) seeks to guarantee its perpetual domination of the rest of the human race because of its own fear of annihilation. According to Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, it is this fear based on the fact of their numerical minority status and their low level of surface melanin, which drives them to commit the most atrocious crimes against humanity, in particular, the most feared nation of all, Global Africa (Black people).
Is it true that the world is over crowded and moving towards an unsustainable population level?
No. Absolutely not. Overcrowding can be measured by one method only that is whether there are too many people to fit in the space available. The most densely populated continent area in the world is Europe, (see GAP News #7, Population Figures), but do Europeans think there are too many people in Europe? Of course not. But they believe there are too many African and Asian people in Europe. That is not overcrowding that is racism.
What about all those starving Africans? If they can’t feed themselves surely, there must be too many of them.
No, that is not the case. Those “starving Africans”, Asians and other “Third World” peoples produce most of the world’s surplus food. Most of the food they produce are luxury or raw, unprocessed goods which are sold cheaply as exports and re-imported as expensive processed foods. The main reason though, why there appears to be not enough food to go around is not because the so-called third world cannot feed itself, it is because Global Europe, less than 25% of the world’s population uses or wastes over 80% of the worlds food goods (consumables) but produces less than 15% of it. So the “third world” make up 75% of the world’s population, produce 85% of the world’s consumables and consume less than 20% of all that is consumed. If they consumed as much as they produced, Global Europe would be dying of starvation, not Africa.
Is the African population expanding too rapidly?
Let’s look at the evidence: After being systematically depopulated for 400 years, Africa is now the least populated continent in the world with a density one-sixth of Europe’s. Africa’s death rate is more than twice that of Europe. To be level pegging, Africa’s death rate should also be one-sixth of Europe’s. When these dishonest people talk about population they make reference only to birth rate. They show that Africa’s birth rate is nearly three times that of the European rate, but forget to mention that the infant mortality rate is 5 times higher in Africa. They never talk about density except in reference to Asia or to say that “Rwanda is the most densely populated country in Africa”. They forget to say it was a quarter the density of any country in Europe. They forget also, to tell you that in order for Africa to get to the same population density as Europe (is Europe overpopulated?) the African birth-rate has to be more than 12 times that of Europe (6 times if the death rate becomes equal) for a whole generation. So, when they talk about “equalizing” or reducing the African birth rate, while at the same time nurturing conflict, manufacturing famine, and importing disease to increase the death rate further, you begin to get the picture. If the birth rates were made equal and everything else remained the same as they are now, each time Europe’s population doubled Africa’s population would be halved. The world’s population may become “stabilized” as they like to say it, but the percentage ratio between the nations would continue changing to their advantage. (See GAP News #5) It is understandable then, why Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a senior Vatican official cried that if the precepts of the UN Population Control Conference in Cairo were to be implemented the world would experience “the most disastrous massacre in history”. He should know, it was his organization, the Roman Catholic church, which sanctified the trade in African lives, resulting in the death of over 200 million people. Some of the liars say that deaths in war time make very little difference to the population growth because after a war birth rates usually increase to compensate. Certainly, that is true when mostly male soldiers are killed. But when two thirds of the female population are murdered, like the Rwandan slaughter, it would take 4 or 5 generations to get back to where it was before the war. And that is the key. The women. Global Europe have done everything they could to destroy our people but we are still here and still strong. They are now trying, through an apparently limitless line of African and Asian female mercenaries, posing as leaders, to co-opt us. To convince us that regardless of our particular environmental conditions, contrary to our own community’s social and economic needs, it would be in our individual interests to have fewer or no children at all. Women have the power to determine the fertility or sterility of our nation. It is imperative that we do not allow ourselves to be misled into committing generational suicide. We carry the future of our nation in our hands. We are here because those before us gave us life. Let us give life to our children. We deserve to live.
ABORTION FOR EUGENICS: CONSPIRACY OR SIMPLE CONSEQUENCE?
How one answers the question whether abortion is a tool of racial, gender, or disability eugenics depends very much on how the question is asked. Is legalized abortion a eugenicist conspiracy — a deliberate plot on the part of those favoring abortion rights to reduce the number of people of a given race, sex, or disability? Surely not. At the very least, such motivations form no part of the modern argument for abortion rights. Does unrestricted legal abortion-choice produce a disparate impact resulting in disproportionate numbers of abortions ending the lives of minority, female, and disabled fetuses? Undeniably. The aborted are disproportionately Black, female, and disabled. Is the right to abortion sometimes used, by those exercising the abortion-choice, for eugenics purposes — specifically for the purpose of aborting on the basis of race, sex, or disability? Unquestionably. Some — but not all — of the abortion–disparate impact is attributable to intentional decisions to abort based on a trait of the baby that otherwise would be born.
These are three different questions. Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Box keeps them distinct. Murray’s article, in attempting to critique Thomas, tends to smush these separate questions together in a mildly confusing way.
Begin with Justice Thomas’s Box concurrence itself. Thomas’s opinion compiles an impressive and rightly disturbing narrative of evidence that family planning and abortion advocates in the past embraced the desirability of abortion as an instrument for achieving racial eugenics and for culling persons with disabilities from the population. (There appears to be no evidence that early abortion advocates ever favored abortion for gender-eugenics purposes — aborting girls because they are girls.18×18. This is probably most simply explained by the fact that the technology for discerning the fetus’s sex before birth was not readily available until relatively recently. See, e.g., Juan Stocker & Lorraine Evens, Fetal Sex Determination by Ultrasound, 50 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY 462, 465 (1977).
Han Chinese academics in Xinjiang in recent years have blamed the high birth rate among the Uyghurs and Kazaks for fostering religious extremism and poverty. According to Zenz’s research, government and academic papers have referred to the birth rate of ethnic minorities in the region as “excessive” and have claimed that the population growth and concentration of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang “weakens national identity and identification with the Chinese Nation-Race (Zhonghua Minzu).”
I’ve been meaning to put this together for this a long time now, but we owe it to An0maly that I arrived to finish it, he tipped me over with this great brand new video, where he kills it in his own terms. I just felt I need to round it up and bring more depth and definition that he can’t possibly achieve in his format. The guy is one of the clearest minds on Internet right now.
Lev, O., Wilfond B.S., and McBride C.M.. 2013. Enhancing children against unhealthy behaviors-an ethical and policy assessment of using a nicotine vaccine. Public Health Ethics 6: 197–206 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lewens, T.2009. Enhancement and human nature: The case of Sandel. Journal of Medical Ethics 35: 354–6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Porter, R., ed. 2006. The Cambridge illustrated history of medicine, 326 Cambridge, UK: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge [Google Scholar]
Robertson, J.A.1994. Children of choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press [Google Scholar]
Savulescu, J., and Kahane G.. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 271–90 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Steinbock, B.2002. Sex selection: Not obviously wrong. Hastings Center Report 32: 23–8 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Willke, J.C.1998. Assisted suicide and euthanasia, 6–8 Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing Co [Google Scholar]
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
THERE’S NO BETTER PREVENTION THAN SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE FASTER THAN THEY SHARE THEIR PROPAGANDA!
The original title of this article was URGENT! DEBUNKING THE NEXT ENGINEERED PANDEMIC: NIPAH VIRUS. I expanded the scope because in the meantime I learned they are ramping up propaganda for all three. These viruses have more things in common, as you will find out below.
You should actually begin with this earlier report:
To further develop the ChAd3 Ebola and Marburg vaccines, Sabin has entered into a Research Collaboration Agreement with the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The Sabin Vaccine Institute, a non-profit organization founded in 1993, is a leading advocate for expanding vaccine access and uptake globally, advancing vaccine research and development, and amplifying vaccine knowledge and innovation. Sabin received more than $110 million for vaccine R&D programs from public and philanthropic funding sources, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, European Commission, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Global Health Innovative Technology Fund and the Michelson Medical Research Foundation.
Washington DC, Oct. 21, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Sabin Vaccine Institute (Sabin) announced that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has exercised the third contract option, valued at $34.5 million, under the 2019 contract to advance the development of vaccines against Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses through Phase 2 clinical trials.
In September 2019, BARDA awarded Sabin a development contract, valued up to $128 million, and has already provided funding of $40.5 million. This third contract option will enable continued nonclinical efficacy and safety studies, Phase 2 clinical trials in Africa, and vaccine manufacturing processes to ensure quality and safety.
In August, a case of Marburg disease was confirmed in the West African country of Guinea where the Ministry of Health officially declared an outbreak of Marburg.1 This recent case, as well as Marburg’s history of outbreaks and their potential for future devastating outbreaks, demonstrates that preventative measures are overdue to protect civilian populations, military personnel, first responders, health care workers and laboratory workers, both in the United States and abroad, against these emerging infectious diseases.
Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses are closely related to Ebola Zaire virus, which has caused more than 2,200 deaths since 2018, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Like Ebola Zaire, Ebola Sudan and Marburg are among the world’s deadliest viruses, causing hemorrhagic fever with subsequent death in an average of 50 percent of cases.2,3
“Even as the world struggles with the COVID-19 pandemic, disease caused by Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses continue to be a serious threat, as we have seen with the recent outbreak of Marburg in Guinea. We are grateful for BARDA’s continued support of Sabin’s efforts to advance vaccines against these deadly viruses,” said Sabin Chief Executive Officer Amy Finan. “We also thank our partners at the Vaccine Research Center of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for their continued collaboration, and GSK for their earlier work on the candidates.”
The two candidate vaccines, based on GSK’s proprietary ChAd3 platform, were exclusively licensed to the Sabin Vaccine Institute from GSK in 2019.
This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, under contract number 75A50119C00055.
This above is the official Sabin Inst. press release, this below isn’t:
November 4, 2021 – The U.S. CDC published a Level Three Travel Advisory for the recent Ebola outbreak in the Beni Health Zone of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
November 3, 2021 – The U.S. CDC vaccine advisory committee reviewed previous recommendation preexposure vaccination with Ervebo for adults aged ≥18 years in the U.S. population who are at highest risk for potential occupational exposure to Ebola virus species Zaire ebolavirus because they are: responding to an outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), or work as health care personnel at federally designated Ebola treatment centers in the U.S., or work as laboratorians or other staff at biosafety level 4 facilities in the U.S.
November 2, 2021 – The WHO reported additional cases and deaths confirmed in the Ebola virus disease outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with two new health areas affected. A total of 394 people (67 primary care providers including nine high-risk contacts, nine contacts of contacts, and 49 probable contacts) have been vaccinated including 182 contacts of contacts, 125 probable contacts, and 87 high-risk contacts.
October 29, 2021 – A Research Article – Safety and immunogenicity of 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccination in healthy and HIV-infected adults: A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II clinical trial in Africa – was published by the journal PLOS Medicine. Conclusion – The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo combo vaccination were well tolerated and immunogenic in healthy and HIV-infected African adults. Increasing the interval between vaccinations from 28 to 56 days improved the magnitude of humoral immune responses. Antibody levels persisted to at least 1 year, and an Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination demonstrated the presence of vaccination-induced immune memory. These data supported the approval by the European Union for prophylaxis against EBOV disease in adults and children ≥1 year of age.
October 27, 2021 – IAVI announced an award of up to US$126 million from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority to develop two recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)-vectored filovirus vaccine candidates. This award supports preclinical activities and includes options for clinical development up to and inclusive of a Phase II clinical trial of IAVI’s rVSV Sudan ebolavirus vaccine candidate (rVSVΔG-SUDV-GP). Optional work that would continue the development of IAVI’s Marburg virus vaccine candidate (rVSVΔG-MARV-GP) that is currently supported by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense could be funded at a later date.
“Vectored” means, most likely, mRNA or some other genetic / nanotech targeting technology.
October 20, 2021 – The WHO African Region reported 5 Ebola cases, and over 27,000 travelers have been screened in the DRC. Furthermore, over 116 people have been vaccinated.
October 17, 2021 – Africa News reported Ebola vaccinations started in Beni, DRC, after at least two people died due to the virus in October 2021. The WHO African Region Tweeted DRC Situation Report (17/10/21) 5 confirmed cases, three deaths, 369 contacts identified, and 308 contacts monitored.
October 13, 2021 – Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) health officials confirmed an Ebola vaccination campaign had launched in the North Kivu province where one confirmed Ebola case, plus three related suspected deaths, were recently reported. About 1,000 doses of the rVSV-ZEBOV Ebola vaccine and other medical supplies were delivered from the capital Kinshasa to Goma city in North Kivu. The DRC has more than 12,000 vaccine doses in Kinshasa that can be deployed if necessary.
October 10, 2021 – The WHO reported additional Ebola cases related to the recent DRC case of a 3-year-old boy. A cluster of three deaths (two children and their father) who were neighbors of the case. These three patients died on 14, 19, and 29 September 2021 after developing symptoms consistent with Ebola. However, none were tested for the virus. As of October 9th, a total of 148 contacts have been identified and are under follow-up by the local response team.
October 8, 2021 – A case of Ebola has been confirmed in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, five months after the end of the most recent Ebola outbreak there. The child died on October 6th. It was not immediately known if the Ebola case was related to the 2018-20 outbreak that killed more than 2,200 people in eastern Congo or the flare-up that killed six people in 2021.
September 13, 2021 – A new study based in Sierra Leone concluded the Ebola vaccine regimen from Janssen – J&J. It was found well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting the suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prevention in children.
August 31, 2021 – The government of Cote d’Ivoire has informed the WHO that a second laboratory has tested samples from a patient suspected of having Ebola and has found no evidence of the virus. Around a dozen WHO experts were mobilized to support the country’s efforts, and 5,000 Ebola vaccine doses which WHO had helped Guinea procure were sent from Guinea to Cote d’Ivoire.
August 23, 2021 – The WHO African region reported Ebola booster dose vaccinations in Sierra Leone following administration of the prime dose of the Johnson & Johnson Ebola vaccine in May 2021. Frontline health workers, practitioners of traditional medicines or traditional healers, and commercial motorbike riders who received the first dose are now given their second jab to maximize their protection against the disease.
August 17, 2021 – The WHO confirmed Cote d’Ivoire deployed 2,000 vaccine doses from Merck and around 3,000 vaccine doses manufactured by Johnson & Johnson – Janssen.
August 14, 2021 – The WHO Africa reported the Ministry of Health of Cote d’Ivoire today confirmed the country’s first case of Ebola since 1994. This came after the Institut Pasteur in Cote d’Ivoire confirmed the Ebola Virus Disease in samples collected from a patient hospitalized in Abidjan’s commercial capital after arriving from Guinea.
August 9, 2021 – The WHO confirmed ‘Marburg virus disease (MVD) is a highly virulent, epidemic-prone disease associated with high case fatality rates (CFR 24-90%). In the early course of the disease, the clinical diagnosis of MVD is difficult to distinguish from other tropical febrile illnesses because of the similarities in the clinical symptoms. Differential diagnoses to be excluded include Ebola virus disease, as well as malaria, typhoid fever, leptospirosis, rickettsial infection, and plague.’
June 15, 2021 – The Southwest National Primate Research Center at Texas Biomedical Research Institute (Texas Biomed) has been awarded more than $37 million from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to continue operations into 2026. The P51 grant, given by the NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs, provides essential funding to house and care for nearly 2,500 non-human primates that are part of life-science research programs at Texas Biomed and partners around the globe.
June 4, 2021 – Johnson & Johnson welcomed a new recommendation by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization for the WHO that supports the use of the Johnson & Johnson Ebola vaccine regimen both during outbreaks for individuals at some risk of Ebola exposure and preventively, in the absence of an outbreak, for national and international first responders in neighboring areas or countries where an outbreak might spread.
April 10, 2021 – The government of Sierra Leone and the WHO announced Johnson & Johnson had donated about 4,500 Zabdeno and Mvabea Ebola vaccines to Sierra Leone to help prevent any Ebola outbreak. The last Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone was in 2016.
March 25, 2021 – Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine revealed health officials are monitoring 44 people who have returned from areas of Africa with active outbreaks of Ebola.
March 25, 2021 – Oregon public health officials announced they are monitoring four people who recently visited the West African countries of Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Regions in each of these countries are currently experiencing outbreaks of Ebola virus disease. The Oregon Health Authority and local public health departments have been in contact with these individuals, considered “persons under monitoring” since they arrived in the state earlier in March 2021.
March 23, 2021 – The WHO African Region Tweeted Guinea Ebola outbreak Situation Report (22/03/21) 18 cases, nine deaths, 78 contacts, 82% monitored. And 3,905 people have been vaccinated.
March 13, 2021 – After a request from the Guinean authorities, Russia is considering supplying a domestic vaccine against the Ebola virus to the African country, reported TASS.
May 13, 2020 – BARDA Provides the Sabin Vaccine Institute with an Additional $20 Million for Further Development of Ebola Sudan and Marburg Vaccines
The Sabin Vaccine Institute (Sabin) and its partner ReiThera Srl today announced that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has exercised the first two options, valued at $20 million, under the 2019 contract to advance the development of vaccines against Ebola Sudan and Marburg viruses through Phase 2 clinical trials. In September 2019, BARDA awarded Sabin a development contract, valued at $128 million, and provided the initial funding award of $20.5 million. This second $20 million award will enable the manufacture and release of clinical vaccine material developed by ReiThera, a specialist in the development and cGMP manufacture of adenoviral vector vaccines. The funding will also support non-clinical studies to evaluate efficacy and immune response.
UPDATE 5: NOVEMBER 7, 2021: MARBURG GOES VIRAL ON INTERNET ONLY, YET. I’m happy awareness increases, it’s crucial. I’ve addressed this virus below, but not many had the patience to go through all text, and I kind of understand them, but there’s no easier way than reading. Here’s another angle to keep in sight when computing all this info:
UPDATE 4: OCTOBER 19 2021: THE FEARPORN CAMPAIGN TAKES SPEED AS IF THEY ARE TO RELEASE THIS SOON. IF YOU FALL FOR THEIR BRAINWASH, THEY HAVE NO REASON TO STOP.
And they’re still not running out of stupid ideas we can see through:
Oh, look who pushes the fear! Exactly who I would’ve expected:
Later update: In the meantime I’ve learned that Marburg (an Ebola relative) and Xinjiang fever, a Chinese relative of the Yellow Fever virus, are also top candidates, and that goes in line with the Fauci e-mails I highlighted below. I will be back with more details shortly. Almost certainly it will be some form of hemorrhagic fever, most likely to cover for injections side-effects on the blood stream.
UPDATE 2:
One month later, they’re starting to catch up and it’s still not too late to un-play it if this goes BOOM NOW!
By the end of last century, The Military has abandoned you and has joined Pharmafia and the super-rich elites in a plan to govern you with bioweapons and psy-ops. As I’ve said many times, Big Pharma and Big Tech are long gone, The Military BioTech Complex has been running the show for quite a while. This is just a chapter from that book, more to come if we get some love.
Canadian lab’s shipment of Ebola, Henipah viruses to China raises questions
Henipah and Nipah are interchangeable
Scientists at the National Microbiology Lab sent live Ebola and Henipah viruses to Beijing on an Air Canada flight March 31, and while the Public Health Agency of Canada says all federal policies were followed, there are questions about whether that shipment is part of an ongoing RCMP investigation.
Ebola and Henipah are Level 4 pathogens, meaning they’re some of the deadliest viruses in the world. They must be contained in a lab with the highest level of biosafety control, such as the one in Winnipeg.
Two months after that shipment, on May 24, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) referred an “administrative matter” to RCMP that resulted in the removal of two Chinese research scientists — Xiangguo Qiu and Keding Cheng — and several international students on July 5.
Both agencies have said repeatedly that public safety has not been at risk.
PHAC will not confirm if the March 31 shipment is part of the RCMP investigation.
Strict protocols
Several sources, who have asked to remain anonymous because they fear for their jobs, say the pathogens may have been shipped to the Chinese Academy of Sciences in a way that circumvented the lab’s operating procedures, and without a document protecting Canada’s intellectual property rights.
Researchers working at the National Microbiology Lab on cutting-edge, high-containment research are not allowed to send anything to other countries or labs without the intellectual property office negotiating and having a material transfer agreement in place, in case the material sent leads to a notable discovery.
A PHAC spokesperson did not confirm if this shipment included such an agreement.
However, Eric Morrissette said it’s “routine” for the lab to share samples of pathogens and toxins with partners in other countries to advance scientific work worldwide.
“All transfers of Risk Group 4 samples follow strict transportation requirements and are authorized by senior officials at the lab and the NML tracks and keeps electronic records of all shipments of samples in accordance with the HPTA. Agreements for the transfer of materials are determined on a case-by-case basis,” Morrisette wrote in an email statement.
“On the specific shipments to China earlier this year, we can confirm that we have all records pertaining to the shipment, and that all protocols were followed as directed by the above Acts and Standards.”
Xiangguo Qiu is head of the National Microbiology Lab’s Vaccine Development and Antiviral Therapies section in the Special Pathogens Program. She is responsible for the lab that works with Ebola. Her husband, Keding Cheng, is also a PHAC biologist.
After their security clearance was revoked and they were escorted from the lab, the University of Manitoba also cut ties with them and re-assigned Qiu’s graduate students, pending the RCMP investigation. No charges have been laid.
Neither scientist has responded to requests for comment, although some of their former colleagues say Qiu is not just a world-renowned scientist who helped develop a treatment for Ebola, but also a researcher with ethics and integrity.
Case raises questions
One question raised by this case is that of intellectual property protection, says Leah West, who practises, studies and publishes in the field of national security law and lectures at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.
“If China was leveraging these scientists in Canada to gain access to a potentially valuable pathogen or to elements of a virus without having to license the patent … it makes sense with the idea of China trying to gain access to valuable IP without paying for it,” she said.
West accepts PHAC’s assertion that public safety is not an issue, even though the viruses were transported on a commercial Air Canada flight.
However, she says the fact the RCMP is involved means there’s a legitimate concern.
“You don’t send a policy breach, a bureaucratic policy breach, to the RCMP to investigate unless you believe that that policy breach has resulted in a criminal offence or could have resulted in a criminal offence. So what is the criminal offence potentially here?” West said.
She said she hopes the lab and Health Canada are also doing an internal investigation.
“I think there will need to be an inquiry into the scientists to potentially see whether or not they were compromised or any elements of their work were compromised and that China gained illegal or improper access to Canadian intellectual property … to see what China may have gained access to without knowledge, prior to this incident,” West says.
Don’t ‘jump into any conclusions too quickly’
However, the deputy director of the University of Alberta’s China Institute is urging caution when it comes to making assumptions.
Jia Wang doesn’t dispute China has been involved in the past in espionage and intellectual property theft, but she says that country is making big investments in developing STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) scholars and then putting that into innovation.
China has its own reasons to protect intellectual property because many new ideas are coming from there, Wang says.
She’s waiting to see what comes of the RCMP investigation of the lab in Winnipeg.
“As China observers, we’d like to perhaps gently remind people not to jump into any conclusions too quickly,” she said.
“It will be good to get to the bottom of this and see what might have gone wrong and what was the oversight and how can the procedures be improved or people involved can be reminded of how to adhere to the policies better.”
The shipment of the viruses took place at a time when relations between Canada and China have been strained over the arrest of a Huawei executive, at the request of the United States.
In retaliation, China has detained two Canadians and is boycotting Canadian canola and pork.
Because of the strained relationship between the two countries, and this case at the lab, Chinese-Canadian researchers and academics are starting to worry they may be singled out and targeted, Wang said.
“Certain assumptions are made or their loyalty to Canada is questioned in any way. And as multicultural as we are in Canada, we don’t want to see that.” – CBC, 2019
On December 19, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the approval of Ervebo to prevent EVD caused by Zaire ebolavirus in individuals 18 years of age and older. This report, published by the U.S. CDC on January 8, 2021, summarizes the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for using the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (Ervebo) in the USA.
On July 1, 2020, the European Medicines Agency granted Johnson & Johnson Janssen’s Zabdeno and Mvabea Ebola vaccine therapy, a prime-boost vaccination approach for preventing infectious diseases. Janssen’s Ebola vaccine regimen is specifically designed to induce long-term immunity against the Ebola virus in adults and children aged one year and above.
CanSino Biologics’s Ad5-EBOV Ebola vaccine received approval in China in October 2017. Ad5-EBOV is an adenovirus type 5 vector-based Ebola virus disease vaccine that protects against Ebola by relying on the recombinant replication-defective human adenovirus type-5 vector immune response. In addition, Ad5-EBOV is manufactured as a lyophilized powder, highly stable, and does not require storage at ultra-low temperatures. This feature renders it viable for use in resource-limited tropical areas.
The WHO published the revised Ebola Vaccine FAQ on January 11, 2020.
Henipaviruses belong to the family of paramyxoviruses. Two species have been identified to be zoonotic, causing disease in animals. These are the Hendra virus (HeV) and the Nipah virus (NiV). They produce severe and often fatal illness in humans and horses.
Samples from early Wuhan COVID-19 patients show the presence of genetically modified Henipah virus, an American scientist has found.
Henipah was one of the two types of viruses sent to China by Chinese-born scientists from a Canadian laboratory at the centre of a controversy over the firing of the scientists and collaboration with Chinese military researchers. It is not clear whether the virus found in the Chinese samples is related to the samples sent by the Canadian lab, which were shipped in late March 2019.
The finding was confirmed for The Epoch Times by another qualified scientist.
The evidence was first found by Dr. Steven Quay, a Seattle-based physician-scientist and former faculty member at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who looked at early COVID-19 samples uploaded by scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) shortly after China informed the World Health Organization about the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.
Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli is seen inside the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, China, on Feb. 23, 2017. (Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images)
The samples from the patients, who reportedly were found to have the “unknown pneumonia” in December 2019, were uploaded to the genetic sequence database, GenBank, on the website of the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH).
Quay says that while other scientists around the world were mostly interested in examining the genome of SARS-CoV-2 in the samples uploaded by the WIV scientists, he wanted to see what else was in the samples collected from the patients.
So he collaborated with a few other scientists to analyze sequences from the samples.
“We started fishing inside for weird things,” Quay told The Epoch Times.
What they found, he says, are the results of what could likely be contamination from different experiments in the lab making their way into the samples, as well as evidence of Henipah virus.
“We found genetic manipulation of the Nipah virus, which is more lethal than Ebola.” Nipah is a type of Henipah virus.
The Epoch Times asked Joe Wang, PhD, who formerly spearheaded a vaccine development program for SARS in Canada with one of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies, to verify the finding. Wang is currently the president of NTD Television Canada, the sister company of The Epoch Times in Canada.
After examining the evidence, Wang said he was able to replicate Quay’s findings on the Henipah virus. He explains that the genetic manipulation of the virus was likely for the purposes of vaccine development.
Winnipeg Lab
The firing of Chinese-born scientist Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, from the National Microbiology laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg has been the subject of much controversy in Canada, with opposition parties pressing the government for more details on the case, and the government refusing to release information citing national security and privacy concerns.
Qiu and Cheng along with several Chinese students were escorted out of NML, Canada’s only Level 4 lab, in July 2019, amid a police investigation. The two scientists were formally fired in January 2021.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), which is in charge of NML, said the termination was the result of an “administrative matter” and “possible breaches of security protocols,” but has declined to provide further details, citing security and privacy concerns.
House Speaker Anthony Rota admonishes Public Health Agency of Canada President Iain Stewart in the House of Commons on June 21, 2021, for failing to provide documents related to the firing of two scientists from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)
During her time at NML, Qiu travelled several times in an official capacity to WIV, helping train personnel on Level 4 safety. The Globe and Mail later reported that scientists at NML have been collaborating with Chinese military researchers on deadly pathogens, and that one of the Chinese military researchers worked at the high-security Winnipeg lab for a period of time.
Documents and emails released by PHAC show that the shipment of Henipah and Ebola samples was done with the permission of NML authorities.
In one of the emails sent in September 2018, David Safronetz, chief of special pathogens at PHAC, informs then-head of NML Matthew Gilmour and other lab administrators about the request from WIV for the shipment of the samples, saying “I trust the lab.”
In response, Gilmour asks about the nature of the work that will be done at the Wuhan lab, and why the lab doesn’t get the material from “other, more local labs.” He also tells Safronetz that it’s “good to know that you trust this group,” asking how NML was connected with them.
In his reply, Safronetz doesn’t specifically say what the samples will be used for in China, but notes they will only be sent once all paperwork and certification is completed. He also says the WIV is requesting the material from NML “due to collaboration” with Qiu.
He adds, “Historically, it’s also been easier to obtain material from us as opposed to US labs. I don’t think other, closer labs have the ability to ship these materials.”
Gilmour resigned from his position at NML in May 2020 and joined a UK-based bioresearch company.
MPs have asked NML management why shipment of the samples was allowed and whether they knew if China performs any Gain of Function (GoF) research at WIV. GoF research involves increasing the lethal level (virulence) or transmissibility of pathogens.
NML’s acting scientific director general Guillaume Poliquin told MPs during a parliamentary committee meeting on March 22 that the lab only sent the samples to WIV after receiving assurance that no GoF research would take place.
Conservative MP John Williamson pressed for more answers, saying the word of the state-run Chinese lab can’t be trusted as the Chinese regime “has a history of theft and lies.”
The issue of GoF research at WIV has been a point of contention in the United States between lawmakers and Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIH’s head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whose organization has funded research (through EcoHealth Alliance) on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. U.S. Sen. Rand Paul says published work from WIV on coronaviruses shows the lab is conducting GoF research, a charge Fauci denies.
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
The Epoch Times sought comment from PHAC, including as to how the agency addressed issues of intellectual property and the development of any products such as vaccines with WIV, but didn’t hear back by time of publication.
Despite repeated requests by opposition parties for more details related to the firing of the two NML scientists, the Liberal government has refused to provide records, saying there are national security and privacy concerns.
After the House of Commons issued an order for the government to disclose the information, the government took the Speaker of the House to court to obtain confirmation from a judge that it can withhold the documents. The government later dropped its court case once Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called an election and Parliament was dissolved. – Epoch Times
UPDATE 3: I FOUND CREDIBLE SOURCES FOR MOST OF DR. ARYANA LOVE’S EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS BELOW:
I didn’t have an in depth look at all her sources, I can’t have a final 100% verdict, but I did more than a glance and no lies detected. You can review her blog post yourself HERE. This might be the closure to this report and the start for another.
OBAMA: EBOLA RESPONSE A TRIAL RUN FOR A POTENTIAL AIRBORNE VIRUS THAT MIGHT HIT SOON (2014)
BONUS
This is from 2014, but the story goes a way long back. And forward. Let’s not forget Putin is a Davos regular since before he became such a literal czar.
WHERE IT’S AT EXACTLY TWO YEARS LATER (SEPT. 2023)
meanwhile, we found out that…
In March 2015, a CureVac investor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, agreed to provide separate funding for several projects to develop prophylactic vaccines based on CureVac’s proprietary mRNA platform… n July 2020, Tesla, Inc CEO Elon Musk announced via Tweet that Tesla and CureVac had reached an agreement to produce portable “RNA microfactories” based on this technology to manufacture CureVac’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate. CureVac had stated that the bioprinters would be able to produce “more than a hundred thousand doses” within approximately two weeks. At approximately the same time, Tesla and CureVac filed a joint patent on the technology. In August, Musk reviewed the project with Curevac while in Germany.
How much of the tsunami is fabricated in Musk’s factories?
So we’re back at:
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
The rare media reports on this case only mention WHO’s chief scientist, but after obtaining the original legal notice from IBA, we find out that Tedros and one more doctor are equally indicted. The best part is that they repeatedly use the term “conspiracy”, and, finally, someone uses it correctly.
Quick update as of July 14th, 2021: I’ve just learned of two more similar court cases that also involve Bill Gates, Fauci and GAVI, among others. Currently analyzing the documents and digging for more info. I will report more ASAP.
LEGAL NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES (DGHS)
LEGAL NOTICE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST DR. TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, DR. SOUMYA SWAMINATHAN AND THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES (DGHS)
The accused are served legal notice for their attempt to undermine the authority of the Bombay High Court and obstruct the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 treatment.
On 13th June 2021, Indian Bar Association has served a notice upon Dr.Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General, World Health Organisation, Dr.Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at WHO and Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar for contempt of judgment of Bombay High Court.
The Bombay High Court vide its judgment dated 28th May 2021 has already given a green signal for use of Ivermectin for treatment of Covid-19.
Despite this, all the three contemnors have hatched a conspiracy and by spreading misinformation through media, are fuelling confusion amongst doctors by introducing Guidelines allegedly published on 27th May 2021 by DGHS, which are in fact not mandatory and are overruled by the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 28thMay 2021.
The State Government of Goa, in their affidavit filed before Bombay High Court, has specifically pointed out that the WHO advisory against the use of Ivermectin is flawed and the research showed that the Ivermectin is effective for treatment of COVID-19. The Bombay High Court on 28th May 2021, after considering WHO advisory and all other contentions of the rival parties, came to the conclusion that the use of Ivermectin cannot be stopped. The High Court has also taken the note of the guidelines dated 17th May 2021 issued by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), thereby advocating the use of Ivermectin.
Thereafter, a detailed and impactful article was published by the leading newspaper ‘Free Press Journal’ on 6th June 2021 (updated on 14th June 2021) wherein the author has articulated very well as to how the advisories of WHO are dubious.
Surprisingly, in its first, the Directorate of Health Services (DGHA) on 27th May, 2021 announced ‘Comprehensive Guidelines for Management of COVID-19 patients’ which excludes Ivermectin and several popular drugs.
It is worthwhile to note that DGHS is a repository of technical knowledge and is an attached organisation of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The Guidelines/National Protocol have always been issued by the Joint Task Force of All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) and Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) under the aegis of Government of India. Moreover, the document containing these impugned Guidelines does mention version/date and does not carry logos of Government of India, ICMR and AIIMS,suggesting lack of consensus between DGHS and the Joint Task Force.
Now, in order to diminish the impact of the article published on 6th June, 2021, the main accused Dr. Soumya Swaminathan hatched a conspiracy and managed some media houses to publish news on 7th June, 2021 for appreciating the overruled guidelines dated 27th May, 2021. Some of these media houses have showed astounding alacrity in publishing news hailing removal of Ivermectin and other drugs, thereby deliberately ignoring the mountains of clinical data on effectiveness of Ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19.
These impugned Guidelines issued by DGHS were circulated first on 7th June 2021, without any mention of the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 28thMay, 2021, which in fact is against the said guidelines, rendering these guidelines as null and void.
As per the judgment of Supreme Court of India, the person responsible for spreading information with object of creating confusion and to obstruct and undermine the judgment of court is liable for punishment under contempt of Court. Sections like 505,192,302, 115,109,409,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code are also attracted against the accused in this case, as their intention was to kill several people to fulfil their ulterior purposes.
The maximum punishment in above cases is death penalty.
The notice states that Dr. Soumya Swaminathan and the WHO are dishonest and have no scientific evidences to back their advisories and such loose statements are issued from time to time, to serve their ulterior purposes.
The relevant part of the notice reads this:
“53.1. Each time and particularly from following specific instances, it is sufficiently proved that You Notice 1 & 2 do not possess any authentic and scientific evidences;
i) When the earlier Notice was served on Notice 1 on 25.05.2021, she has neither replied to the notice nor has she approached any court of law against us. On the contrary, she chose to delete the controversial tweet advising against the use of Ivermectin for COVID-19;
ii) When the Health Secretary of the State Government of Goa relying on affidavit of Under Secretary of Union of India made their submission on oath before Hon’ble High Court, with specific allegations against WHO that there are reports which have observed that the analysis by WHO on this medicine (IVERMECTIN) is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the said medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxis, neither you Notice 1 or 2 chose to produce any proof to counter the said report. As a result, Hon’ble High Court has refused to accept the advisory of WHO.
iii) When All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) had published a statement on 24.05.2021 that there is no evidence to predict the third wave and its effect on children, you Notice 1 did not give any “Evidence” in support of your statement dated 25.05.2021 which was contrary to the said statement of AIIMS.
After you Notice 1 were served with legal notice on 25.05.2021, you feared for being exposed and being summoned in Court of Law and therefore you Notice 1 took a U turn and stated that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that children would be affected in the third wave.
The agenda of misinformation is also exposed in the statement published in Press Bureau of India on June 8, 2021
“It is a piece of misinformation that subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic are going to cause severe illness in children. There is no data – either from India or globally – to show that children will be seriously infected in subsequent waves.”
53.2. So it is crystal clear that You Notice 1 & 2 do not have scientific evidence except jugglery of words and you are thoroughly intellectually dishonest people who are playing with the lives and livelihood of the common people across the world.
However, in order to expose your intellectual dishonesty to the entire world, this notice is being served, calling for an explanation within 7 days of the receipt of this notice.”
The legal notice also explains the law of damages in India citing recently cases where Court had ordered compensation of Rs. 100 Crores ((USD 13.5 mn) to the aggrieved party, for loss of his reputation. Since the present matter involves death caused due to denial of early treatment resulting in deterioration and death of person, the damages claimed would be much higher that Rs. 100 Crores.
The notice also explains the liability of Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of WHO, for his act of commission and omission and also for his implied consent to the conspiracy.
In the similar manner, the DGHS Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Kumar is joined in as co-accused for his complicity in the conspiracy.
The three possible explanations for such an intense opposition to the use of highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine as Ivermectin are explained very well in following article:
“As a generic, Ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with Ivermectin.
If approved as a covid-19 treatment, Ivermectin could even threaten the Emergency Use Authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.
It’s worth noting that while India’s DGHS has dumped most cheap off-patent treatment options against Covid, including even multivitamins, more expensive patented medicines continue to get the green light. They include Gilead’s prohibitively expensive antiviral Remdesivir, which DGHS continues to recommend for “select moderate/ severe hospitalised COVID-19 patients”, even though “it is only an experimental drug with potential to harm.” It has also authorised the use of the anti-inflammatory medicine to cilizumab, which costs hundreds of dollars a dose.” – IBA
I’m not very optimistic, I see this as another attempt to cement the existence of a fake virus in the collective mental, but either way this goes, the implications are huge. Consider that WHO didn’t act alone, Big Tech, mass-mediots and politicians would be affected by the same logic and principles. And if this falls flat, it’s only going to signal more corruption to the general population.
BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF THESE DRUGS ARE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS EFFICIENT AGAINST COVID-19, THEN THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A LEGAL BASIS FOR EMERGENCY STATES / EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR EXPERIMENTAL INJECTIONS DISGUISED AS VACCINES
If approved as a covid-19 treatment, Ivermectin could even threaten the Emergency Use Authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.
IBA
Demand from India to #ArrestDrTedros grows louder on social media
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organisation
Panjim: The call from journalist and social activist Savio Rodrigues encouraging people of India to raise their voices on social media platform Twitter demanding arrest Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is growing louder.
#ArrestDrTedros is currently trending in India.
Savio Rodrigues is the Founder & Editor-in-Chief of GoaChronicle.com. The online new portal has been exposing the complicit role of Dr Tedros during the coronavirus pandemic due to his closeness with China. In fact, Rodrigues, opines that China backed Dr Tedros to the position of Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Dr Tedros in turn was China’s puppet in WHO
Rodrigues in his several informative articles has raised questions on the dereliction of duty and cover-up of China’s questionable actions by the Director-General of (WHO).
Earlier today Rodrigues called for the people of India to unite and demand for the arrest of Dr Tedros, post the publishing of his article:
— Wg Cdr Nitin Purandare (Retd) 🇮🇳 (@nitinpurandare) April 11, 2020
Rodrigues opines : “The World Health Organisation under the leadership of its Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus failed in its core responsibility to detect a health crisis and contain the spread of this contagious virus globally.
It instead chose to side with China – the nation from which the coronavirus originates and was the first epicentre of the virus. It is from Wuhan, China that the China Virus has spread globally to reportedly 180 countries.
We can go pontificating on different theories of the blame game. The political leaders can continue to play their own political games. Nothing will ever change the truth.
The truth is that this is a virus that has come out of a lab. The truth is that China had knowledge about its human-to-human transmission as early as December. The truth is that Dr Tedros relied on the report of the Chinese Health Authorities in his statement on January 14, 2020, “No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission. The truth is that China has withdrawn the lockdown in Wuhan and city is back to normal business will the rest of the world is under lockdown.
But the most horrific truth is people are dying. They will continue to die. We have crossed 100,000 deaths but the count will not cease, it will only keep on increasing.”
Whether Dr Tedros is arrested is a question that can only be in answered in time but what is important to state the noise to get him to step down from his post is certainly getting louder.
Tedros is met with treason and genocide accusations even in his own country, Ethiopia, but the government there simply doesn’t have the balls to anger Tedros’ allies issuing and arrest warrant to complete the investigation. However, the chief of Ethiopian military, as well as much of Indian media and population, don’t seem to hold back anymore. It’s doubtful he’s ever going to step home again.
After India finally gets somewhat of a grip on its deadly second wave, one of its health regulators just took away one of its main lines of defense.
India’s Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) has executed a policy reversal that could have massive implications for the battle against covid-19, not only in India but around the world. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, could be at stake. The health regulator has overhauled its COVID-19 treatment guidelines and removed almost all of the repurposed medicines it had previously recommended for treating asymptomatic and mild cases. They include the antibiotic doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, ivermectin and even multivitamins. The only medicines that are still recommended for early treatment are cold medicines, antipyretics such as paracetamol and inhaled budesonide.
“No other covid-specific medication [is] required,” say the new guidelines, which also discourage practitioners from prescribing unnecessary tests such as CT scans.
“Patients are advised to seek tele consultation; and Covid-19 appropriate behaviour must be observed such as mask, strict hand hygiene and physical distancing… [Patients are also advised to maintain] a healthy diet with proper hydration… [and] to stay connected [with family] and engage in positive talks through phone, video-calls, etc.”
The decision to remove ivermectin, multivitamins and zinc from the treatment guidelines is hard to comprehend given the current state of play in India — unless one assumes foul play. After suffering one of the worst covid-19 outbreaks since the pandemic began, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, India is not just flattening the curve, it is crushing it. And the widespread use of ivermectin, a potent anti-viral and anti-inflammatory with an excellent safety profile, appears to have played an instrumental role.
This is the last thing the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pharmaceutical companies whose interests it broadly represents want. As such, it was no surprise that WHO was delighted with the DGHS’ policy reversal. “Evidence based guidelines from @mohfw DGHS – simple, rational and clear guidance for physicians,” tweeted WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, of Indian descent. “Should be translated and disseminated in all Indian languages.”
As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin.
If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines.
It’s worth noting that while India’s DGHS has dumped most cheap off-patent treatment options against Covid, including even multivitamins, more expensive patented medicines continue to get the green light. They include Gilead’s prohibitively expensive antiviral Remdesivir, which DGHS continues to recommend for “select moderate/ severe hospitalised COVID-19 patients”, even though “it is only an experimental drug with potential to harm.” It has also authorised the use of the anti-inflammatory medicine tocilizumab, which costs hundreds of dollars a dose.
Crushing the Curve
The DGHS began recommending the widespread use of ivermectin as early as April, in direct contradiction of the recommendations of the World Health Organization. Treatment packs were assembled in many states and distributed to patients testing positive for Covid. In at least two states — Goa and Uttarakhand — the medicine was distributed as a preventive. As has already happened in over 20 countries where ivermectin has been used — from Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Peru to Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Bangladesh — case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities have fallen in almost vertical fashion. On Monday the country recorded its lowest number of new cases in 61 days.
“When we started seeing more cases, we decided to take up a door-to-door survey,” Bagalkot District Health Officer Dr Ananth Desai told New India Express. “When the health officials noticed people with symptoms during the survey, they tested them immediately and provided them with home isolation kits, which had medicines like Ivermectin, calcium and zinc tablets along with paracetamol. We advised the patients to start with the medication even before their Covid-19 test results came out. With these measures, we noticed that many patients recovered faster. This helped in increasing the recovery rate”.
In India’s capital, Delhi, the number of people testing positive for Covid-19 daily has fallen 97% from a peak of 24,000 on April 24. The number of deaths is down by around 85%. Only 17% of the total beds earmarked for Covid-19 treatment in Delhi and around 40% of the ICU beds were occupied late last week, according to the government’s Delhi Corona app. At the peak, there were days when no ICU beds were available in the city.
Out of the Darkness, But For How Long?
Just over four weeks ago India was in a very dark place. At one point it was accounting for almost half of all global cases and one in every four covid-19 deaths. The government had lost complete control. Four weeks later, the country, while not out of the woods, is in a much better place. While the official numbers of cases and deaths are probably still a fraction of the real numbers, the trend is clearly moving in the right direction.
An important reason for that is that doctors in India have been treating covid patients as early as possible — something that isn’t happening in most countries, particularly rich ones that play an outsized role in setting global health policy. In India early treatment has helped to reduce the number of cases becoming acute. And that has helped to reduce the pressure on hospitals and vital resources such as oxygen. Ivermectin also appears to have helped reduce the spread of the virus, thanks to its potent anti-viral properties.
Just about everywhere ivermectin is used, the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths fall precipitously. Of course, this is only a temporal correlation. But nonetheless a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in dozens of clinical studies and multiple meta-analyses. But it’s not proof enough for global health authorities, which have set the bar for ivermectin so high that it’s almost impossible to straddle.
Of course, other factors such as lockdowns, travel restrictions and increased herd immunity have also played a part in India’s rapid turnaround. But vaccines’ role has been minimal given that just 16 doses have been administered per hundred people. It’s going to take many more months, if not longer, to vaccinate a majority of the population. In the meantime, hundreds of millions of people will remain unprotected from the virus. Many will end up catching and transmitting it. Yet the Directorate General of Health Services has taken away one of the country’s only lines of defense.
It remains to be seen whether state governors and health bureaucrats will comply with the recommendations. For the moment the separate treatment protocols recommended by India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) continue to include ivermectin. As such, many doctors are likely to continue prescribing the medicine. But what happens if MOHFW and ICMR follow the DGHS’ lead and also drop ivermectin. Will doctors stop using a medicine they know to work against a virus that has already caused so much devastation?
India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, has been using ivermectin since last summer. In this second wave the turnaround was so dramatic that even the World Health Organization (WHO) showcased its achievements. In a May 7 article titled “Going the Last Mile to Stop Covid-19” the WHO noted that aggressive population-wide health schemes, including home testing and “medicine kits”, had helped regain control of the virus. But what the WHO failed to mention is what was in those medicine kits.
Instead, three days later WHO’s chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan, of Indian descent, tweeted out a reminder that ivermectin is not recommended to treat covid-19 patients. The tweet included a press release issued by the company that manufactures the drug, Merck, saying it had found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19. Merck, it’s worth recalling, is developing an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, that will have to compete directly with ivermectin, one of the cheapest, safest drugs on the planet — unless, of course, ivermectin is taken out of the picture.
A Cautionary Tale
But if that happens, the result is likely to be a lot more deaths. Peru, the first country to use ivermectin against Covid, is living proof of that. The medicine was first used in eight states during the very early stages of the pandemic (May-July). After showing promise, it was extended to the whole country. Excess deaths dropped 59% (25%) at +30 days and 75% (25%) at +45 days after day of peak deaths. But in October, after the first wave had been brought under control, a newly elected government in Lima took the inexplicable step of withdrawing a number of medicines, including ivermectin, from its treatment guide for the disease.
Within weeks hospitalizations and deaths were soaring once again. The graph above, taken from a study by Juan Chamie, Jennifer Hibberd of the University of Toronto and David Scheim of the US Public Health Service, shows the sharp rise, fall and resurgence in excess deaths (among the over 60 year-old cohort) in Peru as the virus waxed, waned and waxed again. Since Peru dropped ivermectin the virus has raged through the population. Peru now has the highest per-capita death rate from covid on the planet. It’s a cautionary tale that India, with a population more than 30 times that of Peru, would do well to heed.
To be updated
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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 is a corroboration of a few recent reports from various news outlets in India and external sources. We face another grave under-reported fact in a “top-shelf authoritative source” CV. Or CR. The ramifications are vast. We have much more of these to disclose in the near future.
<< India has asked the American frontline public health agency, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop funding virus research studies in the country. CDC was caught funding Karnataka’s Manipal Center for Virus Research (MCVR) for secretly carrying out research on the lethal Nipah virus – a pathogen considered potential bioweapon. The fact that an under-qualified private laboratory was secretly handling a dangerous virus under government’s nose at the behest of a foreign agency has raised major concerns within the health ministry apparatus.
The matter is more complicated with the fact that the CDC has a checkered history in India. The Indian defense establishment believes that the CDC was involved in the plague outbreak in the western Indian city of Surat in 1994, which they consider to be a case of bioterrorism. Earlier in February this year the Indian government launched an investigation into another secret research being conducted on bat hunters in the eastern Indian state of Nagaland, funded by the US Department of Defense in collaboration with Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
India Blacklists US CDC For Secretly Funding Bioweapons Research At Manipal Institute Of Virology | GreatGameIndia https://t.co/VpwWNp7Y19
A $3.6 million donation from Atlanta-based US health agency CDC to Indian research agencies for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic has been put on hold by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The CDC has been placed on the watchlist since December 2019 for its involvement in funding virus research without government’s approval.
The Nipah research fiasco that came into light in October last year was the primary reason behind the MHA decision. As of now, any funding or donation from the U.S government body CDC would be first cleared by the MHA itself. They can no longer send funds directly to any government or private institution in India without MHA’s clearance.
No translation availables, sorry!
CDC secretly funds risky virus research in India
In October 2019, Hindustan Times reported that the Union health ministry wrote to both CDC and Manipal Center for Virus Research, ordering them to shut down the study related to Nipah virus that belongs to Risk Group 4 (RG4) classification. The RG4 viruses are considered highly dangerous and have no treatment or vaccine. They can only be tested in BSL4 lab which is the highest level of biological safety. The health ministry was upset that a study related to high risk pathogens like Nipah was being carried out at MCVR which is BSL2+ level facility.
A memorandum sent out by the health ministry said:
“It has been brought to our notice that CDC had trained MCVR for diagnosis of Nipah virus disease (NIV) in spite of the known fact that NIV is BSL 4 level pathogen whereas MCVR is a level BSL2+lab. Prior to this training to MCVR, CDC has not consulted national/govt agencies as per norm. Since Nipah is a high risk pathogen with potential for being used as agent of bio-terrorism the samples were to be handled more carefully and tested only in a BSL4.”
While CDC admitted that the training program didn’t have the necessary approval due to some confusion, it maintained that they did not commission the research directly. “The training was done through the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) and was aimed at strengthening laboratory systems in India which allowed for detection of Nipah virus.”
International collaborations of Manipal Center of Virus Research
CDC has partnered with MCVR to carry out illness surveillance across India under the project known as AFI surveillance which tracks mysterious diseases in the government hospitals. The Indian government has now asked both agencies to stop the surveillance project. It also warned CDC to ensure all funding is approved by the government.
In its defence, MCVR denied carrying out any risky virus isolation work at their lab. Dr. Arunkumar, Director of MCVR, said:
“We did not take approval from HMSC. Prior to testing, MCVR inactivated the virus. Inactivation of the virus was carried out in BSL3 facility at MCVR. Once inactivated, the virus cannot spread. Molecular testing was carried at MCVR in its BSL2 facility. No Nipah virus sample was transferred from MCVR to any other lab (except NIV Pune) within and outside the country.”
Investigation on secret research on Bat Hunters
This is not the first time a dangerous research took place in India without keeping the government in loop. Back in February this year, the officials confirmed to that foreign funded researchers were conducting study on bats and bat hunters (humans) in the northeastern state of Nagaland. Bats are known to often carry viruses such as ebola, SARS coronavirus, rabies,etc.
After Indian scientists were forced to withdraw their study concluding #Coronavirus was injected with HIV AIDS virus amidst massive online criticism, now Indian authorities have launched an investigation against China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.https://t.co/T0mZ1uG9Y5
What’s more alarming was that two of the 12 researchers belonged to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Department of Emerging Infectious Diseases – the same institute from where COVID-19 outbreak is believed to have originated. The Nagaland study was funded by the United States Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction agency (DTRA).
The results of the study were published in October last year in the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases journal, originally established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
To conduct a high-risk study in India, they would have needed special permissions from the Indian authorities which was not sought by the parties involved in the study. The fact that scientists from foreign countries were allowed to handle live samples of bats and bat hunters without permission prompted Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to send a five-member committee to investigate the matter.
Funding of controversial Gain-of-Function research
Even before the coronavirus outbreak, a number of controversial studies were being carried out at China’s Wuhan lab under the patronage of United States’ National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the studies is the gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses which involves mutating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans.
The gain-of-function research has been widely criticized by the scientists around the world due to the risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.
However, last year the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research. A total of $7.5 million of American tax dollars have been spent since 2014 for conducting GoF studies.
Role of CDC in Surat plague
The plague outbreak in the western Indian city of Surat in 1994 has been mired in controversy just as COVID-19. Around 55 people died and close to a half of the city of 1.2 million people fled Surat for fear of the plague and of being quarantined.
EXCLUSIVE
The origin of 1994 Surat plague has been mired in controversy just as COVID-19. Indian defense establishment believe it is a case of bioterrorism involving American CDC with the germ with an extra protein ring developed at CDC lab in Kazakhstanhttps://t.co/TN8CD91F6g
The origin of the outbreak is still a mystery. Indian defense establishment believes the 1994 Surat Plague is a case of bioterrorism. Numerous media outlets at the time reported the involvement of American CDC. It was suspected that the germ with an extra protein ring was developed by a CDC lab in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Thus it comes as no surprise that Indian authorities are taking no chances this time around with CDC, especially since the world is already under the grip of a virus pandemic and the role of CDC is increasingly being seen as suspicious. >> GGI
Dear @GreatGameIndia It appears that one of your study concerning HIV insertions inside coronavirus made it to a Nobel prize winner, Luc Montagnier https://t.co/82BMeFiAhq
He discovered HIV was nominated for a Nobel prize in 2008/2009. He was inspired by an Indian group.
Additionally, The Week Magazine from India reported recently:
<< Did the novel coronavirus leak similarly through a worker in a biowar lab in Wuhan? The Washington Times, which is known for its CIA links, has raised the suspicion in an article quoting Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who has studied Chinese biowarfare.
Indian scientists would not rule out the possibility. The Wuhan lab, said Dr William Selvamurthy, a former chief controller of the Defence Research and Development Organisation who was in charge of the life science labs, could have been keeping the virus under BSL-4 (biosafety level-4)—the most secure condition for reseach. So, the possibility of someone having been infected from the lab and inadvertently spreading it could not be ruled out, said Selvamurthy.
The Wuhan Institute is officially acknowledged to be China’s most advanced virus research lab complex. China, a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) since 1985, had, in 1993, declared the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products as one of eight biowarfare research facilities covered by the BWC. Yet, last year’s US state department report on arms control compliance had accused China of working on military pathogens for offensive purposes. It said the US had concerns with respect to “Chinese military medical institutions’ toxin research and development because of the potential dual-use applications and their potential as a biological threat”.
China has maintained that the virus has originated from wild animals sold at a market in Wuhan. The lab under suspicion is just about 30km from the market. The virus has been identified as a virulent strain, much like any classical germ warfare strain—they were designed to be virulent initially, but quickly controllable. The idea, as a military scientist explained, was for the germ to be released in hostile territory to disable the enemy, but the territory would have to be quickly sanitised for your own forces to capture it.
During the 1994 plague outbreak in Surat and Beed, it was found that the germs had an extra protein ring which could only have been inserted artificially. Indian scientists had raised concerns about a US biowar experiment having gone awry. THE WEEK had carried reports giving details of germ war research being carried on in labs under the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta and about a newly developed germ detector being tested. The US embassy had denied the allegations. There were also reports that the Surat germ could have been developed in a lab in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
There have been rumours and reports in Chinese cybermedia in the last few days suggesting that the Wuhan outbreak could have been a US biowar attack. This, US officials consider, was an attempt to preempt charges that the new virus had escaped from the Wuhan lab, which had been in the crosshairs of the west especially after a team of Chinese virologists working in a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, unauthorisedly sent samples of some of the deadliest viruses on earth to China.” >> – The Week Mag
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
To be continued? Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production. 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
The Prince of Wales is among the royals who have been circumcised
SILVIEW.media 
